Why do diplomats get diplomatic immunity....?

Sam

Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity and a policy held between governments, which ensures that diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws (although they can be expelled). It was agreed as international law in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), though the concept and custom have a much longer history. Many principles of diplomatic immunity are now considered to be customary law. Diplomatic immunity as an institution developed to allow for the maintenance of government relations, including during periods of difficulties and even armed conflict. When receiving diplomatsâ€”formally, representatives of the sovereign (head of state)â€”the receiving head of state grants certain privileges and immunities to ensure that they may effectively carry out their duties, on the understanding that these will be provided on a reciprocal basis.

El Scott

The theory of diplomatic immunity is to protect a country's diplomats from being arrested on bogus charges and effectively turning them into hostages of a foreign power.

If a diplomat breaks a serious law then the host country may order him/her out of the country. The diplomat could theoretically be charged with a crime but it would require some political dog and pony work. I'm not to up on diplomatic stuff, it is pretty rare to run into something like that outside of DC or NY. I have never had any sort of run in with one. Most of your foreign diplomats are probably not going to be running around openly breaking laws. They're diplomats and even if they aren't decent people they are probably going to at least play nice when in a host country for political reasons.

hochi1942

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations gives diplomats the protection they have. While they can get away with minor violations they can be jailed for serious crimes such as murder only if his/her country waives diplomatic immunity and only then can he/she be charged.

and the Royal family should have diplomatic immunity

jsmack19

Diplomatic immunity is the only 'real' international law. Diplomatic immunity goes back thousands of years.
Diplomatic immunity is determined by customary international law, generally, although I have argued, sometimes successfully that diplomatic immunity is not always automatic.

There was a case once that a French diplomat tried to kill an English King, and he was not even prosecuted, he was considered persona non gratis and sent back to France, because he was a diplomat.

Prince Charles and his sons, acting as agents of the Queen, not Parliament would be considered under Sovereign Immunity rather than Diplomatic Immunity.

While at one point they were able to get away with anything, the biggest problem now is parking tickets, seriously, to the point where Egypt owes NYC more than $12 million in fines. But generally diplomatic immunity can even excuse murder to a point, but that individual can be charged in their home country with the crime they are charged with in the State where they are stationed.

My expertise happens to be in Diplomatic law, so e-mail me if you want more information.

Lexie

I would assume, as well, that the diplomat's home country could probably prosecute them for offenses committed while in foreign service. Just guessing, but I'd be surprised if the U.S. wouldn't be able to prosecute one of our embassy service for a crime committed overseas.

krollohare2

Diplomatic immunity is a doctrine of international law that assures safe passage for legitimate government envoys and representatives. This way employees of one government will not be jailed on trumped up charges for political purposes.

The immunity is not always absolute. Serious crimes committed by diplomats or their agents would likely result in waiver of the immunity.

Therefore if someone under diplomatic immunity commits murder in a foreign country, and its rather obvious that there's sufficient probable cause, the country whom the diplomat or agent works for would be compelled to waive immunity and probably extradite him or her to face charges in the host country.

However, even though immunity is not absolute, it is very strong and so there would be an intense or enormous amount of wrangling going on behind the scenes to get the waiver.

Finally, its unlikely that once a diplomat or agency employee retires that the immunity would last. He or she could still be arrested in the host country if they ever re-emerge there, or they could be extradited long after the crime has been committed.

Therefore, its not absolute.

As far as Prince Charles, that is a different immunity. The doctrine of sovereign immunity includes immunity of heads of state from prosecution except upon consent or if the crimes are intentionally directed to the people as opposed to a person of a specific nation.

It is arguable that Gen. Manuel Noriega had sovereign immunity for his drug smuggling operations, but since he was captured during a war, he was held as a prisoner of war and tried for crimes against the people of the US as opposed to any one person. His prosecution in my opinion violated international law, but then again, Panama did not object to his prosecution therefore immunity was probably waived by consent.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: