You threaten to toss them out of the country until they pay up. You charge them the added money when you send them the bill for the rent. Etc. :rolleyes:
Hey, come on, now, it wasn’t that ridiculous – Snopes says it was “ambassador of soul,” not “ambassador of funk.” <snicker>
From the original article:
Do these rights belong unilaterally to the home country? Can a diplomat waive his immunity even if his home country doesn’t want him to?
I remember an episode of Columbo years ago, where a diplomat had killed somebody. Columbo naturally solved the case but realized he couldn’t bring the killer to justice because he was protected by diplomatic immunity. So he tricked the killer into admitting his crime to Columbo, then he brought out the ruler of the home country who had been secretly listening to the confession of the crime and said he would now bring the diplomat back home where he would be executed. The diplomat waived his immunity and turned himself over to Columbo, figuring that imprisonment in America was better than getting beheaded.
But could the ruler have said, “No, you don’t get to waive your immunity. You have to come home and face our justice.”?
I was just thinking - I know the chances are slim anybody’s going to be upset by finding out the ending of a thirty year old TV episode, but if any mods want to put a spoiler on that last post, feel free.
Should we retitle this thread? It has definitely shifted from a specific question about UN HQ to a more general discussion of diplomatic immunity.
Little Nemo according to the VCDR, the waiver must come from the sending state, and must be express. Art. 32(1-2). There is a provision that permits a diplomatic agent to waive immunity, but it is very limited and applies only to civil suits:
*Id. *, Art. 32(3). Therefore, under the canon of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, it is unlikely that the diplomat would be permitted to waive immunity in such a case.
And see, Valerie Epps, International Law 130 (3d. ed. 2005) (sending state decides whether waiver is appropriate).
Did you see the recent CSI: Miami where:
Horatio figures out that the bad guy, a diplomat’s son, is the product of an affair. Horatio says that that means that the Ambassador can waive the guy’s immunity, which he does. I’m not sure how this follows from the VCDR. A diplomat’s family has immunity. I suppose this is because the diplomat can then claim that the son is not his “family.” And the bad guy was still the son of the wife of the diplomat, so it would raise a complicated question about the definition of family. But why would the diplomat be permitted to make that decision? The facts were clear. It ought to be a legal decision. Or maybe it was because as non-family, the bad guy’s only claim to diplomatic immunity was as a staff member. If the diplomat terminated him, he would lose his immunity. Hmmmmmm.
BTW, while I was trying to figure this one out, I came across this: Only governments—not individuals—can waive diplomatic immunity. The sending nation, in effect, owns these privileges and immunities.
I don’t altogether see the logic of applying expressio unius est exclusio alterius in this case; the statute does not specify a case in which immunity may be waived, but rather a case in which it is necessarily waived.
The Convention expresses all of the conditions under which immunity may be waived. It does not say that the diplomat can waive his own immunity. And you are correct, the only condition where the diplomat waives his own immunity is where he sues somebody in US court (and then the waiver only extends to counterclaims). If a broader rule permitting waiver were intended, it should be in Article 32. It is not there.
For those interested, the CSI: Miami episode was called Identity (major spoilers).
The summary refreshes my recollection that Horatio’s claim does not make sense..
Well, I am shocked - shocked I tell you - to discover the stories on TV shows might not be completely factual.
Oh yeah, and there’s this, from the preamble to the VCDR:
Just in case there were any lingering doubts.
[minor quibble] It’s not a statute; it’s a treaty. See, http://whc.unesco.org/wg-repcom/legal-comments150300.htm (applying expressio unius to treaty)[/minor quibble]