Timeline for Can withdrawing asylum be illegal?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:20 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 16, 2019 at 9:37 | comment | added | Caleth | @user21878 UK police were invited in and removed him. He didn't leave voluntarily. | |
| Apr 12, 2019 at 16:14 | comment | added | Bakuriu | @immibis Whatever they do is not expelling Assange from their territory. They are moving him from one point in the UK territory to an other point in the UK territory. | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 21:45 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | @Bakuriu What exactly do you suppose would happen if Assange refused to leave the embassy? | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 21:13 | comment | added | alephzero | Regardless of the territorial issue, according to bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47891737 the Ecuadorian president accuses Assange of "blocking security cameras at the embassy, accessing security files and confronting guards" which would imply that "grounds of national security or public order" are relevant. | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 18:01 | comment | added | phoog | @origimbo Hm. I suppose that's not surprising, except perhaps that I suspect it may have been illegal under Ecuadorian law. But still he was clearly not a 1951 convention refugee during the time that he was both an Ecuadorian citizen and enjoying the protection of Ecuador, and it is doubtful that he ever was. | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 17:55 | comment | added | origimbo | @phoog His Ecuadorian citizenship was allegedly revoked at the same time he was handed over. This would seem to leave him as only Australian. | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 17:45 | comment | added | phoog | Apparently, the refugee convention also does not apply because he is an Ecuadorian citizen. | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 17:34 | comment | added | phoog | Origimbo: of course. Assange's team can claim whatever it wants. But on its face, the refugee convention did not govern Assange's relationship with Ecuador. He was the beneficiary of their entirely unilateral decision to protect him. If he is truly entitled to protection as a refugee (which seems doubtful -- is he avoiding his country of nationality because of fear of persecution?) then he can claim that protection from the UK, another party to the convention. If his extradition to the US or Sweden would be unlawful, he can fight it in the UK courts. | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 16:42 | comment | added | Bakuriu | @RedGrittyBrick Exactly. IMHO both articles explicitly mention the fact that they cannot expel the person from their territory. But Assange was never in Ecuador's territory. There is a difference between terminating the asylum (i.e. we will stop ignoring other countries request and protecting you from them) from expelling, i.e. physically moving the person outside the country territory. Ecuador terminated the asylum, it did not expel Assange. | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 15:20 | comment | added | RedGrittyBrick | @origimbo: Can Ecuador expel someone from the UK into the UK? Also, 33.1 says "to the frontiers" -- In this case no frontiers are involved. | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 15:19 | comment | added | origimbo | @RedGrittyBrick I don't think that would stop Assange's team claiming that Ecuador were contravening Article 33 by placing him in British hands. however the original question addressed a slightly more general case. | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 15:18 | comment | added | RedGrittyBrick | See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission#Extraterritoriality | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 15:16 | comment | added | RedGrittyBrick | The grounds of an embassy remain the territory of the host nation. Albeit, under the Vienna convention, a part that the host nation may not enter without invitation. For example: US embassies are not US territory "As a matter of international law, an embassy is not ''territory'' of the sending state; it is territory of the receiving state that is accorded, through various treaties and customs, some immunities from host- country law." -- Assange was in UK territory, not in Ecuadorian territory. | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 15:01 | comment | added | origimbo | @JJJ Indeed, and it would be entirely understandable for the Assange side of the argument to claim he was there lawfully, while the embassy staff disagree. | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 14:57 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | In case of the first article, the keyword seems to be lawfully. | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 14:55 | history | answered | origimbo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |