Say, for example, an American is in Germany and has committed some crime. The German police are conducting a manhunt and decide to block the entrance to the American embassy in whichever city this hypothetical takes place in.
Can they legally park police cars across the entrance or otherwise require people to pass through some sort of check before leaving ‘German soil’? All the check would require is a quick comparison between the individual and a photo of the criminal so there wouldn’t be much delay and they are only acting in areas where they have jurisdiction.
I would imagine that if the individual got into the embassy the U.S. would hand the person over for trial as long as there was evidence they were guilty but how things change if no extradition agreement existed between the two countries?
The rights and privileges of embassies are set out in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a treaty to which the US and Germany (and practically all other countries) are party.
Article 22:
*1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.*
So the only way the police of the host state can nab the fugitive is before he enters the embassy.
But if they set up blockades stopping and checking everyone (except the diplomats, naturally) they are hardly protecting “the peace of the mssion” or preventing “the impairment of its dignity”. The sending state would likely protest.
In most circumstances they won’t need to do this. An American citizen who is a fugitive from German justice and who turns up in the American embassy in Berlin is likely to be asked to leave, and if necessary will be escorted out. The purpose of American embassies is not to provide sanctuary to Americans abroad. I think the problem would only arise if there was a tense relationship between the US and the host state, and the accusation of crime was, or was seen to be, political in nature (or the crime was political in nature, e.g. the individual has been spying for the US).
In such a case the host state might blockade the US embassy, and simply ignore the protests of the ambassador. No doubt they would quote Article 41 para 3 of the Vienna Convention . . .
The premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible with the functions of the mission as laid down in the present Convention or by other rules of general international law or by any special agreements in force between the sending and the receiving State.*
. . . and point out that providing sanctuary to fugitives from justice is not the function of a diplomatic mission.
It is legal for a host country to do anything they want in their own country.
“Leaving German soil…” may be fairly translated “On German soil” or “In Germany.”
Which would make the question: “Is it legal for the German police to block a German road while* in Germany*.”
In short, the answer is that if you are not on embassy property, you have no embassy rights.
Someone who goes into the US embassy in Berlin is not “leaving German soil”. He is going into the US embassy in Berlin which is very much on German soil. The whole point of the US embassy to Germany is that it’s in Germany.
It’s not correct to say that the German authorities can do anything they want in their own country. They can’t do something which would be inconsistent with their obligations under the Vienna Convention. Most of those obligations restrain what they can do in the embassy premises itself (they can do almost nothing, hence the misconception that the embassy is not “German soil”) but some of the obligations could well limit what they can do in the vicinity of the embassy - in particular, their obligation to prevent disturbance of the peace of the embassy or the impairment of its dignity.
If the roadblock was outside the bounds of the embassy, the Germans could easily argue that, by preventing a dangerous fugitive from entering the embassy compound, they were carrying out their treaty obligation to: “…protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion…” After all, how could you say there is no risk this dangerous person may intend to harm the embassy or its occupants?
The Libyan embassy in London was so blockaded some years ago after shots were fired from it at a crowd. The embassy was not entered, nor were the occupants arrested when they finally did leave.
Depends what country you are in really. I could think a handful of countries that if i did something against the law a simple trial may not be on their minds, yeah in europe its cool but some other places i rather run to an embassy with my passport out hoping i get in
Good example, though it’s worth noting that said shots actually killed a police officer. From the Wiki article, the situation was eventually resolved by “allowing” the entire embassy staff to leave the country. The UK then broke off diplomatic relations with Libya for 15 years.
Suppose your fugitive from German justice makes it into the US embasssy. What happens next?
The embassy authorities can throw him out, whereupon the waiting Germans police will presumably arrest him. Throwing him out is an administrative decision - no judicial process is required. This is what usually happens, since offering sanctuary is certain to lead to a diplomatic row with the Germans. There would need to be some compelling reason why the US was willing to put up with the diplomatic row before they would consider offering sanctuary.
If they do decide to offer him sanctuary, he can stay in the embassy indefinitely. If I recall, Cardinal Mindszenty lived in the US embassy in Budapest for fifteen years.
The fugitive can’t (safely) leave the embassy and go to a third country without the co-operation of the host country, which has to be negotiated (which is why Cardinal Mindszenty had to spend fifteen years in the embassy at Budapest).
I don’t understand why they didn’t storm the embassy the instant the shots were fired. The Vienna Convention, I believe, specifically states that countries can take action even against diplomats for the purpose of preserving immediate public safety. If the Libyan diplomats were opening up on the crowd, Britain would have been within its rights to storm the embassy and forcibly disarm the shooters. It’s true they wouldn’t have been allowed to take them into custody, but I’d say that murder of a host country’s citizens by the diplomats of another country could be considered an act of war.
I’m not sure whether you mean “we don’t storm embassies in general”, but special forces stormed the Iranian embassy in London in 1980. Admittedly it was a different situation as it had been taken over by terrorists who were killing hostages.
Sure he can. The Vienna Convention grants diplomatic vehicles nearly the same inviolability as the embassy itself; the host country isn’t allowed to stop and search cars going to and from the embassy. I suspect that if Mindszenty didn’t leave the US Embassy, it’s either because he didn’t want to (i.e., it better served his political purposes to remain sequestered in Budapest than to flee the country); because the embassy didn’t have a garage or driveway on its property, thus exposing him to arrest as he travelled from the embassy door to a waiting car on the street; or because he didn’t trust the Hungarian authorities to honour the Vienna Convention.
Importantly, the use of force by the SAS had been approved by the Iranian government. I doubt the Libyans would have given similar approval for their embassy to be stormed after Yvonne Fletcher was shot.
