Talk:Legal status of the Holy See

Diplomacy-centered view of the State

I think there is a case to be made that the Holy See is indeed a State because it has all the required international relations. For instance, Taiwan does have a territory and does have a permanent population, but it has a comparatively poor diplomacy, which inhibits its capacities to properly function as a State and participate at the UN. Many of the more recent legal scholars, who tend to postmodernists instead of realists, have argued that the State is both a legal person and a social construct, and that as such it requires to be recognized by other legal persons in order to function properly. ADM (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the articles on the Holy See. I do agree that there is a case for having a separate section on the legal status of the Holy See in Int L. Unfortunately, the summary that you left in the general article is rather inaccurate. I´ll try to redraft it. Now, having a separate article on the legal status, I will beef it up a bit more. On the other hand, I do not know of any legal authority that claims that the Holy See - separate from the vatican - is a "regular" state. Most would agree that it is a entity sui generis. If you have reference in this regard, I would like to check it. The discussion between constructivist and realists on the definition of what a state is belongs to the area of political science, not to international law. The article (or section) deals only with the "legal status of the holy see. BonifaciusVIII (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Buying islands in the Pacific

The article should maybe try to reflect on whether buying islands in the Pacific might procure a greater legal security to the Holy See. Such islands would presumably be listed along with other properties of the Holy See, which already include churches in Italy. The existence of small native populations in these islands might serve as a practical socio-political replacement to the Pontifical States, who were also known as the States of the Holy See. ADM (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reference proving that to such a proposal has ever been considered at an official level? Not having any any evidence in this regard, I am disinclined to include it in the article.BonifaciusVIII (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Legal status of the Holy See. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081127042939/http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/reform/documents/2001seechangebriefingpaper.pdf to http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/reform/documents/2001seechangebriefingpaper.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611004551/http://hosted.law.wisc.edu/wilj/issues/27/2/black.pdf to http://hosted.law.wisc.edu/wilj/issues/27/2/black.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Who is Oppenheim?

I am translating this article into Chinese. Something really strange confuses me a lot that I found the jurist Lassa Oppenheim who wrote International Law died in 1919 while the treaty of Lateran was signed in 1929, so who is the Oppenheim in the book, Oppenheim's International Law? OuiOK (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

In the original edition of 1900s, Lassa did not mention the treaty actually when talking about the holy see and not listed the holy see as an international person. He stated:

"But for some points the Holy See is actually treated as though she were an International Person, and the Pope is treated as though he were the head of a monarchical State.(...)they are not such in fact, for they are not agents for international affairs of States, but exclusively agents for the affairs of Roman Catholic Church. And it must further be emphasised that the Holy See cannot conclude international treaties or claim a vote at international congresses and conferences. The so-called Concordates - that is, treaties between the Holy See and States with regard to matters of the Roman Catholic Church- are not international treaties, although analogous treatment is usually given to them. Even formerly, when the Pope was the head of a State, such Concordats were not concluded with the Papal States, but with the Holy See and the Pope as representatives of the Roman Catholic Church."

in p.153.So the quotation had been modified as in the 9th edition of this book. OuiOK (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)