Talk:Diplomatic immunity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Miscellaneous topics
If a person with diplomatic immunity is in the presence of police, who have verified that the person does have immunity, begins shooting people in the head, the police can do nothing to stop the person?
So, if a person who has been granted diplomatic immunity is in fact doing acts of crime that the "avarage American" would be placed into custody for doing, are they immune to arrest?
Yes, that seems to be the case. About the contents of the page itself, can anyone provide a rationale for diplomatic immunity? Perhaps a history of controversial incidents, or a link to a reference covering same?
There should probably be a link/reference to Yvonne Fletcher, the police officer shot by a libyan diplomat. Djbrianuk 14:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Another example would be the case of a Russian diplomat in Canada a few years back who killed a woman while driving drunk. I don't remember his name or much about the case but I know he was never convicted due to his status (and presumably was never charged), however he was recalled to Russia where he faced criminal charges.
I believe that this proves bona fide on the Russian part in this case, if the trial was indeed fair. The conditions in Russian penal system are at least as bad as in Canada. I might have chosen to waive my immunity and submit to Canadan jurisdiction. --81.197.79.13 7 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
I have to agree with the request to explain the rationale behing diplomatic immunity. While I am sure there is one (the idea could not have survived otherwise), I'm not sure what it is. And this was the precise reason I came to this article... my first thought after finishing my read was "Wait... but what is the purpose?" MrHumperdink 17:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have added the rationale and a few, admittedly somewhat rusty, historic examples of violations of diplomatic immunity. The way I formulated the modern rationale may be seen as a POW, but it should be noted that there is a number of country pairs, the inhabitants of which do not trust the legal systems of the other country. I am quite sure that every reader can find an example concerning his own native land, but I used the US and China as counterparts, as they are superpowers with widely differing political systems. Iran was mentioned to keep the article more evenly-handed: when you mention one rival, it is wise to mention also a second, so the article does not advocate distrust towards any particular country. And yes, there most likely are Chinese and Iranian persons who would not trust the impartiality of an American court, although we would.
There is no actual need to discuss diplomatic immunity in different countries. The main system is a part of international system, codified in Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961. Single nations cannot change the rules freely. --81.197.79.13 7 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
[edit] Slave maids
I have remembrances of African diplomats being accused of having young girls from their countries working at their homes as almost-slaves. --Error 00:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
hey people there is a mistake. it was not the Athenians who killed the persian diplomats. The Athenians refused the "soil and water" offer and instead killed the translator who was Greek and gave the language to the barbarians. it was the Spartans who killed them in the well. They did so because the well, as they said, had plenty of water and soil since it was muddy. Please change it!
[edit] Officers
These immunities also cover some other officers, don't they? I think that senator-for-life Augusto Pinochet visited Britain with a diplomatic passport. --Error 00:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's totally up to the originating country. In that example, if Chile wants to have Pinochet travel with a diplomatic passport they can. As a senator he has parliamentary immunity so maybe he's entitled to an official (or diplomatic) passport when he travels abroad. Technically, a diplomat should be registered in the state in which he/she is accredited but if one only has an diplomatic passport as a means of identification, the police won't check the official status in the "welcoming" country unless they have serious reasons to do it. Also keep in mind that Pinochet is wanted in many countries, so he might have pulled some strings to get a diplomatic passport so he wasn't arrested while on vacation or whatever he was doing. Bobsky 15:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] United States
What is the significance of diplomatic immunity in the United States? Why does it warrant a whole section (about a third of the entire article) to itself?
[edit] Talio
If an immune diplomat murders a close relative of mine and he does not face propoportional prosecution neither here, nor in his home country and so I go after him and take blood revenge on him or hire a hitman to kill him, what would happen to me in different countries? If I am an american, briton or frenchman or japanese, would my home country courts acquit me and porotect me or convict me and extradite me?
Since my country did not act to prosecute murder, which is a crime under natural law, not just human law, the rights which me and every other citizen gave to the country under the social contract now fly back to me and thus I have the right to excercise eye for eye, teeth for teeth under natural law, because that form of original justice has been around long ago before any organized human civilization was established. 195.70.32.136 13:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Re-wording
- In modern times, the outbreak of nationalism and egalitarianism has made it difficult for the common man to understand, why some persons should be immune to local jurisdiction. If they are enemy, should they not be interned? If they commit crimes, should they not be prosecuted as everyone else? Such ideas, common though they are, disregard cultural differences and deep distrust between some governments. Would any American, for example, think that an American diplomat in PRC China or in Iran (where U.S. does not currently have standing diplomatic representation) would receive a fair trial if they are charged with say, murder? Most likely, neither would a Chinese communist or an Iranian mullah believe that their diplomats would be fairly tried by an American jury, especially if relations between the countries were undergoing a crisis. With such profound mutual distrust, diplomatic immunity provides a means, albeit imperfect, to safeguard diplomatic personnel.
