ATENEO LAW SCHOOL

Theocracy and
International Law
A Case Study on Vaticans Status in the
International Community
Lois Philippe M. Pelito

This paper will look at the novel status of Vatican City in the international community. While Vatican
City enjoys permanent observer status in the United Nations as well as the recognition of most states,
its statehood is doubtful. Probably the most peculiar attribute of the city-state is its purpose while
most nation-states exist to support its citizens, Vaticans purpose is to provide a base for the central
administration of the Roman Catholic Church. It is widely regarded as the vassal territory of the Holy
See.Using the elements laid down in the Montevideo Convention as well as other treaties and sources
of international law, the author will examine and evaluate whether Vatican City has all the requirements
of statehood i.e. a permanent population, a defined territory, an established government and the
capacity to enter into relations with other states. The possession of these requisites will determine
whether Vatican is a state or not. Furthermore, the author will discuss the political and legal
consequences of statehood answering the question why the need for this kind of discourse.

As argued by Avro Manhattan1 in his book The Vatican in World Politics, religion
cannot be said to have relegated to the background despite losing ground in recent years.
Manhattan listed several factors to support his argument that Catholicism, one of the largest
religious institutions today, is very much alive in the modern world including its numerical
strength and their demographics i.e. that the bulk of Catholics live in the leading continents, its
mission to convert the whole of mankind to Catholicism, and its structural integrity. He
concludes that it can even be said that religion can still, to a serious extent, influence the course
of political events in both the domestic and the international spheres.
Vatican is the most ancient of all existing religious and political institutions. The citystate was founded following the signing of the Lateran Pacts 2 between the Holy See and Italy. It
is interesting to note that Vatican City is regarded as one of the most influential actors in the
international arena despite its territory of only 0.44 square meters and its population only
numbering up to 800.3 It is widely regarded as a vassal territory of the Holy See which is the
supreme organ of government of the Catholic Church.4 One of the most unique features of
Vatican City as a state lies in its purpose while most nation-states exist to support its citizens,
Vaticans purpose is to provide a base for the central administration of the Roman Catholic
Church.5
From this peculiarity is where legal problems stem for Vaticans case as a state under
international law. Assuming it is a state, who does it represent? Is its representation limited to its
800-strong population? Or does it represent all Catholics around the world? Consequently, when
it enters into treaties, is the treaty also binding to Catholics outside Vatican or to countries who
are majority Catholic? These are just some of the legal problems that confuse international law
1 Avro Manhattan, The Vatican in World Politics (1949).
2 Lateran Treay, Italy-Vatican, effective June 7, 1929, Lateran Pacts of 1929.
3 Vatican Profile, available at www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17997428 (last accessed Feb. 25, 2015).
4 Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, Church or State? The Holy See at the United Nations,
available at www.population-security.org/crip-94-07.htm (last accessed Feb. 25, 2015).
5 Id.

scholars. Some of the bigger issues include the legality of the United Nations act of granting
Vatican non-member permanent observer status6 essentially giving it more influence in the
worlds most powerful international body relative to the other religions. Even if the recognition
given to Vatican is short of full and permanent membership, it still allows the city-state to attend
sessions and observe the work of the United Nations, thus giving it sufficient leverage to
influence the organization in a way that other religious institutions cannot. Scholars fear that this
will make the United Nations bias to the Catholic Church and create a dangerous precedent for
other religious organizations seeking membership in the United Nations.
It is very important to determine the status of Vatican in the international community as it goes
into the determination of its rights and obligations. According to Fr. Bernas, states remain the
predominant actors in international law despite the growing recognition of non-state actors in
recent years.7 Fr. Bernas also quotes the Reparations Case 8 in discussing the different subjects of
international law and their varying rights:
The subjects of law in any legal system are not necessarily identical in their
nature or in the extent of their rights, and their nature depends upon the needs of the
community. Throughout its history, the development of international law has been
influenced by the requirements of international life, and the progressive increase in the
collective activities of States has already given rise to instances of action upon the
international place by certain entities which are not States

It will be very helpful, for purposes of our endeavor, to first look into the history of Vatican City.
Manhattan, in his book The Vatican in World Politics, provides us a concise narration of
Vaticans history:
For the Christian, the Vatican began to assume importance when St. Peter was
crucified there in A.D. 67. After the death of St. Peter, the Christians erected a sepulcher
facing the circus where he had been executed. Later on, the body of St. Peters successor,
6 G.A. Res. 58314, U.N. Doc. A/RES/58/314, July 16, 2004.
7 Fr. Joaquin Bernas S.J., Introduction to Public International Law 71 (2009 ed.).
8 Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 1949 ICJ
Rep. (April 11).

