# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/101 "2012-06-21T13:36:13Z")
So the argument goes that the US has secret plans to charge Assange in the future and that once charged, with a non-political crime (since the extradition treaty with Sweden prohibits extraditing for political reasons), Sweden would more easily be able to cooperate than would the UK because Sweden allows “conditional release” while the UK courts take a while and public opinion is more favorable to Assange in the UK. And the UK’s permission to pass him on, that Sweden would need, would get past public opinion backlash easier than would sending him themselves. That conspiring with former sexual “partners”, the Swedish legal system, the Swedish executive system, and the UK government is considered easy while extraditing from a long time friend would be considered impossible, for crimes that he has not been charged with. Nope, nothing nutty 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 21, 2012, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/102 "2012-06-21T13:39:28Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > They could be wrong but the concept that a small subgroup of states (in this case the Organization of American States) could sign something that would be somehow binding on all other states in the world is absurd. By that logic the Arab League could pass a law, any law, and all other states, would be bound by it. There is no doubt that the claim is false. Yes, that claim is false, but not because of anything in your post, as you know if you’d read the whole thread. The point is that provisions of treaties, even limited ones, can become binding on all states _with the passage of time_, based on state practice and other factors. First, they become customary law, meaning states abide by them even though they are not bound, and later they become peremptory norms, meaning states are bound by them regardless of whether they accept them. Things which have unquestionably been accepted as customary law and later as peremptory norms are prohibitions against piracy, genocide, war crimes and the like. There are any number of states which are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions and other treaties which made those things illegal, but all states are bound by those prohibitions anyway. I thought political asylum was one of those things, but it appears it probably isn’t. > [@](#): > > Really **RNATB** claiming that you were actuallyis a bit disingenuous. Is it so hard to admit you made an honest mistake? I did: > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > ETA: the Happold article is a better source, of course, though I still don’t think the UK will unilaterally arrest him. All the argument that follows is because **Terr** doesn’t believe peremptory norms exist. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/103 "2012-06-21T14:03:23Z")
I am afraid that the partisan site is not clear. What is the objective evidence? This discussion from the Guardian makes no claims of extraordinariness [Julian Assange arrest: How the extradition process works | Afua Hirsch Legal affairs correspondent | The Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/julian-assange-arrest-extradition). This seems very much like conspiracy theory. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/104 "2012-06-21T14:05:54Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > So the argument goes that the US has secret plans to charge Assange in the future and that once charged, with a non-political crime (since the extradition treaty with Sweden prohibits extraditing for political reasons), Sweden would more easily be able to cooperate than would the UK because Sweden allows “conditional release” while the UK courts take a while and public opinion is more favorable to Assange in the UK. And the UK’s permission to pass him on, that Sweden would need, would get past public opinion backlash easier than would sending him themselves. That conspiring with former sexual “partners”, the Swedish legal system, the Swedish executive system, and the UK government is considered easy while extraditing from a long time friend would be considered impossible, for crimes that he has not been charged with. > > Nope, nothing nutty here. This was my reaction, it is an argument that seems only to rely on very strange ideas. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/105 "2012-06-21T14:19:25Z")
**RNATB** , If that “ETA” was such an admission, then I apologize for not understanding it as such. For the purpose of the op citing that the OAS passed a treaty so therefore the UK is bound is false. All agreed now. Sure, a discussion regarding what “peremptory norms” and “bound by” means in the real world of behaviors by state actors and international reactions to such behaviors could be interesting on its own. And of course “bound by” is only meaningful to the degree that the consequences for ignoring the norm is greater than the state actor feels is the advantage to ignoring the norm. In that sense **Terr** ’s point still seems valid. “Laws” with little or no teeth are more suggestions than laws. ---
**Author:** ![dental](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d9b06d/32.png) [@dental](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dental)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/106 "2012-06-21T14:26:40Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > I have read this article in The Guardian, [Assange's asylum bid and Washington's WikiLeaks response: matching hysteria | Peter Galbraith | The Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/21/julian-assange-asylum-wikileaks) > > Is