Is the UN on US soil? If so, why are embassies not?

Answer 1

The UN in NY (there's also a headquarters in Geneva) is built on land originally donated by the Rockefeller family, or by their foundation. Like all diplomatic, consular and international organisation property, it remains under host-country (local) sovereignty regardless of ownership. (OK: there are military exceptions, like the British Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Base_Areas ; and there's the US Embassy in Baghdad which is in the Green Zone, and the US is essentially the Protecting Power and may well have (or need to claim) expatrate rights as in the olden days when we had Consular Courts in China and Mixed Tribunals in Egypt and expatriate status for favoured foreigners. But let's leave that aside.)

As I'm sure doghorsemom will have said (I haven't yet read what she wrote, but she's said it before) diplomatic property is owned (or leased) by a foreign government but it is not foreign sovereign territory UNLESS BY SPECIAL TREATY THIS IS ARRANGED.

Exactly that arrengement was made so that the Libyan accused saboteurs of Pan Am 103 could be tried in the Netherlands under Scottish law by Scottish judges. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

Treaties can transfer sovereignty: this happens whenever a State divides (e.g., Czechoslovakia) of when land is transferred or exchanged: Treaty to Resolve Pending Boundary Differences and Maintain the Rio Grande and Colorado River as the International Boundary, 23 Nov. 1970, T.I.A.S. 7313, 23 U.S.T. 371. Treaties normally provide for matters of movement, citizenship and personal law for those involved, as the foregoing and the post-World War I ethnic treaties did.

The S.S. Wimbledon decision http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1gateway/1923.06.28_wimbledon.htm of the Permanent Court of International Justice addressed the issue of sovereignty in the context of treaty concessions. I mention these to lead up to official Americans who work at Canadian and Caribbean airports (or British at the Eurostar terminals in France and French at Waterloo International in London) and who come as close to having domestic powers as any foreign police authority can have: but this is by specific treaty.

Diplomatic missions operate under longstanding rules codified by two Vienna Conventions (diplomatic and consular). Those who work in them have special rights and exemptions. But nondiplomatic parties have no rights at all, although if employed by a foreign government their official acts may be immune -- whether that extends to the Ambassador's driver who is speeding under orders from the Ambassador is debatable.

The only country I can think of (there might be others) that in this day and age grants extraterritorial status to its aircraft and ships (but not embassies) with respect to citizenship by being born there, is Ireland. And Ireland withdrew that right from offpsring of ALL non-permanent resident foreigners born in Ireland as of Jan. 1, 2006 so even that is a moot point.

As for the UN -- to get to your main point after this extended lecture: The status of the UN and everybody connected with it depends solely on the HEADQUARTERS AGREEMENT. Virtually every international organisation has such an agreement with the host country because if it didn't: (1) it would have no immunity and neither would its officials (the status of its diplomats depends on such an agreement too, but as they are reported to the local Ministry of Foreign Affairs (i.e. the State Dep't through the US Mission to the UN) the issues are not the same); and (2) it might have no "legal personality" -- what a corporation has by its charter and what enables it to sue and be sued.

Thus: an LLC (a limited liability company) is a creature of US state law and doesn't exist in many other countries (it does in the Isle of Man, and people draw parallels with certain German entities, but let that be). The result is that foreign courts may not know how to treat them and there could be a risk of them being deemed a partnership rather than a corporation with limited liability. Well, the default with the IRS for tax purposes is exactly that, and that's true of Switzerland too. But Canada and the rest of the world treat LLCs as corporations.

But why? Puzzling over that question is as useless as puzzling over the one you posed: the UN is on US soil; so are foreign embassies, and even more so foreign consulates. But so what? What of the mission of the (unrecognised, undiplomatic) Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in Washington; or the PLO/PA mission to the UN in New York? None of these can be invaded by New York or Washington police, or even the fire department without the consent of the Ambassador or head of mission. (Think of the police invasion of the Iranian embassy in London during the 1980 siege: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_Siege . The Iranians gave assent; but what are the rights of the police and fire services to enter in an emergency? Nobody knows. One assumes that consent will be granted.)

If you want to get hypothetical: the home country COULD deem an act performed in one of its overseas missions the same as performed at home. Years ago consular marriages were common. In Latin America (and in the case of Cardinal Mindszeny who lived for 15 years in the basement of the US Embassy in Budapest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zsef_Cardinal_Mindszenty there is such a thing as "diplomatic asylum". But few people remember, and I can't imagine anyone claiming asylum at the UN Headquarters in New York. Or, even less, having it granted.

Answer 2

The UN general assembly is in New York City. The UN has offices throughout the world.

I believe all foreign embassies to the US are based in Washington D.C. or at least within the metro area.

U.S. embassies to other countries would be ineffective if they were not based in the countries with which they are designed to interact.

Answer 3

Foreign embassies in the US are on US soil. The belief that embassies are somehow "native soil" wherever they are located is an old and incorrect one. Embassies and consulates are protected and inviolate per the Geneva Convention on Diplomatic Relations, but they are not "native soil."

Answer 4

'dognhorse', no one says that embassies are "native soil" ..... i don't know where you came up with that from. However, they are considered "sovereign territory."

Answer 5

they are our travelers. and that i'm constructive there is way less violence interior the worldwide because of the fact of them... and there may well be much less violence nevertheless if we did no longer have veto means of their business enterprise.

Answer 6

Yes. And it should be moved to some distant island in the middle of nowhere.