St. Linus, was buried there. Then the latters successor, St. Anacletus, Bishop of Rome,
built the first chapel on the tomb. With the passing of the centuries it grew in importance
as a sacred place, a place of worship, and a place of where the mortal remains of many
Popes were buried.
In the long history the Palace of the Vatican, to the building of which so many
Popes contributed, and the Papal State have passed through many vicissitudes, as have
the prerogatives of the Popes themselves. The details need not detain us here. For our
purpose it is sufficient to know that the Vatican City as it exists today came into being in
February 1929 with the signing of the Lateran Treaty. By this treaty Italy recognized the
territory of the Vatican as an independent and sovereign State and was bound to pay
750,000,000 lire and consign Italian 5 percent bonds to the nominal value of 1,000,000
lire.
As it is recognized today, the Vatican City consists of the City of Vatican; this is
the area of Rome recognized by the treaty of the Lateran as constituting the territorial
extent of the temporal sovereignty of the Holy See. It includes the Vatican palaces, its
gardens and the annexes, the Basilica and Piazza of St. Peter, and adjacent buildings. In
all it covers an area of just one square mile

In order to answer the question Is Vatican a state?, we first have to lay down the criteria
of statehood. What are the elements of a state? The Montevideo Convention 9 signed at the
International Conference of American States in Montevideo, Uruguay on December 26, 1993
offers the primary document on this subject. Article 1 of the convention provides:
The state as a person of international law should possess the following
qualifications: a) permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d)
capacity to enter into relations with other states.

Thus, in order to become a state, an entity must possess these four attributes. We will look into
each of these elements and determine whether Vatican possesses all of them to warrant its
existence as a state.

9 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, signed on Dec. 26, 1933, 165 League of Nations
Treaty Series (LNTS) 19.

Does Vatican have a permanent population? Fr. Bernas explains that people, as
contemplated by the Montevideo Convention, simply means a community of persons sufficient
in number and capable of maintaining the permanent existence of the community and held
together by a common bond of law.10 He adds that diversity is not an obstacle in order for a state
to be considered to have a permanent population whether it be racial, cultural or economic. 11 He
also clarifies that a minimum population is not a requirement. 12 Although diversity is not an issue
in Vatican as there is only one religion and very few ethnic groups, as stated earlier, the
population of this small city-state is less than a thousand, 842 as per the World Fact Book.
According to Fr. Bernas, this is the reason why Vatican is not recognized as a state and is merely
an incomplete subject under international law. However, as established earlier, there is no
minimum population required for a particular entity to obtain statehood. The more
controversial issue here is the permanence of its population. Lets suspend the resolution of
this issue for now.
The second element of statehood is a defined territory. Despite the seemingly strict requirement
of definiteness, the Restatement (Third) on the Foreign Relations Law of the United States
explains:
An entity may satisfy the territorial requirement of statehood even if its
boundaries have not been finally settled, if one or more of its boundaries are disputed, or
if some of its territory is claimed by another state. An entity does not necessarily cease to
be a state even if all its territory has been occupied by a foreign power or if it has
otherwise lost control of its territory temporarily.

According to the Vatican website, Vatican covers a territory of 0.44 square kilometers or 44
hectares. Moreover, Article 3 of the Lateran Treaty provides:
Italy recognizes the full ownership and the exclusive and absolute power and
jurisdiction of the Holy See over Vatican as it is presently constituted, together with all its
10 Bernas, Supra note 4, at 72.
11 Id.
12 Id.

appurtenances and endowments, creating in this manner Vatican City for the special
purposes and under the conditions given in this treaty.

It is clear from the above-quoted provision of the Lateran Treaty that the territorial
boundaries of Vatican are well-defined. The treaty even has a map attached to it as an annex
depicting the metes and bounds of Vatican. This is a clear case of cession which is one of the
recognized modes of acquisition of territory that is through treaty.
The third element of statehood is the existence of a government. Fr. Bernas, in his book
Introduction to Public International Law, cites the case of US vs. Dorr in defining government
as an element of a state:
that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society
makes and carries out those rules of action which are necessary to enable men to live in a
social state, or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by those who
possess the power or authority of prescribing them.

