Here’s a thing I’m wondering: if you don’t want diplomatic immunity in this case, you can’t possibly agree with diplomatic immunity at all between the US and the UK, can you? I mean this seems rather likely a case of a foreigner fucking up because she is unused to the host country rules. If this case doesn’t qualify, I’m having a hard time coming up with one that does.
She wasn’t just “fucking up because she is unused to the host country rules”; she was undertaking a specific optional activity (driving) that requires care and attention, and at best wasn’t exercising that care and attention. Merely being unused to a host country’s rules might be something like walking in public without a suitable male escort, in countries where women are not allowed to do that.
The original point of diplomatic immunity was to insure that diplomats were not subjected to harassment and indignities merely because they were foreigners, or the two governments were currently hostile. For example, if the US and UK were having a significant diplomatic tussle (something like a modern version of the Alabama claims, e.g.), the US would not attempt to arrest the UK’s ambassador or staff as a way to exert pressure on Her Majesty’s government.
People fuck up all the time and get punished for it. Just one too many drinks at dinner, didn’t see the red light changing, should have asked what is in the bag before taking it on the airplane…
I’m curious where you get this idea that diplomatic immunity is intended for do-overs in cases where a special foreigner isn’t used to local customs. That’s wrong. Diplomatic immunity was invented to prevent the harassment of envoys by the host nation in order to facilitate the important business of diplomacy. The reason that diplomatic immunity is a general privilege, and not only limited to certain types of misconduct, is that if there were exceptions to diplomatic immunity that the host nation could exercise, then host nations would simply harass diplomats over those sorts of issues.
Unless you misstated what you’re trying to say, I can’t conceive of a situation that is MORE apt to have diplomatic immunity waived: it’s a case between the two closest of allies; the host nation has a robust and well-functioning justice system; the facts are not in dispute; the misconduct was not authorized by the sending state; and an innocent person was literally killed.
That’s a really quite blatant false dichotomy fallacy. A reasonable summary of the purpose of diplomatic immunity can be found here:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/importance-diplomatic-immunity
As already cited above, the US has been perfectly happy to request immunity be rescinded when they feel justice requires it. Your suggestion that is either an absolute defence or serves no purpose at all is quite clearly incorrect.
Any chance at all of you commenting on the US requesting the immunity of Georgia’s diplomat be rescinded for a vehicular homicide.
Let’s be honest though, the US has previous for double standards here. They were happy to refuse handing over VanGoethem to Romania for drink driving, but then demanded Georgia hand over Makharadze. Apparently when other nations request it, it’s an unwarranted demand for vengeance…but when the USA requests it it’s a totally legitimate need for justice.
Without weighing in on the merits of a particular case, but I think there is a substantive difference between a country (any country) not seeking to waive immunity when it comes to one of its officials being tried in a country that has substantial problems with corruption, fair trials, etc.
This, of course, might not be a two way street depending on the countries involved: a Belgian diplomat could hardly be assured a fair trial in, say, Iraq; but it’s reasonable that an Iraqi diplomat could have a fair trial in Belgium. Sometimes applying a fair standard does not result in reciprocal answers.
This to me highlights the senselessness of the U.S. not waiving immunity for a trial in Britain. There’s nothing wrong whatsoever with the U.K.'s judicial independence and process.
It’s not a false dichotomy, I’m asking how you can agree with diplomatic immunity, between the UK and the US, at all if this case doesn’t qualify. I’m not talking Saudi Arabia.
Qualify for what?
Yes it is a false dichotomy. It’s the Vienna convention. You don’t just get to ratify it for the countries you want to. You either agree to it’s principles, or you don’t sign up to it.
Well, of course it qualifies, but it is the sort of case where the US could reasonably waive immunity. There is zero reason to believe that the charges were filed for the purpose of harassing the diplomat or interfering the the diplomatic function. And if the US had waived immunity up-front, I assume she’d have gotten a fair trial. (I’m less certain now, due to the bizarre-to-me public sentiment surrounding the case.)
