Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Barack Obama decides to recognize my long-standing contributions to world peace and appoint me as the American ambassador to the United Nations.
I show up at my new diplomatic posting in Manhattan. It being a Friday night, I decide to stop after work and have a few beers to celebrate my new job. Driving back to my luxurious townhouse, I’m stopped by a member of the NYPD who wants to arrest me for driving while intoxicated. I tell him he can’t arrest me - I’ve got diplomatic immunity.
The state department would probably pull your dip immune and surrender you to the relevant authorities, and then have you hauled up before your boss for improper conduct and a bunch of other things.
<morbo> DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! </morbo>
The rules of modern diplomatic immunity are spelled out in the Vienna Convention. Basically, Country A agrees not to prosecute Country B’s diplomats while they’re present in Country A. Nothing in the treaty prevents Country B from prosecuting their own diplomats while they’re in Country B.
As an example that a country can choose to prosecute its own diplomats, I give you Andrei Knyazev, who was a “first secretary” at the Russian Embassy in Canada. Here’s another article. He killed a woman in a car accident in 2001, and appeared to be drunk at the scene. Russia refused to waive diplomatic immunity, so the local authorities couldn’t prosecute him. Instead, he was recalled to Russia and put him on trial there instead. He was eventually sentenced to four years in prison in Russia.
One of my relativs once got diplomatic immunity for a Canadian position in Washington. The Canadian government people who briefed him warned him about any transgressions.
They mentioned the case of one guy who was sent home from Washington (not good for his career) because his teenage son (also immune) was caught shoplifting. Some third world countries might take the situation lightly, but most first-world countries are very sensitive to bad press and the accusation that diplomats with immunity take a cavalier attitude to local laws.
So diplomatic immunity means the host country can’t touch you but it does not mean your own government won’t have something to say or do about it.
Just having a dip passport does not mean that you have immunity. The only person who has true immunity is the ambassador. A country may choose to not prosecute you because you are part of the mission, but if the crime is serious, that might go by the wayside. The DOS may object to it, and request that you be returned to the US for prosecution, but the host country can basically tell you to fuck off. Having a dip passport is nice for transitioning airports overseas, not having your luggage searched, etc., but other than that it may not help you if you’re a functionary and have broken the law.
But I think everyone agrees that if I was an ambassador to the UN from another country, I’d be untouchable by the NYPD unless my native country chose to waive my immunity.
Is that even a legal possibility in the situation I described? Let’s say I’m Obama’s brother-in-law. Could he theoretically refuse to hand me over to the NY legal system?
What are you asking? Could Obama hand his BIL over to the NY legal system? They already have him. Is his BIL supposed to be a citizen of some other country or something? There must be some piece of your question missing.
Diplomatic immunity AFAIK is conferred on a visiting diplomatic staff by the guest country. The worst punishment the guest country has, is to ask the host country to take him away, revoke his status and give him a minimal time together out. If they really want to express displeasure, they can expell the entire diplomatic mission.
Iirc Canada had an incident where some Russian attaché driving drunk killed a lady. All they could do was give him the boot, but there were assorted rumors what happened to him back home.
I’ve never heard of diplomatic staff being prosecuted by the host country, unless their own country waives immunity… Let’s say, because the guy committed a horrible murder or something really bad and it’s convenient to let the host country deal with it. The simple purpose of immunity is to avoid the host harassing the diplomatic staff during tense times, to avoid the tit for tat arrest someone and charge them with espionage until your side’s man is let go, etc.
Immunity is between countries and is based on treaties, I think. Immunity in a third country does not apply unless the ambassador is in transit, and in any case immunity in the host country requires the host to accept the diplomat - you’re not just going to deport your local mass murderer by making him ambassador to Italy or empty the local jail into the embassy in Paris.
So Obama is not going to confer immunity on his BIL since he has no power to do so. He could more likely pardon him afterwards, or invoke state secrets to stop the case, since that has worked really well the past 12 years or so.
If instead some other country picks you as her representative to the United Nations, you would benefit from diplomatic immunity in the USA despite being an American citizen. Nigeria pulled this trick in France, making a prosecuted French weapon trafficker her envoy to the UNESCO, whose seat is in Paris. The USA has no say in the accreditation of an ambassador to the UN.
I’m not sure what it is you’re missing. I thought I made the situation clear.
If somebody is the Canadian ambassador to the UN or the British ambassador or the Russian ambassador or the Paraguayan ambassador, they have legal immunity and the local police can’t arrest them. My question is whether the American ambassador to the UN has the same legal immunity his non-American colleagues has or if he is a special exception because he is serving as an ambassador in his own country.
So what does Obama’s brother-in-law have to do with that? Are you asking if his BIL was the ambassador to the UN would he have diplomatic immunity? I don’t see how that relationship would change anything.
My point was that a President would normally just allow the legal process to work on an American UN ambassador arrested in New York. So I brought up the brother-in-law scenario to give a semi-joking reason why a President might refuse to waive diplomatic immunity.
If it’s bothering you, just ignore the brother-in-law remark. My question is whether the President has the legal option of declaring diplomatic immunity in theory, ignoring the political reality that he would never actually do it.
It has been a while since I have looked into this area of law, but if memory serves - a nation has to grant diplomatic status to the person in question. In other words - the Department of State approves each and every foreign diplomat in the US. I believe There is no procedure in place for the US to assign diplomatic status to someone who is an acting on behalf of the United States.
Let’s say there was. I’m sure somehow paperwork could be issued. It might not be legal, but for the sake of argument - pretend it was. Then you still have a problem - as diplomats can still be prosecuted in their home state (which in this case is the same one).
This is some educated guessing, but I think it is a totally legitimate question. However - I think the person would be out of luck.