# Can Ecuador legally get Assange out of London ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 20, 2012, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748 "2012-06-20T13:58:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/41 "2012-06-20T17:24:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Sure. They discuss the case of Michael Domingues. The IACHR claimed that US was bound by jus cogens not to execute him. United States did not consider itself bound. The IACHR report was (and your link agrees) not-legally binding. US Supreme Court later banned the execution of juveniles, thus sparing Dominguez, but it was not in response to IACHR’s non-binding report. > > Which just proves what I said. “jus cogens” is only binding if the country agrees it is. No, it proves that you don’t know what you’re talking about. The report was non-binding because reports of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights are _never_ binding, in accordance with its implementing treaty. The IACHR is essentially a form of alternative dispute resolution, not a court of law. Petitions submitted to the IACHR can be forwarded to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights if the IACHR submits recommendations in their favor. The _Court’s_ rulings _are_ binding. Domingues did not have to do so, for obvious reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/42 "2012-06-20T17:32:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Petitions submitted to the IACHR can be forwarded to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights if the IACHR submits recommendations in their favor. The _Court’s_ rulings _are_ binding. Domingues did not have to do so, for obvious reasons. What “obvious reasons”? The IACHR non-binding decision was 2002. The SC decision was 2005. Was Domingues clairvoyant? Also - the Court’s rulings are only binding if US considers them binding. Example: ICJ’s decision in 1984 against the US. US didn’t consider it binding. So it wasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![MPB\_in\_Salt\_Lake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@MPB\_in\_Salt\_Lake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MPB_in_Salt_Lake)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/43 "2012-06-20T17:39:48Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I’ll take a $20 bet that he ends up in some other country than the US. My bet was more about “Will Ecuador be able to successfully bitch-punk both the UK and the USA in front of the entire world?” rather than anything specific to Julian Assange. That said, my original bet offer still stands. ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/44 "2012-06-20T17:54:07Z")
Do countries not often ignore international law and rulings on smaller matters (or even larger ones) if they especially want to and don’t consider the repercussions threatening enough? If the international community decides the UK broke international law by arresting Assange, does it even matter? These aren’t the same situation of course, but Iraq was invaded illegally, there are still illegal Israeli settlements, on a smaller scale France illegally banned British beef for a while. No one is going to destroy their relations with these countries by imposing sanctions or forcibly trying to stop them, even if they invade and occupy other countries. International law seems to be binding only as long as anyone feels like being bound by it. Or am I wrong here? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/45 "2012-06-20T17:57:43Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > What “obvious reasons”? The IACHR non-binding decision was 2002. The SC decision was 2005. Was Domingues clairvoyant? There were six constitutional challenges pending in district appeals courts at the time, so it was pretty clear that SCOTUS was going to hear the issue again. > [@](#): > > Also - the Court’s rulings are only binding if US considers them binding. Example: ICJ’s decision in 1984 against the US. US didn’t consider it binding. So it wasn’t. The ICJ decision wasn’t binding because the ICJ is a court of limited jurisdiction. It can only hear cases in which the state parties agree to be bound by its decisions, or are parties to a treaty which under which the ICJ is authorized to hear disputes between the state parties. The Inter-American Court is not a court of limited jurisdiction, so it doesn’t matter whether the parties agree to be bound by its rulings. If they are parties to its enacting treaty, they are automatically bound. > [@MPB\_in\_Salt\_Lake](#): > > My bet was more about “Will Ecuador be able to successfully bitch-punk both the UK and the USA in front of the entire world?” rather than anything specific to Julian Assange. > > That said, my original bet offer still stands. In all probability, he’s going to Sweden, where he’s actually been charged. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/46 "2012-06-20T18:09:13Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The ICJ decision wasn’t binding because the ICJ is a court of limited jurisdiction. It can only hear cases in which the state parties agree to be bound by its decisions, or are parties to a treaty which under which the ICJ is authorized to hear disputes between the state parties. > **[International Court of Justice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice)** > > The International Court of Justice (ICJ; French: Cour internationale de justice, CIJ), or colloquially the World Court, is the only international court that adjudicates general disputes between nations, and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues as interpretation of international treaties, borders disputes and human rights cases. It is one of the six organs of the United Nations (UN), and is located in The Hague, Netherlands. The ability to file a case before the ICJ is limi T... However, in theory, “so far as the parties to the case are concerned, a judgment of the Court is binding, final and without appeal,” and “by signing the Charter, a State Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with any decision of the International Court of Justice in a case to which it is a party.” For example, the United States had previously accepted the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction upon its creation in 1946, but in Nicaragua v. United States withdrew its acceptance following the Court’s judgment in 1984 > [@](#): > > The Inter-American Court is not a court of limited jurisdiction, so it doesn’t matter whether the parties agree to be bound by its rulings. If they are parties to its enacting treaty, they are automatically bound. And if they are not parties to its enacting treaty (like UK is not party to the OAS treaty) they are not bound. As I was saying… ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/47 "2012-06-20T18:28:21Z")
I’m not sure what you think the wikipedia quote proves. As to the latter, the OAS convention is not an “enacting treaty”. It doesn’t create a court. Jus cogens does not establish jurisdiction of a tribunal over a non-party which is not a signatory to its statute. As clearly laid out in the Wikipedia article, jus cogens applies rules of law the states. It doesn’t “apply courts” to states. Do you understand the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/48 "2012-06-20T18:32:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I’m not sure what you think the wikipedia quote proves. As to the latter, the OAS convention is not an “enacting treaty”. It doesn’t create a court. Jus cogens does not establish jurisdiction of a tribunal over a non-party which is not a signatory to its statute. > > As clearly laid out in the Wikipedia article, jus cogens applies rules of law the states. It doesn’t “apply courts” to states. > > Do you understand the difference? Sure. And it is still the same principle. If a country doesn’t consider some rule binding on itself, it isn’t. It’s a simple consequence of the lack of enforcing authority. You can pretend that if Assange is granted asylum, steps out of the Ecuadorean embassy and is arrested by UK police, the world will shame UK into compliance with the OAS treaty you cited that UK is not a party to, but you’d be lying to yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/49 "2012-06-20T18:38:57Z")
That’s not a principle. It’s a basic misunderstanding of a principle. In the past, I have exceeded the speed limit; I was not cited for doing so. In light of The Law According to Terr, I am not bound by the speed limit. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/50 "2012-06-20T18:39:56Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s not a principle. It’s a basic misunderstanding of a principle. > > In the past, I have exceeded the speed limit; I was not cited for doing so. In light of The Law According to Terr, I am not bound by the speed limit. Right? With speed limits, there is an enforcing authority. With the OAS treaty there isn’t. Do you understand the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/51 "2012-06-20T19:04:20Z")
Wrong. With speed limits, there is a _central_ enforcing authority. With international law, there isn’t. That does not mean they are not binding. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/52 "2012-06-20T19:07:24Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > How big are diplomatic bags? People (as well as drugs, weapons, and even a toilet pump for the ISS space station) have apparently been moved via diplomatic bag before. There is no size limit on a diplomatic bag. Check out the Unusual Shipments section at the [Wiki link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_bag) ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/53 "2012-06-20T19:09:45Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Wrong. With speed limits, there is a _central_ enforcing authority. With international law, there isn’t. That does not mean they are not binding. Sure they are. If the country in question agrees they are binding. ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/54 "2012-06-20T19:10:04Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > How big are diplomatic bags? They can be quite large, though this has led to problems. The Master [speaks](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2234/is-there-such-a-thing-as-a-diplomatic-pouch): > [@Cecil](#): > > Any container can be a diplomatic bag–there are no limitations on size or shape. The Soviet Union tested the limits of this rule in 1984 when it claimed that a nine-ton tractor trailer was a diplomatic bag. As Chuck Ashman and Pamela Trescott tell the story in their book, Diplomatic Crime: “The white Mercedes truck bearing the blue Cyrillic letters reading Sovtransavto across its side tried to cross into Switzerland . . . The three Soviets driving the truck put off a request for inspection.” The Swiss were not amused. “Though the Vienna Convention does not specify any size limitation for the bag, Swiss officials said they considered 450 pounds to be the maximum allowable size.” The truck wound up in West Germany where Soviet officials permitted West German authorities to inspect the truck’s contents: 207 crates, which themselves constituted diplomatic bags and weren’t inspected. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/55 "2012-06-20T19:41:45Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Sure they are. If the country in question agrees they are binding. Okay, I’m done with this loop. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/56 "2012-06-20T19:46:45Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Give a cite. Where it says that a country is “bound” (note the word) to some treaty when it didn’t sign it and does not consider it binding. Are you seriously suggesting that **RTNAB** and I have just made up this area of international law out of whole cloth? That we just happen to come up with a fancy Latin name for a concept that does not exist? Aside from that being a far-fetched argument, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties specifically states in Article 53 that if a treaty is in violation of _jus cogens_, then the treaty is void. That’s right, no country has the ability to enter into a treaty that violates the norms of international behavior. [Cite.](http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf) 111 countries are party to that convention, and another 13 are signatories. > [@Terr](#): > > Sure. They discuss the case of Michael Domingues. The IACHR claimed that US was bound by jus cogens not to execute him. United States did not consider itself bound. The United States did not argue that jus cogens does not exist, as you do. The United States argued that the matter of executions is not covered under the principle: “Furthermore, there is no customary international law or jus cogens principle that prohibits the execution of offenders by the United States at the federal or state level.” > [@](#): > > Which just proves what I said. “jus cogens” is only binding if the country agrees it is. Tell that to the Nazis executed for war crimes. Or was there a treaty that Germany signed that outlawed genocide? ---
**Author:** ![Simple\_Linctus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Simple\_Linctus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simple_Linctus)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/57 "2012-06-20T20:05:19Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Gah. And here I thought DicK Cheney had the Asshole of the Decade Award. Assange really gratse on my nerves. It is this scary American attitude which is why he deserves to be protected from you. He never owed you any allegience. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/58 "2012-06-20T20:14:37Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Tell that to the Nazis executed for war crimes. Or was there a treaty that Germany signed that outlawed genocide? At that point, the Nazis weren’t in charge of Germany anymore. I suspect that if they were running Germany in 1946, the trials would have been rather different. Terr has a point, if a country decides to ignore jus cogens, they can. They’ll just have to deal with the international fallout, namely having other countries being angry at them for not following the rules. If GB decided that they didn’t want the stinking Ecuadorians around anymore, they can line up 20 bulldozers to level the place, and arrest Assagne at their leisure. Is Ecuador going to invade London to stop them? International relations is like a schoolyard. It’s generally in everyone’s best interest to play nice, but there’s nobody actually “in charge”, it’s a balance of what you want vs what the other kids will let you get away with. Be too much of a dick, and you won’t get to play kickball anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/59 "2012-06-20T20:20:11Z")
OK, international law is not my forte. However, in high school I was in my school’s Model UN club and presented a brief on the law of the sea to the model Hague. So, yeah, pretty heady credentials. First of all, there’s no question that there is something called international law, and something called peremptory norms, and they have an effect. I do not agree with **RNATB** , however, that the OAS’s provisions have attained that status, and I don’t agree that there is a general right of diplomatic asylum. I think Assange can stay safely in the Eucadorian embassy without the UK being able to reach in and grab him. However, I think that if the Brits demand him, the Ecuadorians have to surrender him, under the general provisions of the 1961 Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. I just asked my wife this question, who has two post-graduate degrees, one in diplomacy, and she says, and I quote: “I’m not sure.” Hope that satisfies everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/60 "2012-06-20T20:20:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Terr has a point, if a country decides to ignore jus cogens, they can. That’s beside the point. The fact that you can ignore something doesn’t mean it _doesn’t exist_. **Terr** is having a philosophical argument, when the thread specifically asked about a legal issue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748.md?page=4)