I don't understand why the Vatican is considered a country, besides as a quirk of history.

It is smaller than high school campus nearest my house, is not a UN member, and seems to exist solely as a tax haven.

It also has no native citizens. No person has been born in Vatican City in a century and even if you pop out a baby in Vatican City and are you yourself a Vatican City resident and citizen, the baby is not a citizen until made so by legal decree, citizenship which ends the second your employment ends, of course, because citizenship is tied to employment.

It doesn't make sense.

It isn't a country.

It is a tax dodge.

My perspective may be skewed. I value "quirky quirks of quirktastic history" very little.

▲

jdietrich 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

>I don't understand why the Vatican is considered a country

It isn't a country and nobody says that it is. The Holy See is sovereign entity with unique status under international law; the status of the Vatican City is derived from the status of the Holy See. It enjoys that status because practically all countries believe that it should do so.

All relevant parties believe that the Vatican City should be treated as if it's a state, therefore it enjoys the rights and responsibilities of a state, even though it technically isn't one. That is fundamentally how international law works - it's a system of agreements between countries and practice established by historical precedent. The status of the Holy See and the Vatican City is quirky, but that doesn't make it illegitimate.

	▲	skissane 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		> It isn't a country and nobody says that it is. Well, the CIA says it is: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/holy-see-va... > The Holy See is sovereign entity with unique status under international law; the status of the Vatican City is derived from the status of the Holy See. It enjoys that status because practically all countries believe that it should do so. I am only an amateur international lawyer, ask a real one for a more confident answer: but my own understanding is this-the subjects of international law are (1) sovereign states, (2) international organisations established by treaty, (3) sui generis entities; Vatican City is technically an instance of (1) and the Holy See is an instance of (3), and they are technically two distinct subjects of international law, despite having a common sovereign - at least, that’s what I’m pretty sure the Vatican’s own international lawyers will argue… as subjects of international law, both are capable of being parties to treaties, but (generally speaking) the Holy See joins treaties of global interest, Vatican City joins treaties regarding matters of local concern to its own territory. As to where they get this status from, the answer is-customary international law

▲

dragonwriter 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I don't understand why the Vatican is considered a country, besides as a quirk of history.

It is considered an independent state because some time after the Papal States (a much larger set of holdings that were ruled by the Pope) were annexed by Italy, the Vatican was subsequently granted independence (recognized in a treaty between the Holy See and Italy). Which is pretty typical of why independent states are considered independent states.

▲

franciscop 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

What is a country for you? How do you define it? Is the land size that important?

▲

os2warpman 5 days ago | parent [-]

A country must have a people.

Who are the people of the Vatican? The only persons who live there are temporary government employees and not even all of them are citizens because that is optional.

You cannot own property, vote for your government, start your own business, go to school, buy anything except what is stocked in the small canteen, or go to the hospital if you are a Vatican citizen and odds are pretty good you live in Italy anyways.

Imagine if a bank drew a boundary around its Manhattan skyscraper headquarters and declared itself a country called Bankistan whose only residents were janitors, financial analysts, and management-- and most of its citizens live in Brooklyn. Except for the C-suite and senior vice presidents who live in penthouses and the janitors who live in tiny rooms in the basement.

Also the second the bank fires you or you quit or retire, you're no longer a citizen of Bankistan.

At a minimum, a capital-see (heh) Country is something that belongs to you if but in a very, insignificantly, small part.

So my definition of "country" is ill-defined but does not include the Vatican.

▲

johnecheck 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Your definition ignores international recognition.

Ultimately, whether you get to act like a country (go to the UN, engage in diplomacy, hold territory) is in large part based on whether other countries recognize you as such. I don't know that it defines country-hood but it's part of the puzzle.

The Vatican is a fascinating example since it's clearly a very different sort of entity than the rest of the countries, yet is still recognized by most of the world's nations.

	▲	bombcar 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Historically the Vatican is also a way to allow the Papal States to “give up” their claim on, well, the Papal States. It works out pretty well for everyone, so it continues.

▲

franciscop 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

As johnecheck points out, in a certain level of abstraction, the main way of defining a country is whether other countries consider you a country or not. Even when other countries do consider you a country, what the borders are exactly might not be clearly recognized.

Since countries are political divisions, I'd also argue that this is the main and most important definition.

BTW, even "continents" suffer from this where in the US, Europe and Asia they are defined differently.