I think they do.
“Could be held to account” does not equal “is bound”.
As I pointed out, unless the country considers some law binding on itself, the only remedy is to pressure it into action. And from what I see Great Britain does not consider the OAS laws binding on itself.
I am sure UK will work with Ecuador to bring this to an amicable resolution. But you can bet that they will not allow Ecuador to “transit” Assange out of the country “unilaterally”.
The thing is, there is a reason that strong protections for asylees have become a solid international norm: Everyone wants the capacity to grant asylum if needed, and have that be a meaningful protection. In order for asylum to be useful, it has to confer protection whilst an asylee is in transit.
How big are diplomatic bags?
I don’t think so.
If that were true, any country could just ferry anyone they wanted out of any country.
Sure didn’t work in China. The U.S. had to get permission to let Chen leave its embassy and travel to the U.S., for instance.
Look, you can believe whatever you want. You can really truly believe that international law is about as consequential as a Bazooka Joe cartoon.
But the entirety of the international community, from nation-states to international organizations, accept the concept of states being bound to certain international norms regardless of whether a country has signed a treaty to such effect. It is not a controversial issue at all within the field of law and international relations. The concept has been well-accepted for centuries. It is a verifiable fact that virtually everyone involved in statecraft and diplomacy accepts the concept that you deny exists. You are entitled to your opinion that things should not be that way, but your opinion has no basis in practice.
ETA: this does not mean that all treaties are binding on all countries. Go back and read what I wrote previously.
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.
You can think whatever you like. However, in GQ your unsupported opinion is irrelevant. Jus cogens is a firmly established principle, not that you couldn’t have googled that in three seconds. I pointed you toward the relevant terms earlier.
It’s not that the UK is bound to the treaty. It’s that they may be bound by the rules in it.
In the context of international law, it does. The point is enforcement mechanisms are the same whether it’s a treaty or an international norm that is violated. The only real distinction is that a British court might or might not sustain his arrest on the basis of international law if the Ecuadorians are forced to give him up.
Being able to do something and entitled to do something are different things. I can violate copyright law as much as I want. That doesn’t mean I won’t be sued for doing so. Obviously, the host country has to grant safe conduct in order for the person to leave the embassy grounds. There is no real question that the UK authorities are physically capable of seizing Assange once he leaves the embassy.
Not if UK doesn’t consider itself bound to those rules.
You can’t make things true by posting them repeatedly, I’m afraid.
True. Neither can you.
Does anyone want to bet me $20 that Julian Assange is on American soil (in cuffs, naturally) long before he ever sets foot in Ecuador?
(and when I say “long before” of course I actually mean before, no semantic games please; This is a serious offer, I will bet anyone who wants to take the wager, payable by money order)
Quite so. However, this being GQ, I am not attempting to answer the OP by posting “nuh uh” repeatedly. Seriously, read this and then tell us why it doesn’t apply.
[QUOTE=MPB in Salt Lake]
Does anyone want to bet me $20 that Julian Assange is on American soil (in cuffs, naturally) long before he ever sets foot in Ecuador?
[/QUOTE]
I’ll take a $20 bet that he ends up in some other country than the US.
You stole my joke!
Couldn’t he just enter a diplomatic vehicle within the embassy, drive to the airport, and hop on an Ecuadorian private plane? Or, could they put him in a body-sized diplomatic pouch?
The embassy is really just an apartment, and not on the ground floor either.
Gah. And here I thought DicK Cheney had the Asshole of the Decade Award. Assange really gratse on my nerves.
Diplomatic immunity protects people, not things (aside from consular offices and grounds, and properly marked diplomatic bags). The police can pull over a vehicle with diplomatic plates and even search it, subject to local law. They just can’t prosecute the occupants (provided the occupants are entitled to consular protection).
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 Domingues, 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.
Ooops…didn’t realize this was GD. Sorry!