I think this paragraph could do with a re-wording? -- Blorg 10:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Abuses: Brazilean ambassador's son in Helsinki/Russia's illegal prostitution services
Would anyone have any info on this? A couple of years ago the son of the Brazilean ambassador drove around Helsinki, drunk, crashed into cars, etc. He was finally "trapped" by two police cars getting in front and behind him, and later expelled from the country. After some time, he returned (with a false ID?) and made even more of a mess. Would anyone happen to have a news source for this, or have more accurate info? I don't want to put it on myself since I might not remember the facts right.
A good example of diplomatic staff seriously breaking the local law would be the scandal in which some staff of the Russian embassy operated a brothel in Helsinki some years ago. I think some of the diplomatic staff were expelled from the country, and would face trial if they returned. AFAIK they were also fired from their jobs in the Russian administration. Anyone got sources on this?--85.49.234.240 23:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Conversational addition from 193.216.88.208
- Moved from article GreenReaper 23:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
If you have diplomatic immunity, then you shall feel safe in another country. What you say about waiving diplomatic immunity sounds strange and somewhat meaningsless. The strongest reaction according to my understand is the fact that the person in question can be expelled. Of course, diplomatic immunity does not defend planning about terrorism etc. What happens in the daily life of possible criminality I will assume will be under cover of the diplomatic immunity, for instance violating traffic regulation and defending yourself with somewhat unnecessary force. And if the criminality takes place within a diplomatic area then it should be out of question to waive diplomatic immunity. Planned murders are in the grey-zone, but when do such things happen at all ? I have never heard about them. You know, in some countries there are very hard punishment for criminality that are regarded as minor in the Western World. In a way, it should be impossible to waive diplomatic immunity. If a state can do this, then you have no secure immunity and must consider not to be in that state at all.
Besides, ministers and other persons that represent the top state bodies also have diplomatic immunity passports. And this passport is the one to be used when they have their holidays abroad or when they live abroad. Thereby you may say that diplomatic immunity is a matter of fact concerning the private life. Then diplomatic immunity in a broader sense makes it possible for highnesses to live in another country than their own. In this connection there is no other diplomatic mission than the fact that the persons in question are highnesses in their own countries and need diplomatic immunity to live abroad. This can for instance be a matter of fact when a Crown Prince study abroad for some years or settle for some years in another country to get work experience. Another example is when a Princess move to another country to live there for life. Highnesses in a broader sense may be admitted diplomatic immunity, for instance noble men and women and other persons that the state wants to give diplomatic immunity. There may be a problem concerning who shall get diplomatic immunity concerning a diplomatic family abroad. Here it most likely will be considered the people that are connected to a special family and not another family (for instance children of a child to the one that is admitted diplomatic immunity). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.216.88.208 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Family Guy and Lethal Weapon II
The "citation needed" tags on these two points in the "In Popular Culture" section are not needed. Either watching the episode/film in question or even just looking on the entry here is enough to verify the facts.
[edit] Still puzzled as to the rationale for diplomatic immunity
Can anybody provide a more explicit explanation of why DI is a good thing? At present the article says
"the receiving head of state grants certain privileges and immunities to ensure that they may effectively carry out their duties"
The implication is that diplomats sometimes need to violate the laws of the host country in order to effectively carry out their duties. Otherwise there would be no need for DI.
So some examples of cases where DI was *justifiably* claimed would be really useful.
Macboff 14:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The implication is not that laws need to be violated, but that the receiving country may be tempted to allege/invent violations and use enforcement powers to intimidate, harass or otherwise threaten representatives of the sending country.
You will, for the most part, rarely hear of the cases where it was justifiably claimed. Immunity protects diplomats in foreign countries from being (unjustifiably) hassled, charged with non-existent crimes, etc. Examples:
- Diplomat A is based in country B, which has a dispute over expropriation of oil assets from country A. Dip A is charged with theft of (unrelated) property and placed in jail until Country A decides to play along and allow B to "purchase" the assets at a reasonable price and without too much fuss.
- Diplomat B is based in country C. Country B is at war (sorry, enforcing freedom) in Country D. Individuals in Country C decide to sue (in civil court) all representatives of Country B with genocide, war crimes, organizing rape camps, and flagrant jaywalking. Given the severity of the charges, and the size of potential settlements if the case is successful, a court authorizes the seizure of the diplomats' passports and all personal property as a precautionary measure.
- Frequent: Dip X is stopped for (allegedly) speeding. Police officer refuses to write a ticket, requesting it be resolved "some other way." Refusal may result in seizure of license, registration, vehicle, etc.
Is this more clear? With immunity, none of these cases should be possible (at least in theory). While drawing the line between "real" crimes/misdemeanours and "political" ones sounds like it's easy, that has not (historically) been the case.
The objection that is frequently heard to this is that "Country Z" would never allow that sort of abuse, the legal/police system would not allow it. Two issues with this: 1) what country will admit that their legal system is the problem? Immunity allows everyone a face-saving solution that they are equally messed up; and 2) Historically, every state has misused its powers when its own interests (or the interests of those in power or wielding the power) are at stake. Feel free to choose which of these explanations you prefer.--Gregalton 15:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Case
If a diplomat rapes someone and then kills them, could they get jailed? ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 18:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
