I’m watching an episode of Law & Order and someone who may have ordered a hit and was involved in drug trafficing claims to have immunity. Surely diplomatic immunity doesn’t involve murder and serious felonies!
Bricker’s column on the subject.
Why wouldn’t it? A diplomat should be immune from parking tickets but not from prosecution for crimes that could net him the death penalty? Does that make sense?
Yes, embassy staff have committed murder and claimed diplomatic immunity. In 1984 a young policewoman was murdered by someone (unidentified) in the Libyan embassy. Embassy staff were allowed to leave the country without being questioned or prosecuted.
Note that the diplomat’s home country can choose to waive diplomatic immunity and allow the diplomat to be prosecuted in the host country. Or he may be prosecuted back home under his own country’s laws.
Yep, diplomatic immunity is absolute. We grant this so that they will grant it in return.
A couple of years ago a Ukrainian diplomat killed someone while driving drunk in Washington. His country pulled his immunity and allowed him to face charges in the US. It was a very unusual move.
Oddly, diplomatic immunity is not limited to diplomats. All members of the local royal family have diplomatic passports. It is the one document that proves they are royal. So a Saudi sub-prince can do whatever he wants overseas and get away with it.
That explains a lot, doesn’t it?
A few followup questions:
-
Is it true that the host country can always choose to have a diplomat exercising diplomatic immunity to their home country, as persona non grata or whatever the correct term is? Could somebody ‘sneak’ into a country (or back in) without revealing their diplomatic status until they’ve committed a crime?
-
Does the same ‘return to host country’ provision apply to royals as it does to diplomats?
-
Could either side of this, (someone with diplomatic papers committing a crime, diplomat or royal being booted out of the country,) reasonably become an international incident and/or provocation for millitary hostilities between countries??
Hope those questions made sense.
Yes, a nation may refuse entry to anyone. (Of course many treaties impact on this, but a sovereign can back whoever it like.) A person with diplomatic immunity who enters a nation under some other (say tourist) status would not have diplomatic immunity.
So say the American Charge d’-affairs (I hate spelling in French!) to Canada can go to Mexico for a vacation. Since he is not accredited to Mexico, the local police can arrest him.
A state can make anyone it likes leave. When a diplomat is ordered to leave, this is called being declared Persona Non Grata (Unwelcome Person). I was PNGed out of Paraguay many, many years ago.
I suppose anything along those lines would be an international incident. In my case a remarkably small one I guess. Nothing much came of it.
Fun story, my ex-FIL was Panama’s Ambassador to the US back in the Old Days. He had a girlfriend on the Jersey Shore. Once while visiting her, he got a parking ticket. He sent it back to the local police with a note offering his apologizes, but explaining his status. The next week the local paper had the story on the front page. “International Incident in (Wherever).” He has it in his scrapbook.
The point of diplomatic immunity is to protect diplomats from arbitrary arrests, searches, harrasment, etc… Just protecting them against parking tickets would be pointless. The immunity aplies regardless of the nature of the alleged crime.
Of course, if the country the diplomat came from is convinced the crime was for real (and not some pretext made up in order to search/interrogate the diplomat, for instance), doesn’t have a particular reason to protect him personnally (say, it’s one of their best spies or the dictator’s son) and doesn’t lack confidence in the local legal system (say, a diplomat from a country where death penalty doesn’t exist commits a capital crime in the USA), it can waive the immunity. Note that it can also decidenot to waiwe the immunity but to call back and prosecute itself the diplomat if it has juridiction acording to its laws. The immunity exists to protect the representant of the state, and through him the inteterests of this state, not intended (normally) to give a free ride to a particular individual. As a consequence, the diplomat is only protected as long as the country of origin says so.
The diplomatic status only exists if the host country has aknowledged the diplomat, and it’s always free to decide not to do so. So, you can’t benefit from immunity if you sneak in. You just aren’t a diplomat in this case, but a tourist, an illegal immigrant, a spy, etc… Basically country A says “We’re sending you Mr Chrisk as an ambassador”, country B says “Mr Chrisk? OK, that’s fine” (alternately : “Mr Chrisk? No way! Find someone else.”) and then only Mr Chrisk benefits from a diplomatic status.
Not as rare as you might think. Not doing so could be interpreted as an act of war. Most Embassy staff, however, are not stupid enough to commit felonies.
I’m not so sure I believe this. Such diplomats have to be presented and accepted by the host country. Saudi Arabia can say whatever it wants, but the thousands of royal family members aren’t immune simply on their say-so.
