Pope Leo XIV (ne Robert Francis Prevost) is now simultaneously a foreign head of state and a US citizen (and also a Peruvian citizen). What’s the protocol if when he visits the USA? Would he have diplomatic immunity during the visit? Is his US citizenship ignored? Is he going to renounce his US citizenship now? Do Popes normally renounce their foreign citizenship when they become Vatican citizens?
Under international law, a serving head of state has sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of other countries, though not from that of international tribunals.[207][208] This immunity is sometimes loosely referred to as “diplomatic immunity”, which is, strictly speaking, the immunity enjoyed by the diplomatic representatives of a head of state. International law treats the Holy See, essentially the central government of the Catholic Church, as the juridical equal of a state. It is distinct from the state of Vatican City, existing for many centuries before the foundation of the latter.
If I’m reading this right, he’d have the same diplomatic immunity extended to regular diplomats.
Whether the Pope currently has any form of diplomatic immunity in the United States would have to depend on how the State Department under the current administration views international law concerning that issue.
[Moderating]
This is not the time nor the place for that discussion.
Wikipedia says
Some countries have made [reservations] to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, but they are minor. A number of countries limit the diplomatic immunity of persons who are citizens of the receiving country.
However, the referenced list of reservations does not indicate that the USA has made that reservation.
As I understand, though - heads of state cannot just wander into another country to commit mayhem, they still need the consent of the destination country. (Whereas diplomats need their accreditation acceptd by the state department equivalent.) Presumably the only thing a country can do to someone with such immunity is expell them if they so choose, or deny them entry in the first place.
I imagine that if an international court has a warrant for a head of state, any nation that’s a member of that international court can detain that head of state given the chance.
During one of his visits to the USA, the Pope is out for a sightseeing tour when he asks his driver if he can drive for a bit; he never gets to, being cooped up in the PopeMobile all the time. After some pleading, the driver gives in, they switch places and the pontiff floors it. A few miles later, a local LEO pulls them over, exits his vehicle, takes a look at the occupants and gets on the radio to his supervisor. I just pulled over somebody really important . Who is it? asks the chief. I’m not sure, but his chauffeur is the Pope!
That’s interesting I didn’t realize this. It’s not just that heads of state enjoy the same immunity as diplomats. It’s the other way round: diplomats have immunity from prosecution because they are considered representatives of a head of state, and have the same immunity.
We could actually go to the source for this one. In it, Heads of State/Government do not get automatic Diplomatic Immunity, only members of the mission do. And if any are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States …
Nationals or Permanent Residents of the United States.
The general rules set forth previously assume that the staff members of the diplomatic mission are nationals of the sending country or some third country. The United States, as a matter of policy, does not normally accept as diplomatic agents its own nationals, legal permanent residents of the United States, or others who are “permanently resident in” the United States.4 The family members of diplomatic agents enjoy no privileges or immunities if they are nationals of the United States. Members of the administrative and technical staff (including their families) and members of > the service staff enjoy no privileges and immunities if they are U.S. nationals, legal permanent residents, or foreign nationals “permanently resident in” the United States.
But that source deals with diplomatic and consular immunity; the Pope’s claim would be to sovereign immunity.
So the policy stated here, that the US will not accept the appointment of its own citizens as the diplomatic agents of other states, has no bearing here. The US (like any other country) gets to decide who it will accept as a diplomat accredited to it by another state, but it has no say whatsoever over who other states appoint as their head of state. So they can’t apply the same policy to ensure that no US citizen is in a position to claim sovereign immunity in the US.
The norm of sovereign immmunity is a pretty strong one in international law, and it would surprise me greatly if the US refused to respect the sovereign immunity of a foreign head of state on the grounds that he was a dual US citizen. But as the situation has never arisen before, we can’t point to any practice on the subject.
The situation has arisen in other countries. For example Mary McAleese, President of Ireland from 1997 to 2011, was a British Citizen by birth, and so had dual citizenship of the UK and Ireland. During her presidency she made a state visit to the UK where she was accorded all the usual privileges of a foreign head of state. So I don’t think the US could point to any practice of other states of refusing to accord sovereign immunity in cases of dual citizenship.
The OP asked about diplomatic immunity, but let’s expanding to a sovereign, “Sovereign immunity” at least in the United States refers to the legal doctine that a govermrnt (state of federal) cannot be sued without permission so that has nothing to do with the thread.
Is there another term that we can look up that applies to a Head of State/Government?
But if she committed a crime while in the UK, could she be held responsible as a British citizen?
Where does it say this? Seeing as diplomatic immunity is just an extension of sovereign immunity, that would be a weird position to take
Foreign Official immunity:
Under customary international law, “head-of-state” immunity provides absolute immunity to sitting heads of state, heads of government, and foreign ministers, whereas “conduct-based” immunity shields lower-level officials and former officials from suits based on acts taken in their official capacities. In the United States, head-of-state and conduct-based immunity are rules of federal common law
More details here:
As Samantar made clear, federal common law governs head of state immunity in the United States. The State Department routinely files suggestions of immunity for foreign heads of state, heads of government, and foreign ministers, and U.S. courts treat these suggestions as conclusive. U.S. courts also apply federal common law and dismiss suits against these officials in those rare case when the executive branch remains silent
I was going to cite Manuel Noriega as a counter example, but Google tells me he was never formally head of state, which I didn’t realize (plus of course the US deposed him before prosecuting him)
The point is it doesn’t say that so if we want to track down if a Head of State/Government has immunity outside of the diplomatic mission, we need another document. Looking up “Sovereign Immunity” in the US is another thing completely.
Cool. Thanks
Citizenship is generally irrelevant to criminal liablity (except for crimes like treason, which arguably only a citizen can commit). If somebody commits a crime in the UK, it’s irrelevant whether they are a UK citizen or not. I’m pretty sure the position is the same in most or all countries.
So the question falls into two parts:
(a) If a foreign head of state violates UK criminal law while in the UK, are they subject to the jurisidiction of the UK courts or does their head-of-state immunity protect them? Answer: their head-of-state immunity protects them.
(b) Is the position different if the foreign head of state is also a UK citizen? There’s no obvious reason why is should be; the rationale that underpins head-of-state immunity doesn’t depend at all on the citizenship of the head of state plus, as already noted, the jurisiction of the criminal courts also doesn’t generally depend on citizenship, so why would it in this instance?
It depends on the legal definition of treason in each country. In countries which have inherited the English common law, it’s common for there to be a crime of treason that can be committed in the country by non-citizens who are ordinarily resident within the country. There are other types of treason that can be committed outside the country, but only by citizens of the country.
From a skim of the Wikipedia article on treason, it looks like that’s the law in the UK, Canada, Australia at the federal level (and maybe in some states), and Ireland.
IIRC, in WW2 UK, it was realised that existing legislation on treason was limited by the idea of allegiance to the UK (Crown) and they rapidly extended the law to a more broadly defined “treachery”. But that still didn’t override diplomatic, let alone sovereign immunity.
Allegiance for the purposes of treason laws can be based on temporary allegiance for non-citizens / non-subjects. A foreigner who voluntarily comes to a country and resides there owes a temporary allegiance and therefore can commit treason against that country.
It depends on whether a country recognizes the concept of of temporary allegiance in its statutes of treason. British law does.