Talk:Sovereign Base Area

message: :in a manner analogous to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Is this really so? - Montréalais
:Sounds right to me. What's wrong with it? -- Tim Starling 01:08 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
::I understood that the naval base was merely leased to the United States from Cuba. I guess I don't understand how that's different from, say, an embassy being leased to a foreign government. I don't think you could argue that Ottawa is Swiss-cheesed with tiny little embassy-sized pockets of "foreign" territory. - Montréalais
:::My understanding is that embassies are part of the foreign state whilst in use. Canadian law would not apply in, say, the Saudi embassy. A famous British incident involved a police woman, Yvonne Fletcher being shot from the Libyan embassy in London. Noone was prosecuted, because the perpetrator was on Libyan soil and protected by diplomatic immunity  jimfbleak 06:05 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
::::Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, embassies are not under the foreign state's jurisdiction, although the host nation needs official permission to physically enter them. It was the Libyan diplomats' status as diplomats that meant they could not be arrested, not where they committed their crimes. On the other hand, the Sovereign Base Areas are British territory. I couldn't find the relevent text of the 1960 treaty, but the British law implementing the treaty, the Cyprus Act 1960, states "The Republic of Cyprus shall comprise the entirety of the Island of Cyprus with the exception of the two areas defined as mentioned in the following subsection," namely Akrotiri and Dhekelia, over which "nothing in the foregoing section shall affect Her Majesty’s sovereignty or jurisdiction over those areas" (). They are thus unlike Guantanamo Bay, which is Cuban territory under US lease. 68.239.76.176 03:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you are all misunderstanding the status of the Sovereign Base Areas.  In the case of Guantanamo Bay, the nation of Cuba existed and then Guantanamo Bay was leased to the US.  The same does not apply to Cyprus.  In the case of Cyprus, the whole island was, prior to Independence, a UK colony.  At Independence the Republic of Cyprus was created, excluding those areas of the island that were retained by the UK.  What is now the SBAs were UK territory before the Republic was created.  Essentially, the SBAs have never been "Cypriot".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sink Fleet (talk • contribs) 02:37, August 27, 2007 (UTC) 
----
Akrotiri, the famous Minoan archaological site on Santorini, buried by the volcanic explosion of Thira--- now redirects here, because a minor UK base on Cyprus is also named "Akrotiri." Perhaps a disambiguation page would be in order? Wetman 00:22, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The UK retained several militray bases throughout the Empire following decolonisation for a period of time eg Singapore, Simonstwon in South Africa etc? Were these sovereign bases? Astrotrain 20:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Post Empire

message: The Sovereign Base Areas are described as one of BOTs in the article British overseas territories. Is the British Government classifying SBA as a special type of BOT? If it is true, I think it should be explained in both British overseas territories and Sovereign Base Areas. ― 韓斌/Yes0song (談笑 筆跡 다지모) 14:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the SBAs parts of BOTs? 

message: It is not appropriate to refer to the Treaty Ports as "Sovereign Base Areas" etc. That terminology was NEVER used to describe them when the UK controlled them. Referring to them in that way is a "Wiki-invention" even if they were bases etc.
The practical silliness of calling them a "Sovereign Base Area" also arises because at the time the UK occupied them, the UK's sovereign was the sovereign for all of Ireland. Admittedly, the UK did not administer Ireland at the time - only the treaty ports but Ireland had a Governor General and the UK sovereign was the sovereign. Ireland only ceased to be a British dominion in 1949. This is silly use of terminology with no historic or academic pedigree. Basically just made up. The Treaty Ports were never referred to as "Sovereign Base Areas" during the period the UK occupied them. 84.203.65.158 (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the argument relating to sovereignty may be more nebulous than you assert.  However, I agree that referring to the Treaty Ports as "Sovereign Base Areas" is inappropriate unless a suitable source can be provided for doing so.  In fact, I rather suspect we have here a variant on the myth that embassies are "foreign territory".  Besides anything else, if the port areas weren't part of the Irish state's jurisdiction, the original Article 3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann would mean that Acts of the Oireachtas didn't extend to the port areas; and I can see no Act passed in 1938 to extend that jurisdiction to the reacquired territory!  Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ireland

message: Result: Oppose merge Reading over the opposes and merge rationales, the issue here is whether or not they should be one article, or two or three separate article. From the looks of it, there is stronger reasoning for keeping both articles separate. SalopianJames' merge rationale included the idea of splitting them up, and I am going to do this in a few days, just in case anyone wants to overrule me. Right now, the result is this: Move this article to "Sovereign Base Area," split "Akrotiri and Dhekelia" into "West Sovereign Base Area," and "East Sovereign Base Area." This is due to the installations being separated, even if there is material which seems to state otherwise. Also, the Sovereign Base Area page treats these as separate installations, and there is enough material out there to create three independent articles. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *To my knowledge, though, the Cyprus SBAs are the only ones that have ever been (and most likely ever will be), unless there are others not belonging to the United Kimgdom? SalopianJames (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, referring to the Cyprus SBAs as 'Akrotiri and Dhekelia' is somewhat misleading anyway, as they also include settlements such as Episkopi and Ay Nik Station, hence why they are referred to as the WSBA and ESBA by BFC. SalopianJames (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick search of the term Sovereign Base Area does make it appear that the only SBAs, so far, have been on the island of Cyprus. That being said, as they are independently Notable in their own right I do not see a sufficient reason to merge these articles at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Indeed, this page is redundant and deserves to be flushed once and for all. --Lubiesque (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion