# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/121 "2012-06-21T17:27:41Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Same thing for interpreting the applicability of international law as being part of US law. Is any of this relevant since we are talking about whether the UK (not the US) will accept diplomatic asylum, something which it seems pretty clear is not a universally accepted part of international law. The BBC article I linked contained a clear quote from an ex diplomat that the UK doesn’t seem to accept diplomatic asylum as immunity from arrest. ---
**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, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/122 "2012-06-21T17:28:06Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 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? Perhaps you would find it more useful to drop the Socratic method treatment and provide from cites from respected authorities that illustrate your point. ---
**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, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/123 "2012-06-21T17:30:59Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Is any of this relevant since we are talking about whether the UK (not the US) will accept diplomatic asylum, something which it seems pretty clear is not a universally accepted part of international law. The BBC article I linked contained a clear quote from an ex diplomat that the UK doesn’t seem to accept diplomatic asylum as immunity from arrest. Yes, you are totally correct. The general principles of international law is a wholly different discussion than the UK’s obligations with respect to Assange. I think it’s clear to everyone that the UK has no obligation under domestic or international law to allow Assange safe passage if Ecuador were to grant him asylum. ---
**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, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/124 "2012-06-21T17:33:49Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The international court’s, obviously. Obviously not. Give an example where US decided that some international law was not binding on it, some outside entity decided that it was binding and the outside entity’s opinion prevailed. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/125 "2012-06-21T17:35:33Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I think it’s clear to everyone that the UK has no obligation under domestic or international law to allow Assange safe passage if Ecuador were to grant him asylum. Right so the question I think is more interesting and which has been ignored several times. If Ecuador specifically grants Assange asylum as a political refugee can he use that as a avenue to appeal extradition? Sure he gets arrested for breaking bail but thats not what he’s afraid of, his ultimate goal is a way to avoid extradition and the UK will not extradite political prisoners. ---
**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, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/126 "2012-06-21T17:39:10Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Obviously not. Give an example where US decided that some international law was not binding on it, some outside entity decided that it was binding and the outside entity’s opinion prevailed. You already have one: the 1984 ICJ ruling in [Nicaragua v. US](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States). You cited it yourself, in fact. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > 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. That should say ICC treaty, not ICJ treaty. ---
**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, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/127 "2012-06-21T17:43:24Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > If Ecuador specifically grants Assange asylum as a political refugee can he use that as a avenue to appeal extradition? I think the practical matter is that he could probably stay on an embassy compound for a protracted amount of time if he wished, but my uninformed view is that it would be exceedingly strange for a British court to rule, “Yeah, I know we found several times that UK laws require that you be extradited to Sweden, even though you’ve repeatedly argued that the charges are trumped-up… but now that Ecuador says that you’re being persecuted, THAT changes everything! We reverse ourselves on every court ruling thus far, and you’re free to go, sir!” ---
**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, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/128 "2012-06-21T17:46:59Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You already have one: the 1984 ICJ ruling in [Nicaragua v. US](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States). You cited it yourself, in fact. Yes, I did. ICJ said the law was binding on US. US said it wasn’t. US prevailed. “The U.S. later blocked enforcement of the judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation. The Nicaraguan government finally withdrew the complaint from the court in September 1992 (under the later, post-FSLN, government of Violeta Chamorro), following a repeal of the law requiring the country to seek compensation.” QED. ---
**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, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/129 "2012-06-21T17:52:42Z")
There is no case that he is being extradited to Sweden for political purposes. Once in Sweden the UK would need to give permission for extradition from there to the US and is already prohibited from extradition for political reasons. I don’t know if Ecudor weighing in would change anything in that calculus. ---
**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, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/130 "2012-06-21T17:53:02Z")
> [@](#): > > Yes, I did. ICJ said the law was binding on US. US said it wasn’t. US prevailed. Apparently you missed the part where the US lost on almost every issue. The fact that the judgment was not enforced doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, which is what you appear to be claiming. As I pointed out earlier, the fact that I am not issued a speeding citation does not mean I am not “bound” by speeding laws. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/131 "2012-06-21T17:53:08Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > but now that Ecuador says that you’re being persecuted, THAT changes everything! We reverse ourselves on every court ruling thus far, and you’re free to go, sir!" They’ve been fighting the extradition on various technical issues, up until now as far as I know they have not specifically argued that it’s a politically motivated charge. For a sovereign nation to grant him political asylum would seem to me a non-laywer to be relevant information that might open a new avenue of appeal. ---
**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, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/132 "2012-06-21T17:57:38Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Apparently you missed the part where the US lost on almost every issue. The fact that the judgment was not enforced doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, which is what you appear to be claiming. Huh? No, that is not what I am claiming. I am saying that unless US, in this case (or UK, for that matter) decides the law is binding on it, the law isn’t binding. Fifty different organizations outside the country can decide that it is, but it still won’t be binding. I guess you and I just disagree on what “binding” means. For me, “binding” means if a decision is taken under the law, it becomes reality. For you, apparently, it can mean waving your hands in the air (or swinging a gavel) and wishing for something that never happens. ---
**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, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/133 "2012-06-21T18:06:49Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > They’ve been fighting the extradition on various technical issues, up until now as far as I know they have not specifically argued that it’s a politically motivated charge. That isn’t my understanding: > [@](#): > > In a skeleton summary of their defence against attempts by the Swedish director of public prosecutions to extradite him, released today, Assange’s legal team argue that there is a similar likelihood that the US would subsequently seek his extradition “and/or illegal rendition”, “where there will be a real risk of him being detained at Guantánamo Bay or elsewhere”. . . . The other points of argument include . . . . > That the extradition attempt is politically motivated, and that his trial would be prejudiced because of his political opinions or because, they argue, of his gender. [Link.](http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/11/julian-assange-wikileaks-execution-gantanamo) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/134 "2012-06-21T18:31:38Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Apparently you missed the part where the US lost on almost every issue. The fact that the judgment was not enforced doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, which is what you appear to be claiming. > > As I pointed out earlier, the fact that I am not issued a speeding citation does not mean I am not “bound” by speeding laws. Actually, it raises an interesting question. What does being “bound” by a set of laws mean? The Mormons have declared that they have the authority to posthumously baptize people. Is the world “bound” by that decision? How can we determine if an entity is “bound?” ---
**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 21, 2012, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/135 "2012-06-21T18:46:26Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Apparently you missed the part where the US lost on almost every issue. The fact that the judgment was not enforced doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, which is what you appear to be claiming. > > As I pointed out earlier, the fact that I am not issued a speeding citation does not mean I am not “bound” by speeding laws. Since this side discussion has continued, I’ll step back in. This isn’t a case of breaking the law and not getting caught, it’s a case of breaking the law, being found guilty by an authoritative court, and not being subject to any penalty, because you don’t want to be subject to the penalty. Try that with a relatively minor crime and you’ll find yourself in big trouble in short order. In trouble with folks who have the ability to forcibly cause you to comply to their demands. You may get away with it over a speeding ticket, by forcing their actions to be disproportionate to your offense, but that is at their discretion, not yours. ---
**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, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/136 "2012-06-21T19:05:21Z")
So what? People have gotten away with violating laws throughout history. It might mean it’s unfair, but not that the law doesn’t exist. What if I paid off a prosecutor to avoid being convicted of some white-collar crime. Does that mean I am not bound? It’s important to note that the US didn’t avoid penalties through legal measures. It did it through political ones. It’s the equivalent of a President pardoning an old buddy. > [@Bricker](#): > > Actually, it raises an interesting question. What does being “bound” by a set of laws mean? > > The Mormons have declared that they have the authority to posthumously baptize people. Is the world “bound” by that decision? > > How can we determine if an entity is “bound?” Since the Mormons have no capacity to bind any other party, I’m pretty sure their baptisms are irrelevant. > [@Terr](#): > > I guess you and I just disagree on what “binding” means. For me, “binding” means if a decision is taken under the law, it becomes reality. For you, apparently, it can mean waving your hands in the air (or swinging a gavel) and wishing for something that never happens. In what sense was the ICJ’s ruling not “a decision taken under the 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, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/137 "2012-06-21T19:16:57Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Since the Mormons have no capacity to bind any other party, I’m pretty sure their baptisms are irrelevant. What capacity does ICJ have to “bind” anyone? > [@](#): > > In what sense was the ICJ’s ruling not “a decision taken under the law”? It was taken under the law that US didn’t consider binding. Thus the ruling was irrelevant. ---
**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, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/138 "2012-06-21T19:52:54Z")
The same as any other court. All UN member states are under the jurisdiction of the ICJ. ---
**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, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/139 "2012-06-21T19:56:17Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The same as any other court. All UN member states are under the jurisdiction of the ICJ. And if US doesn’t consider the decision binding, can it be enforced? No? In my book, calling an unenforceable decision “binding” is disingenuous. YMMV of course. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748/140 "2012-08-15T08:07:15Z")
Well apparently Ecuador has just decided they will grant him asylum but yeah they’ve still got that whole how to get him out of the UK problem. > **[Julian Assange will be granted asylum, says official](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/14/julian-assange-asylum-ecuador-wikileaks)** > > Ecuador's president Rafael Correa has agreed to give the WikiLeaks founder asylum, according to an official in Quito [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-ecuador-legally-get-assange-out-of-london/625748.md?page=8)