there any one who can say what the extradition laws are here? The author there gives the strong impression that it is very unlikely to be extradited from Sweden to the USA. i dont know why Peter Galbraith who wrote the article you have provided says those things but i simply dont believe him ( and maybe i dont trust him either) But I note he was a policy adviser and former United States diplomat. i prefer to lean towards caution bearing in mind what David Adler, federal criminal defense attorney and former CIA officer said "One of the major issues surrounding the Assange case is whether “we [the United States] can drag his ass over 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 21, 2012, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/107 "2012-06-21T14:43:12Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > In that sense **Terr** ’s point still seems valid. “Laws” with little or no teeth are more suggestions than laws. As I pointed out earlier, the OP asked a legal question. This is a philosophical point, not a legal one. As a general matter, states follow international law; the fact that they sometimes do not is no more evidence that international law is not law than the fact that people sometimes commit crimes. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/108 "2012-06-21T14:47:34Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > As I pointed out earlier, the OP asked a legal question. This is a philosophical point, not a legal one. As a general matter, states follow international law; the fact that they sometimes do not is no more evidence that international law is not law than the fact that people sometimes commit crimes. As a general matter, states follow international law because they choose to do so, not because they’re “binding”. It is not a “philosophical” point, it is a reality point. That’s how it works. And no, the OP didn’t just ask a “legal question”. The question was: “Can Ecuador legally get Assange out of London”. If UK doesn’t allow it, no matter how “binding” you find the relevant international laws, the answer is “No”. ---
**Author:** ![williambaskerville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f14d63/32.png) [@williambaskerville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/williambaskerville)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/109 "2012-06-21T15:41:11Z")
On the OP : one suggestion, from Carl Gardner,a barrister and former government lawyer. [https://twitter.com/#!/carlgardner](https://twitter.com/#!/carlgardner) He tweeted :- “It’s hard to think how Assange could leave the embassy, escape arrest and get on a plane. Except as Ecuador’s new representative to the UN.” What’s his thinking here ? The UN would be required to accept Assange’s accreditation, and that makes him an accredited diplomat and gives him safe passage thru (and out) of the UK ? ---
**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 21, 2012, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/110 "2012-06-21T15:44:02Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > As a general matter, states follow international law because they choose to do so, not because they’re “binding”. It is not a “philosophical” point, it is a reality point. That’s how it works. More than a century ago, the Supreme Court ruled on such issues and disagreed with this analysis. > [@The Paquete Habana](#): > > International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations, and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/111 "2012-06-21T15:49:39Z")
> [@williambaskerville](#): > > On the OP : one suggestion, from Carl Gardner,a barrister and former government lawyer. > > [https://twitter.com/#!/carlgardner](https://twitter.com/#!/carlgardner) > > He tweeted :- > > “It’s hard to think how Assange could leave the embassy, escape arrest and get on a plane. Except as Ecuador’s new representative to the UN.” > > What’s his thinking here ? The UN would be required to accept Assange’s accreditation, and that makes him an accredited diplomat and gives him safe passage thru (and out) of the UK ? I don’t think so: > **[International Law](https://books.google.com/books?id=NmAPHlyvPzMC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=are%2B%22UN%2Brepresentatives%22%2Bdiplomatic%2Bimmunity&source=bl&ots=u-vO2yTxRu&sig=_QPLzTqK-okLClvKNwc8XIEDCes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZkHjT_6AL-Lt0gHmoNDEAw)** > > The most trusted name in law school outlines, Emanuel Law Outlines support your class preparation, provide reference for your outline creation, and supply a comprehensive breakdown of topic matter for your entire study process. Created by Steven... UN representatives are immune from legal process only with respect to their official acts. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/112 "2012-06-21T15:54:25Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > More than a century ago, the Supreme Court ruled on such issues and disagreed with this analysis. I don’t think it did. It said that it recommends that in some cases US decides that it is bound by those laws. That’s exactly my point. The country has to decide that it is bound by the law. If it doesn’t, it isn’t bound by it. ---
**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 21, 2012, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/113 "2012-06-21T16:06:05Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I don’t think it did. It said that it recommends that in some cases US decides that it is bound by those laws. That’s exactly my point. The country has to decide that it is bound by the law. If it doesn’t, it isn’t bound by it. Oh, please. You should at least be familiar with the facts of the case before purporting to have insight on the matter. The US Navy captured some fishing vessels leaving Cuba. The fishermen sued and said that customary international law – not any treaty that the US had signed up for, but the expected practice of nations dating back to the Middle Ages – was violated in this case. The Navy and the Executive Branch disagreed. The Supreme Court ruled that the fishermen were correct. The “country” didn’t decide to abide by international law, the Supreme Court had to dictate to the Executive Branch that international law is integral to the laws of the United States. In short, the courts forced the US Government to abide by international law. I just wish you would please stop posting demonstrably incorrect information in this forum, especially when you cannot back up your opinions with factual citations from recognized authorities. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/114 "2012-06-21T16:09:42Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The Navy and the Executive Branch disagreed. The Supreme Court ruled that the fishermen were correct. The “country” didn’t decide to abide by international law, the Supreme Court had to dictate to the Executive Branch that international law is integral to the laws of the United States. In short, the courts forced the US Government to abide by international law. Yes. The courts decided that it was binding. If they decided it wasn’t binding, it wouldn’t be. Thus, the international law is only binding on a country if it decides that it is binding. Your point? ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/115 "2012-06-21T16:35:54Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > …The Navy and the Executive Branch disagreed. The Supreme Court ruled that the fishermen were correct. The “country” didn’t decide to abide by international law, the Supreme Court had to dictate to the Executive Branch that international law is integral to the laws of the United States. In short, the courts forced the US Government to abide by international law… But aren’t the courts part of the US Government? Is this like saying, “My little sister forced my family to cancel this year’s family reunion.”? ---
**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 21, 2012, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/116 "2012-06-21T16:56:32Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > But aren’t the courts part of the US Government? Is this like saying, “My little sister forced my family to cancel this year’s family reunion.”? The court said that customary international law could not be disregarded at the convenience of the foreign policy goals of the Executive Branch, in the same way that the court decided that President Nixon could not disregard US law at his convenience. Now, if you want to advance the argument that in the Nixon case, “the government” was free to disregard US law if “the government” wished to, but “the government” decided that it was better to abide by the law, I would say that’s a distorted way of looking at the issue. Same thing for interpreting the applicability of international law as being part of US law. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/117 "2012-06-21T17:03:23Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The court said that customary international law could not be disregarded at the convenience of the foreign policy goals of the Executive Branch, in the same way that the court decided that President Nixon could not disregard US law at his convenience. > > Now, if you want to advance the argument that in the Nixon case, “the government” was free to disregard US law if “the government” wished to, but “the government” decided that it was better to abide by the law, I would say that’s a distorted way of looking at the issue. Same thing for interpreting the applicability of international law as being part of US law. So you’re claiming that the courts are not part of the US government? ---
**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 21, 2012, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/118 "2012-06-21T17:16:16Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > So you’re claiming that the courts are not part of the US government? He’s pointing out that the Supreme Court does not have to say a provision of international law is binding on the US for it to be true. The Supreme Court heard the Paquete Habana case because it was brought in the US. It could as easily have been brought in a foreign court, or in an international one had they existed at the time. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/119 "2012-06-21T17:19:48Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > He’s pointing out that the Supreme Court does not have to say a provision of international law is binding on the US for it to be true. The Supreme Court heard the Paquete Habana case because it was brought in the US. It could as easily have been brought in a foreign court, or in an international one had they existed at the time. And if a foreign court or an international court found the law binding and the US government said it wasn’t, whose opinion would prevail? ---
**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 21, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/120 "2012-06-21T17:25:12Z")
The international court’s, obviously. That’s why - for example - the US won’t ratify the ICJ treaty. If it was a foreign state’s court, it depends on what sort of claim it was and whether the US had any assets within its jurisdiction. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748.md?page=7)