Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
An internal US inspection report released this summer criticized the US ambassador to the UAE, HE Michael Corbin, for misusing parts of his diplomatic privileges. Not only in the UAE the granting of diplomatic privileges and immunities is a controversially debated topic. In the public eye diplomats seem to enjoy traditional prerogatives enabling them to float above the law. In the light of abuses of diplomatic immunities such as parking, speeding or even more serious crimes such as drug and people trafficking the upcoming Monday night speaker lecture will raise the question why states grant diplomatic immunities. In order to create a basic understanding the lecture will analyze the historical evolution of legal doctrines underlying the concession of diplomatic privileges and immunities. Diplomatic law governing the inviolability of permanent mission premises and immunities of their staff are regulated in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR). We will look at the codification history of the VCDR and discuss cases of abuses of diplomatic immunities in order to get a feel for the link between legal theory and diplomatic practice to deepen our understanding of the benefits of such long-standing diplomatic practice.
Diplomatic Immunity has strong reason for its existence principally, that of guaranteeing the freedom and independence of diplomats in order to permit them to carry out their functions without risk of undue pressure by receiving States. However since privileges and immunities form an evident exception to general rules of accountability within national and international law, diplomats are able to turn immunity into impunity. Therefore, abuse of diplomatic immunity has often led governments, legal authors and the general public to question its very existence. This thesis discusses how immunity in itself fails to explain why certain diplomats abuse their immunity whilst others do not. The reasons behind abuse are several and include culture, norms, corruption in one’s home country, the country’s attitude towards the host state, the international political atmosphere, duration of tenure and the willingness to commit abuse by the diplomat. Such reasons for abuse make immunity the common principal object but not the only one. Effectiveness of remedies is greatly impacted by factors such as political relations, trade and reciprocity, which factors supersede the desire to attain justice. The greatest obstacle when dealing with proposed remedies and emerging trends, is usually political consensus. However, any change to the current immunity assumes that the diplomat no longer requires the current immunity. The need to protected freedom and independence of diplomats in order to permit them to carry out their functions without risk of undue pressure by receiving States is still very real, just as abuse is. This makes any changes unlikely since it is in no State’s interests to leave its diplomats insufficiently protected. Interfering with absolute immunity risks weakening protection provided therefrom, risking the ability of diplomats to perform their functions and cancelling out the intent of diplomacy. Key words: Diplomatic Immunity, Abuse, Hierarchy of Norms, Remedies, Effectiveness
The Evolution Of The Vienna Convention On Diplomatic Relations And Consular THE EVOLUTION OF THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS AND CONSULAR
The Evolution Of The Vienna Convention On Diplomatic Relations And Consular THE EVOLUTION OF THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS AND CONSULAR2020 •
This paper examines the growth and evolution of the principle of diplomatic/consular immunity in international law with focus on the Vienna Convention of 1961 which has comprehensively codified the principle. The paper found that the immunity granted to Diplomats under the 1961 Vienna Convention has severally been abused by the diplomatic communities to the detriment of the citizens of the host countries. The immunities against prosecution granted by the Convention to Diplomats to facilitate the performance of their diplomatic functions are being abused by the diplomats who invoke the immunities as a shieldfor their personal brushes with the law of the host communities The paper makes some useful suggestions as to how to curb the abuses in view of the wide acceptance by the global community of the principles of diplomatic immunity enshrined in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic and Consular Relations.
2016 •
An attempt is made to compare the immunities and privileges accorded to diplomatic agents and consular agents under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 respectively. Also considered is the Nigerian counterpart found in Cap D9 of the Laws of the Federation, 2004.
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the MA Degree in European Politics and Culture, Keele University
This essay provides an insight into the history of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations - VCDR, taking special focus on the key aims of the framers of the convention, and the justification of the diplomatic immunity and privileges. The essay then analyzes the impact of the convention on protection of diplomats, regulation of diplomatic conduct between states, and effects on diplomatic immunity. The essay while not discounting the value of the entire 53 articles of the convention focusses mainly on four key articles, to pave way for a detailed analysis of the articles as they relate to modern day diplomacy and legal and justice procedures.
DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY OR DIPLOMATIC IMPUNITY? ABSTRACT Diplomatic immunity is the legitimate excuse that could exempt any individual from civil or criminal legal prosecution or proceedings despite any offense that they have committed. It is established as a customary diplomatic law of international law. . As formerly mentioned, from the moment a foreign diplomat has invoked its diplomatic immunity, the foreign office or receiving state shall recognize such immunity through their exemption from any administrative, civil and criminal proceedings - provided of course that the offense invoked with immunity has been corroborated to have been committed during the performance or execution of their function as diplomats. However, during the past decade, evidence of petty or minor offenses such as failure to pay parking tickets, non-compliance to traffic regulations, and of serious or major offenses such as rape, murder, and even slavery has accumulated - bringing to our attention the abuse of this immunity. Diplomatic immunity as the sincere manifestation of the international law is in fact capable of turning into a compromising and threatening impunity. And this is where this study shall focus on. This study shall first, provide the roots and background of diplomatic immunity in the history of international relations and affairs. Pertinent international laws and conventions that shall effectively determine and describe the nature and limitations of diplomatic immunity will be included. The objective is to account for the different kinds of offenses or crimes that some diplomats committed in the country and cite cases wherein immunity was recognized or not. Furthermore, this study also aims to problematize through the different cases or court decisions, the manner in drawing the line between minor and major offenses that can be invoked with diplomatic immunity, to deduce the existence or prevalence of impunity especially in instances wherein the grant of immunity supersedes not only the respect for the domestic law but the protection of human rights. And as the last part of this study, it is of great significance to determine the availability of judicial remedies that are the sole agents in the guarantee of the protection of human rights that highly matter in times when diplomatic immunity turns out to be a form of impunity.
International Journal of Social Sciences
The Privileges and Immunities of Diplomatic Envoys Under International Law2020 •
The concept of diplomatic immunity is an ancient idea based on a mutual understanding between different societies. The idea that a society could send a person on their behalf to negotiate and argue for their cause has been a vital tool in the history of international relations. Since the beginning of civilization, states have recognized and upheld the sanctity of ambassadors, especially as regards the personal freedom and safety of envoys. Although there have been tremendous changes in the way nations interact with each other, the basic functions of diplomacy and their machinery have not changed. Indeed, the central features of diplomatic institutions have survived the fundamental shifts in the order and structure of international politics such as the surge of nationalism and democracy and the incorporation of non-European countries in the international system. Although the notion of diplomatic immunity has been continually adhered to by nations predating the codification of diplomatic law, increased globalization and inter-dependency between states has led to the development of customary International Law which has subsequently been codified to ensure that diplomatic immunity is held sacred till the end of times. In an attempt to properly understand and appreciate the broader concept of International Law, some of the most important privileges and immunities being enjoyed by diplomatic envoys are highlighted and discussed in this work. Keywords: Immunity, International Law, The Vienna Convention, Inviolability.
By exploring the theoretical basis of diplomatic privileges and immunities, including the absolute inviolability of diplomatic means of transport, this paper will help understand the link between diplomatic theory and practice. Diplomatic privileges and immunities were largely codified at the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR). An analysis of the background to the negotiations of the 1961 VCDR will show that while diplomatic prerogatives have a clear theoretical basis, theory was secondary during the negotiation process. Being based mainly on functional necessity, and partly on the representative character theory, the theoretical approach has been applied inconsistently throughout the convention. Finally, this paper will show that the extension of absolute inviolability of mission premises to means of transport was a last minute proposal and eventually slipped through due to time constraints at the end of the 1961 Vienna Conference.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
2019 •
Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journal of International Law and Jurisprudence
AN APPRAISAL OF THE DIPLOMATIC FACE-OFF BETWEEN NIGERIA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM IN 19762020 •
Cameroon Tribune and the Guardian Post
ATTACKS ON CAMEROON’S EMBASSIES ABROAD: REFLECTIONS ON THE PRINCIPLE OF INVIOLABILITY OF DIPLOMATIC PREMISES2019 •