Is there any way an embassy can move a sanctuary seeker to its country?

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@griffin1977

Its been tried.

See post 30.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@carnivorousplant

Indeed, but they need some air holes drilled in that plywood. :dubious:

“Need.” That’s adorable.

[hajario]

@Northern_Piper

You’re assuming they want Julian in Ecuador …

No. The OP specifically addresses that.

[carnivorousplant]

@Elendil_s_Heir

“Need.” That’s adorable.

You’ve lost me there.

[clairobscur]

@Wrenching_Spanners

Also, paragraph 4 of the article:
So putting a fugitive into a diplomatic bag is out.

Not really. There are rules stating what the “diplomatic bag” (which can as well be a crate) can contain, but there is no procedure allowing the host country to verify what there’s actually inside it.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@carnivorousplant

You’ve lost me there.

“Need” implies they want him to be able to breathe.

[Tripler]

@Ravenman

This again is a pervasive misperception. Diplomatic facilities are not in any way the territory of any other nation but the host nation. It is just that facilities are protected by law and treaty from entry, search, arrest, etc.

I was going to respectfully debate this with you, but I needed to refresh my memory on the ‘legalese’.

From Article 22 of the afore-linked Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961

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.
2.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.

. . . and by letter of the law, I think you’re right–nothing creates an enclave. But that whole “invioalable” thing really does lend itself to a zealous Ambassador considering his embassy an extension of his/her home land. I see where this confusion comes from now. . . I wonder if the misperception was propagated by high-level Courts construing the wording of the treaty (SCOTUS, Crown Courts, etc.)

Tripler
Not that I’d want Assange in my country either.

[TokyoBayer]

@Tripler

. . . and by letter of the law, I think you’re right–nothing creates an enclave. But that whole “invioalable” thing really does lend itself to a zealous Ambassador considering his embassy an extension of his/her home land. I see where this confusion comes from now. . . I wonder if the misperception was propagated by high-level Courts construing the wording of the treaty (SCOTUS, Crown Courts, etc.)

My bet would be that because people know that embassies cannot be searched, the public formed a mistaken belief, rather than sloppy wording by high level courts, which tend to be very precise in language.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

The whole “You’re now standing on 2,000 square feet of [insert national adjective here] territory” jive has popped up in a number of movies and TV shows over the years.

[Dead_Cat]

A wonderful fictional treatment of this occurs in Frederick Forsyth’s The Deceiver. It essentially involves spies and diplomats changing disguises in order to fool the KGB. Perfectly plausible that something could have happened that way in real life, at least to the layman (Forsyth’s novels are always impeccably researched).

[Bookkeeper]

@Aspidistra

And I suppose revoking it and shooting him is right out?

Note that as consular officials/employees, neither Rudd nor any of his gang would have been able to claim diplomatic immunity, as their level of immunity only extended to activities in the course of their official consular duties. (That doesn’t mean they couldn’t **try **to claim it, hoping that a dumb cop wouldn’t know any better.)