Diplomatic Immunity
INTRODUCTION
United Kingdom, 1982
While unloading the ship which carried the embassy's materials, one box marked
"household effects" dropped from a forklift. More than six hundred pounds of marijuana worth 500,000 British pounds (1982 prices) spilled dockside.
For centuries governments have used ambassadors, and diplomats to represent their nation. These special envoys have done everything from resolving years of conflict, deciding on how much humanitarian relief will be sent to a nation, or just being present at diplomatic dinners and ceremonies. These people have been the vital link between nations, and they have enjoyed complete immunity from the law of the host nation. Originally this immunity was extended as a courtesy to allow for an uneventful stay in the host country. While in a foreign country on official business, the diplomat would be granted exemption from arrest or detention by local authorities; their actions not subject to civil or criminal law. For the longest time this privilege produced little or no incidents.
However, this unique position of freedom that diplomats, their family, and staff have been graced with has not been so ideal. Recently the occurrences of abuse for personal or national gain has grown out of proportion. What once protected the diplomat and his staff from parking tickets and some differing social laws, now grants them protection under the law to commit crimes such as drug trafficking, kidnapping, rape, and murder. Even though serious crimes are rare and punishable to various extents in most countries, domestic authorities were forced to look the other way. While it would be convenient to believe that the six hundred pounds of marijuana was sent for personal consumption at the embassy, it is evident a small drug trafficking ring was being protected under the guise of diplomatic immunity.
HISTORY/DESCRIPTION
The international community has tried to develop a universally accepted set of norms governing the conduct and privileges of diplomats abroad. These few
Articles from the convention show the good faith of the convention:
Article 29: Diplomats are inviolable; exempt from any arrest/detention.
Article 31: Diplomats are exempt from criminal jurisdiction, they can be tried only if immunity is waived.
Article 32: Only the sending country can waive immunity
Article 41: Diplomats should still respect the laws and regulations of the host state. Baring few changes, the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations remains the basis for interaction between states. This convention tackles the problem by dividing the privileges of immunity into four classes. The diplomat and his family enjoy "complete" immunity. They cannot be arrested, detained or taxed.
They do not fall into the realm of jurisdiction of the host country.
Many others don’t"(KS). If people feel resentment, betrayed and humiliated, I believe they
In conclusion one can see that their convictions closes their eyes to the facts present.
Power will dependably demand that they are correct, individuals in positions of force never concede that they are in the wrong. They don't care for their followers to witness their own short comings. In the event that they do, they could have contemplations
sees that it is a farce and refuse to cooperate for the rest of the
and that if what they were doing were so right why feel so threatened about
... they put their trust in him and supported him; they unknowingly took part in a heinous set of event; he manipulated them from the beginning.
Despite this evidence and without due process of law, over 120,000 were forced from thei...
...themselves interrogating. Often, people who are in such situations are trained and prepared to withstand the pain. This results in the inability to acquire any or little factual and useful information.
In addition to spending more on the actual education and university fees, the international students also have to spend on boarding and food. Finding a place to stay that is conveniently near to the university and other places of interaction, is affordable, accepts immigrants, and suits the basic requirements - is hard, sometimes impossible. A compromise on at least one criterion of the above is required to sustain in the new country.
International law has been regarded throughout history as the main system of rules regulating players of the international community, it applies to all states and imposes specific obligations and rights on nations, just as domestic law imposes them on individuals. Its purpose is similar to that of domestic law that is to eliminate chaos in the International community and set standards of behavior which states must follow in their dealings with each other.
Public International law International law contains of rules and principles, which preside over the relations and communication of nations with each other. International Law that is in most other countries referred to as Public International Law concerns itself only with questions of rights among more than a few nations or nations and the citizens or subjects of other nations. In dissimilarity, Private International Law deals with controversies among confidential persons, natural or juridical, arising out of situations having important association to further than one nation. In current years the line up connecting public and private international law have became more and more doubtful. Issues of private international law may also associate issues of public international law and numerous matters of private international law nave considerable meaning for the international group of people of nations. International Law consists of the basic, classic concepts of law in nationwide legal systems, status, property, responsibility, and tort. It also includes substantive law, procedure, process and remedies. International Law is rooted in receipt by the nation states, which comprise the system. Customary law and conventional law are primary sources of international law. Customary international law results when states trail convinced practices usually and time after time out of an intelligence of legal responsibility. Lately the customary law was codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Conventional international law derives from international agreements and may obtain any appearance that the constricting parties have the same opinion upon. Agreements may be complete in admiration to any substance except for to the leve...
through being accused of being behind the whole thing . How much worse could it
The International Criminal Court (ICC), located in The Hague, is the court of last resort for prosecution of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Its founding treaty, the Rome Statute, entered into force on July 1, 2002. Over the last decade the court has made significant headway in putting international justice on the map. As of June 2015, the ICC had 123 states parties, had opened investigations in eight countries, and had issued three verdicts. But while the ICC is now responsible for international criminal accountability, its daunting mandate and world-wide reach have made the its flaws more visible. The court and its member countries face major challenges in meeting expanded expectations for the court in its second decade.
The Lotus case garners attention due to the fact that it was among the first cases dealing with whether jurisdiction was assumed in accordance with principles of international law. While the Lotus case was heard in the context of criminal jurisdiction over a collision in the high seas, the Lotus principle has been applied in a variety of other cases in varying contexts. For this reason, the judgment of the Permanent Court of International Justice is critiqued for specifically answering only the question in the special agreement as the continued application of the Lotus Principle as a general principle in other contexts such as anti-trust regulations may lead to ambiguous results.
International negotiations may comprise a number of different channels during a peace process. Negotiations between states may take place in public front channels or they may be veiled to maintain secrecy of the bargaining process. This essay will look at the later and examine whether the beneficial effects of secret diplomacy can also yield negative consequences. This essay will be divided into three sections. The first section will define secret diplomacy, referred to as back channel diplomacy (BCD), and outline some of its characteristics. The discussion will outline why parties use BCD and convey the benefits and disadvantages. The second section will outline the function of BCD in two negotiation case studies. The first will look at Israel and Palestinian negotiations leading up to the Oslo Accords in 1993. The second case study will examine British negotiations with the IRA and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland leading up to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. The third and final section will evaluate the use of BCD in both cases and convey some lessons for policymakers. This essay argues that whilst BCD can be helpful in facilitating a peace process, it can be damaging if it is not managed with front channel diplomacy (FCD).