Bernas also elucidates that international law does not specify what form a government
should have.13 It is of no moment that the government is ruled by a monarchy, a dictator or a
democratically-elected president. For example, in the case of the Philippines, the country did not
lose its status as a state when it was ruled by a dictator in the person of former President
Ferdinand Marcos, neither did its statehood become doubtful upon the restoration of democracy
in 1987. The international community is composed of countries of varying types of government
democracies such as the United States and the Philippines, monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and
Brunei, dictatorships albeit the fall of a number of strongmen in recent years, communist type of
governments as in the case of China and Cuba, among others. No one type of government can
give one state more legitimacy than the others. Even those states suffering from a temporary
absence of the government do not lose their status as a state.14
According to Manhattan, the Vatican is the seat of a sovereign, independent and free State; of
the government of the Catholic Church; and of the most astute diplomatic-political power in the
13 Id. at 73.
14 Id. at 73.

world; and each of these three aspects is an integral part of the Catholic Church. In other words,
the government of the Vatican is the government of the Catholic Church. It is headed by the pope
himself who is also called the Bishop of Rome, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Successor of the
Prince of Apostles, among others.15 The Vatican fits the definition of a theocracy which is
defined as a government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are
regarded as divinely guided.16 Other theocracies include the Islamic Republic of Iran and,
although regarded as an autonomous region of China, Tibet as ruled by the Dalai Lama. As
established earlier, the form of government is immaterial. What is important, for purposes of
statehood, is the existence of a government.
Does Vatican have the capacity to enter into relations with other states? According to Fr. Bernas,
this requirement is merely an element of sovereignty, which means independence from outside
control, and is dependent on recognition.17 In his article entitled Separating State from Church:
Researching the Legal System of the Vatican City State, Stephen Young and Alison Shea
discussed the active participation of the Holy See in the international arena:
The Holy See participates actively in international organizations and has
membership or observer status in organizations such as the United Nations, Organization
for Security and Co-operation in Europe, International Atomic Energy Agency,
Preparatory Commission for the Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty Commission, United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees, World Intellectual Property Organization, and World
Trade Organization.

15 Vatican City State, available at www.vaticanstate.va./content/vaticanstate/en/stato-egoverno/struttura-del-governatorato/organigramma/stato-citta-del-vaticano.html (last accessed Jan. 25,

2015).
16 Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available at www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theocracy (last
accessed Jan. 25, 2015).
17 Bernas, Supra note 4, at 73.

The Holy See has one of the largest and oldest diplomatic representations in the
world, maintaining diplomatic relations with 175 countries. Seventy-one countries have
resident embassies to the Holy See, including the European Union and the United States.

Also, in Cedric Ryngaerts article The Legal Status of the Holy See, the Holy Sees
recognition in the international community was illustrated in the following manner:
the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, makes two special references
to the Holy Sees legation practice in Articles 14 and 16. Article 14(1) VCDR equates
apostolic nuncios (The Holy Sees diplomatic representatives) with ambassadors, i.e., the
first class of heads of mission. Article 16, which deals with the precedence of diplomatic
representatives, provides in paragraph 3 that it is without prejudice to any practice
accepted by the receiving State regarding the precedence of the representative of the Holy
See. Thereby, it affirms the continued application of existing customary (law) practices
between the Holy See and the receiving State.

It can be gleaned from the above-quoted studies that, indeed, Vatican is widelyrecognized in international law as a state by virtue of its membership in international
organizations as well as of its diplomatic presence in several countries. The proposition that
Vatican receives wide recognition as a state is further bolstered by the fact that it has exercised
its treaty-making capacity quite frequently since the Lateran Treaty in 1929. Since this paper
operates on the assumption that the Vatican is the seat of the Holy See, the practice of the Holy
See of concluding concordats with various States also exemplify the treat-making capacity of
Vatican City itself. A concordat is defined by Ryngaert as a specific bilateral treaty entered into
between the Holy See and a State, which regulates the religious affairs and activities of the
Catholic Church. Some of the concordats entered into by the Holy See as listed in the Catholic
Encyclopedia are (1) The Concordat of 1801, (2) The Concordat between Louis XVIII and Pius
VII, (3) The Concordat of Bavaria, (4) The Concordat with Sardinia in 1817, and (5) The
Concordat with Prussia in 1821.18

18 Kelly, L., & Ojetti, B. Concordat. In the Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton
Company, available at New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04196a.htm (last accessed Feb.
25, 2015).