You find it bizarre that people would like to see due process followed for a death caused by negligence? You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but I suspect that you’re in a very small minority.
Sure they could. You’re allowed to waive immunity. The US and UK could just make a blanket agreement to waive it in all cases. Would you be in favour of that?
Between close allies and in cases where both parties have functional justice systems, diplomatic immunity doesn’t serve its intended purpose, so what does it do?
Yes, I do not see a problem with such a general agreement, provided that the agreement can be withdrawn if there is a material change in circumstance (one of the relevant justice systems is no longer recognized as affording genuine due process, for example, or the US and UK no longer consider themselves allies).
Diplomatic immunity is part of the process.
You know, I don’t understand the Christian concept that God needed to sacrifice his son because he was somehow unable to just forgive people for “original sin”, too. I’ve heard people ramble on about justice, but it just seems a bizarre limit on an omnipotent God to me. So you may be right.
I don’t think you understand the concept of ‘due process’. It’s a legal term. You could also look up ‘rule of law’ while you are about it.
There couldn’t be a better example of lack of due process than diplomatic immunity.
The convention was established because “[if] diplomats did not have immunity, they would be at constant risk of detention and prosecution on trumped-up charges, especially in countries where the [diplomat’s home country] is unpopular or where the government bows to popular pressure.” It has become established procedure because it serves a valuable, in fact essential, purpose: allowing countries to conduct diplomatic relations even when they are at odds with each other. This is why pretty much every country in the world has signed up to it.
And fortunately it is rare for its protections to be abused, primarily because most nations do not want to have the reputation of being lawless or irresponsible, or have their embassies closed down. However in the event that there is a serious issue, the convention allows for remedial action: “For serious crimes, the [host government] may press the foreign government to waive immunity”, which the foreign government may do so under Article 32.
In short, you’ve got a system that serves an essential purpose, which in the vast majority of cases works exactly as it should, and in the rare occasion there is a problem has a rectification clause. That seems like a pretty good system.
The issue here is the double standard the USA holds for their diplomats versus other countries. Considering this, it seems incredibly unlikely that the US would accept your proposal or if it did that they could be trusted to see it through. The waiver given must be express, which means there’s significant wiggle room over whether you can even give a generic waiver for all staff. In addition:
*
“Waiver of immunity from jurisdiction in respect of civil or administrative proceedings shall not be held to imply waiver of immunity in respect of the execution of the judgment, for which a separate waiver shall be necessary”*
So both sides would have to give two waivers, in advance, which frankly seems incredibly open to challenge at a later date from anyone affected.
So not, I don’t see much reason to support such a proposal. Nor do I see what relevance it has to this particular event, and what a moral country would do in these circumstances.
Correct. It’s part of the process to prevent diplomats from persecution. It is not a universal get out of jail free card, hence “Article 32 1. The immunity from jurisdiction of diplomatic agents and of persons enjoying immunity under Article 37 may be waived by the sending State.”
If you acknowledge that diplomatic immunity is part of the process then you also have to acknowledge so is waiving this in the event of a serious crime, just like the US asked Georgia to do with Makharadze.
Diplomatic immunity is provided for in both statutory and treaty law in all countries. You’re trying to make an absurd point that all these statutes and treaties are illegal, which is of course silly.
Argue that they are bad policy, sure. But you can not argue that these lawfully-enacted laws undermine the rule of law if countries follow the law and expect that to be taken seriously.
‘Legal’ is not the same thing as ‘due process of law’.
‘Due process’, or (if you prefer similar terms) ‘natural justice’, or ‘duty to act fairly’ requires a fair hearing before a court of law. Not an evasion of the normal judicial process.
Diplomatic immunity is certainly fully legal, and enacted in law, and has been so for centuries, but it is a legal exception to due process.