This happened with a Russian diplomat in Canada a few years ago. He was driving drunk and ran over an Ottawa resident, killing her. Russia did not waive immunity, so Canada declared him PNG. On his return to Russia, the Russian authorities prosecuted him under their laws. He was convicted and served a jail term at a work camp near Murmansk.
- Several of the sources that I cited in my column on the diplomatic bag contain collections of abuses of diplomatic immunity. The most relevant are:
Ashman, Charles, and Trescott, Pamela, Diplomatic Crime: Drugs, Killings, Thefts, Rapes, Slavery & Other Outrageous Crimes (1987)
Barker, J. Craig, The Abuse of Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities: A Necessary Evil? (1996)
Frey, Linda and Frey, Marsha, The History of Diplomatic Immunity (1999)
“Abuse of Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges: First Report from the [British House of Commons] Foreign Affairs Committee,” etc., HCP 127, pp. 33-34 (Dec. 14, 1984):
http://www.bopcris.ac.uk/cgi-bin/citizen-imgfind.pl?pageno=33&project=bopcris&refi d=all_20238_1_s
Shaw, Malcolm, International Law (1997) has a few too. I don’t have any of the books in front of me right now (they were inter-library loans).
-
Diplomatic immunity also covers diplomatic couriers and the families of diplomats (unless they are citizens of the receiving state). http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/diplomat.htm (Arts. 27, 37).
-
Head of State immunity is a little different from diplomatic immunity. FindLaw Legal Blogs - FindLaw
-
Previous thread on diplomatic immunity
A country can call anything it likes an act of war, right down to the tumerity of a head of state who uses the wrong fork at a state dinner.
However, a state would have no basis in international law to expect or demand that another country must waive diplomatic immunities in any such circumstance, seeing as how the right of a state to assert or not assert diplomatic immunity is clearly and unquestionably protected by the Vienna Convention of 1961 and hundreds of years of customary international law.
BTW, some of the worst abuses of diplomatic immunity involve diplomats’ family members.
I think that was a Georgian diplomat (the other Georgia, of course), unless you are thinking of a different case. Gueorgui Makharadze, according to Bricker’s excellent staff report.
Well, it is certainly true a diplomatic passport is the only thing a (local) royal carries that proves he is a royal. Trust me on that one. On the other hand, a diplomatic passport only gives the bearer those privileges the host country chooses to grant.
If Prince Bob Al-Saud is the Ambassador to France, then France by accepting his credentials agrees to provide him the customary privileges of an ambassador. If he goes to Sweden on spring break, I presume the police would treat him with kid gloves, but he would not have immunity.
In the US, diplomatic passports are granted to various bigwigs (like members of the Supreme Court) so they can travel on official business. At least some like to sue their black passports for day-to-day travel. That is not really as it should be.
In another life, I was a courier. I (and my C-141) went around to all the capitals of Latin America. I was escorting several large boxes, all of which were covered by diplomatic privilege. Was the stuff legal in (say) Paraguay? I don’t know. They are legal in that Paraguay accepts the normal diplomatic usages. Just like a person arriving under diplomatic cover, they may refuse entry of the pouch, but may not search it*.
*Actually, elaborate protocols exist as to the degree of search allowed. Weighing and measuring is allowed. X-raying is OK, I think. Opening is not permitted.
Thanks, I was wondering what happened in that case.
A term at a “work camp” in Murmansk is definitely a lot harsher punishment than he ever would have received here. Go Russia!
The UK claims X-raying is ok, but also claims that it has never done it. Other countires, and many scholars, disagree with the interpretation.
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdiplomaticpouch.html
Not quite right. International law provides Foreign Affairs Ministers and Heads of State with immunity:
CASE CONCERNING THE ARREST WARRANT OF 11 APRIL 2000 (DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO v. BELGIUM) (International Court of Justice 2002) (pdf).
- Id. *
The immunity is only absolute while the head of state or foreign minister holds office. Once they are out of office, the immunity only protects them for official acts. Error.
And as Pinochet just found out, it can be striped, just like diplomatic immunity. MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
Perhaps I was unclear. The privileges of a diplomat are outlined in the Vienna Convention, other treaties and ancient usages. BUT just cause a person (like Prince Bob Al-Saud in our example) has a diplomatic passport does not mean he has diplomatic immunity in each and every country he enters.
Just cause Saudi Arabia says Bob is a diplomat does not make him one. He must present his credentials to the host country which can accept or decline to accredit him.
Right. Although, if he is traveling through a third country to or from his post, Bob has immunity there, too:
(VCDR, Art. 40).
Also, if Prince Bob qualifies as a head of state or head of government, he has immunity based on his status–which does not require the receiving country’s acceptance.