We have now established that three of the four criteria set down in the Montevideo Convention
have been complied with by Vatican City it has a well-defined territory, an established
government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The sole issue that
confronts us is that of population. Does Vaticans population suffice the requirements of
statehood? More specifically, does Vatican have a permanent population? According to the
Vatican website itself, about half of the city-states 800-strong population lives outside of Vatican
City19. This can be attributed to their occupation as they are mostly diplomatic personnel whose
work requires residence in different countries around the world. Moreover, only a little over a
half of its population have Vatican citizenship. It is evident then that the element of
permanence of the Vatican population is very problematic. As discussed earlier, even if there is
no minimum requirement for population nor is diversity an issue for an entity to be considered a
state under international law, it must have a permanent population. This is where Vatican fails in
the test of statehood.
However, this is not the end of the line for Vaticans quest for statehood. Thomas Grant, in his
article Defining Statehood: The Montevideo Convention and its Discontents 20, discussed how
the enumeration of statehood criteria found in the Montevideo convention has come under
scrutiny, to wit:
Some writers doubt that the Convention offers a complete definition. Others have
argued that it is over-inclusive, enumerating elements not essential to statehood. It has
been argued that the Convention is of limited law-making force and therefore, regardless
of the quality of its content, has little normative reach. In short, there has arisen a body of
scholarly opinion that calls into question past reliance on the Montevideo Convention as
an authoritative pronouncement on the characteristics of the state.

Although Grant only talked about capacity to enter into relations with other states and
territory as the doubtful elements of statehood among those enumerated under the Montevideo
Convention, it can be argued, based on the implications of Grants arguments, that even the other
19 Vatican state, available at www.vaticanstate.va/content/vaticanstate/en/stato-e-governo/notegenerali/popolazione.html (last accessed Feb. 25, 2015).
20 Thomas Grant, Defining Statehood: The Montevideo Convention and its Discontents, 37 Colum. J.
Transnatl L. 403, 434 (1998-1999).

requirements including that of a permanent population are not indubitable. In fact, Grant 21
made the following pronouncements in his conclusion:
A review of the history of the Montevideo criteria suggests that the notion of
statehood and sovereignty is, at least in part, historically contingent. What may be
counted as a source of sovereignty or as a basis to a claim to statehood at a particular time
may not be counted as such at a later date. The historical contingencies surrounding the
idea of statehood indeed suggest that any codification such as the Montevideo convention
will eventually require overhaul or replacement. The definition of statehood has been
fluid and controversial. Whether political restraints on efforts to codify international law
will permit a later day version of the Montevideo convention remains to be seen. In any
event, the development of international law will require any such definitional enterprise
be an ongoing one, always open to revision and reassessment.

Although the fact still remains that the Montevideo Convention is still being used today in
defining and determining statehood and that, based on its criteria, the Vatican cannot be
considered a state under international law; we cannot just pretend that the Vatican does not exist
or that it does not play an important role in the international community. Manhattan 22 discussed
the political influence of Vatican in the various countries around the world:
Because every priest is de facto agent of the Vatican and can collect reliable
information about the local conditions of his parish or, if he is a bishop, of his dioceseor, if he is a primate, of his nation the Vatican, to which all these data are sent, is one of
the best centers of information of an economic, social, and political character in the
world.
When to this is added the influence that the Vatican can exercise on the various
Catholic parties and Catholic governments, and on national and political assemblies, it
becomes evident that the power of this great diplomatic-political center is felt throughout
the world. This is recognized by most nations, including non-Catholic countries, such as
Protestant United States of America and Great Britain, and non-Christian countries like
Japan.
21 Id. at 456-457.
22 Manhattan, Supra note 1.

The importance of the Vatican as a diplomatic center is enhanced in wart-time.

For during hostilities, when diplomatic contact between belligerent countries is cut-off,
the warring nations can get in touch with each other through the Vatican. The services
rendered and the knowledge thus gathered from both sides give the Vatican enormous
prestige in the eyes of lay Powers. For these and other reasons, during the First World
War countries hastened to send their representatives to the Vatican: Germany,
Switzerland, Greece, Protestant Great Britain, France and even Russia. By the end of the
war thirty-four nations had permanent diplomatic representatives accredited to the pope.
During the Second World War, that figure was almost doubled, and great
countries such as non-Christian Japan and Protestant United States of America sought
means by which they could be represented at the Vatican the United States of America
by resorting to the diplomatic device of sending a personal Ambassador of the
President; the Japanese Empire by accrediting an envoy with the full rank of
Ambassadors to the Holy See. From the very beginning of the Second World War until its
end, in 1945, the Vatican, with fifty-two ambassadors, ministers, and personal envoys
sent to it by almost all the nations of the world, was a diplomatic center equal in
importance to the great capitals where the destinies of war and peace were conceived and
discussed: Washington, Moscow, Berlin, London, Tokyo

We have already established that Vatican City was only granted permanent observer status in the
United Nations General Assembly. However, it does not necessarily mean that Vatican is
completely deprived of the opportunity to participate and influence the organization. To illustrate
Vaticans participation in the General Assembly, it is useful to quote Ryngaert23:
In practice, the Holy See has the right to participate in the general debate of the
UN General Assembly (GA), the right to inscription on the list of speakers under agenda
times at any plenary meeting of the GA, the right to make interventions, the right of
reply, the right to have its communications circulated as official documents relating to the
sessions and work of the GA or international conferences issued and circulated directly as
official documents of the GA or those conferences, the right to raise points of order
relating to any proceedings involving the Holy See, and the right to co-sponsor draft

23 Cedric Ryngaert, The Legal Status of the Holy See, 3 Gottingen Journal of International Law 829,
841-842 (2011).

resolutions and decisions that make reference to the Holy See. However, not being a
member State, it does not have the right to vote or to put forward candidates in the GA.
The Holy See also enjoys right of participation at other principal UN organs. At
the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), it has the right to attend all
meetings and to make proposals and policy statements regarding all issues that are often
its concern. It can also attend the sessions of ECOSOCs regional commissions on an
equal footing with those State Members of the United Nations which are not members of
those regional commissions. To coordinate its activities at ECOSOC, the Holy See has
established a permanent mission in Geneva. At the UN Security Council, the Holy See
has occasionally made a statement, e.g., on the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, on the
regulation and reduction of armaments, and on the protection of civilians in armed
conflicts.
The Holy Sees rights of participation at the UN go well beyond the rights that
are granted to NGOs as UN observers. An NGO, Catholics for Choice, denounced this
state of affairs, and, between 1994 and 2004, lobbied in favor of downgrading the Holy
Sees status at the UN to regular NGO status, a status enjoyed by other religious
organizations and bodies such as the World Council of Churches. This lobbying effort
failed, however. In 2004, the Holy Sees participation rights at the UN were even
upgraded.

Ryngaert24, after establishing the rights of Vatican in the General Assembly, went on to
demonstrate its participation in more concrete and specific illustrations:
The Holy See typically uses its participation rights to press a moral agenda at the
UN. For instance, the Holy See was instrumental in the adoption of the UN Declaration
banning all forms of Human Cloning in 2005, and in the prevention of the adoption of a
proposed resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity. In a 2010 speech to the
Diplomatic Corps, the Pontiff emphasized the protection of the environment as one of the
Holy Sees major global points of interest. So far, three Popes have addressed the General
Assembly.
The Holy See has also actively used its participation rights at international
conferences. At the Rome Conference for the establishment of an International Criminal
24 Id. at 842-843.

Court (1998), where the Holy See was accredited, it successfully lobbied, amongst other
things, for the inclusion of sexual crimes in the Statute. At the Rome Conference, the
contribution of the Holy See may have been labeled as rather positive, but the
contribution of the Holy See to other conferences was decidedly more critically received,
e.g., its contribution to the 1994 United Nations International Conference on Population
and Development held in Cairo, or to the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women held
in Beijing.

There is nothing left to discuss but the repercussions of our conclusion that Vatican does
not qualify for statehood under international law. Fr. Bernas explained in his book the concept
of state immunity.25 According to Bernas, the principle that the state may not be sued without its
consent is based on the principle of equality of states: par in parem non habet imperium.26 This
principle has been embodied in the case of The Schooner Exchange vs. McFaddon27 which
declared that the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is
susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Since Vatican is not a state, it necessarily
follows that it does not enjoy the same immunity possessed by full-fledged states. Ryngaert 28
confirms this conclusion when he observed that the Court of Cassation in the Tucci29 case noted,
though merely in passing, that the Holy See does not enjoy immunity from jurisdiction. This
being the case, the Holy See itself as an entity can be subject to the jurisdiction of international
and even local tribunals. However, as clarified by Fr. Bernas, international organizations can
still enjoy immunity based on the need for the effective exercise of their functions. 30 This
25 Bernas, Supra note 4, at 192.
26 Id.
27 The Echange vs. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116 , (1812).
28 Ryngaert, Supra note 22, at 853.
29 Public Prosecutor, Rome Tribunal vs. Tucci and others, Appeal Judgment, Decision on Preliminary
Question, no 22516; 295 ILDC (2003), 86 Rivisita di diritto internazionale (2003) 3, 821 (in Italian), 21
May 2003, ILDC H1-H3, paras 5,7 and 9 of the judgment.
30 Bernas, Supra note 4, at 89.

immunity must come from the conventional instrument creating them as in the case of the
United Nations the immunities of which are spelled out in the UN charter.31
The protection of aliens is a well-developed customary law.32 Bernas observes that that
there is a commonality of interest between and among states in the protection of aliens as states
protect aliens in their respective jurisdictions in the expectation that their own citizens will be
protected abroad.33 Closely-related to this customary law is the doctrine of state responsibility
which says that if a state violates a customary rule or a treaty obligation, it commits an
internationally wrongful act and may be held responsible thereof provided that said act is
attributable to the state.34 Currently, the doctrine is being codified by the International Law
Commission in the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. 35 It
can be said that since the Holy See/Vatican City is not a state, it is not bound by such doctrines.
However, the trend now in international arena is the growing recognition of other entities as
subjects of international law. These include international organizations and even individuals to a
certain extent. This trend is exemplified by the recognition of human rights transcending
beyond the jurisdiction of any state as embodied in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights as
well as the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. It is not impossible that in the
near future, non-state entities like Vatican City can be bound by doctrines originally binding on
states only.
In sum, the Vatican City, as powerful as it has been during the peak of its popularity and
as influential as it is still today, fails to qualify as a state under the highly-scrutinized criteria of
the Montevideo Convention. Specifically, it did not pass the requirement of having a
permanent population although it proved to possess the other requirements of territory,
31 Id. at 89-90.
32 Id. at 224.
33 Id. at 223.
34 Id. at 227.
35 Id.

government and capacity to enter into relations with other states. The demographics of its
population proved to be too problematic to leave no doubt as to its satisfaction of said criterion.
However, this does not foreclose the possibility of it finally conforming to said standards or said
standards being changed, either broadened or limited, in order to better reflect the current
circumstances as suggested and predicted by many international legal scholars. The nonrecognition of Vatican as a state proves to be very important in terms of the application of
certain doctrines such as state immunity and state responsibility. As a non-state actor, these
doctrines are inapplicable to Vatican. However, as pointed out earlier, the growing trend is the
recognition of other subjects of international law falling short of statehood. It can be predicted
that the trend will continue and that non-state actors such as Vatican, international organizations
and even individuals will be given fuller international personality comparable to that of states as
the current primary subjects of international law.

Bibliography
A. Primary Legal Authorities

Lateran Treaty, Italy-Vatican, effective June 7, 1929, Lateran Pacts of 1929.

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, signed on Dec. 26, 1933,
165 League of Nations Treaty Series (LNTS) 19.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 at 71
(1948).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, December 16, 1966, S. Treaty Doc.
No. 95-20, 6 I.L.M. 360 (1967), 993 U.N.T.S. 3.
G.A. Res. 58314, U.N. Doc. A/RES/58/314, July 16, 2004.
B. International Customs and General Principles
Doctrine of State Responsibility
o International Law Commission, Responsibility of States for Internationally
Wrongful Acts, annexed to G.A. Res. 56/83 (Dec. 12, 2001).
the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is
susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself.
o The Exchange vs. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116, (1812).
C. Writings
Public Prosecutor (Rome Tribunal vs. Tucci and others), Appeal Judgment, Decision on
Preliminary Question, no 22516; 295 ILDC (2003), 86 Rivisita di diritto internazionale
(2003) 3, 821 (in Italian), 21 May 2003, ILDC H1-H3, paras 5,7 and 9 of the judgment.
Fr. Joaquin Bernas S.J., Introduction to Public International Law 71 (2009 ed.).
Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, Church or State? The Holy See at the United
Nations, available at www.population-security.org/crip-94-07.htm (last accessed Feb.
25, 2015).
Thomas Grant, Defining Statehood: The Montevideo Convention and its Discontents,
37 Colum. J. Transnatl L. 403, 434 (1998-1999).
Cedric Ryngaert, The Legal Status of the Holy See, 3 Gottingen Journal of
International Law 829, 841-842 (2011).
D. Others

Avro Manhattan, The Vatican in World Politics (1949).