Timeline for Can withdrawing asylum be illegal?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2019 at 21:04 | comment | added | Damon | @phoog: Ecuador has a surprising amount of very citizen-friendly laws, at least on paper (much better than, say, Germany... on paper at least). There is however no such thing as a "no arrest" right. Had Assange been in Ecuador, then his extradition would have been anticonstitutional according to section VI, article 79. But that was not the case. He was arrested by UK police on UK territory. Leaving the door open and not getting in the way of police isn't covered by any law that I'm aware of. | |
| Apr 13, 2019 at 16:33 | comment | added | phoog | And the question isn't whether there's a law prohibiting the arrest of someone in an embassy with the consent of the sending state; it is rather whether it was legal for the sending state to give consent. | |
| Apr 13, 2019 at 16:29 | comment | added | phoog | "arguably have to give permission to enter upon being presented a valid warrant": it seems to me that the inviolability of the mission takes precedence over the warrant's grant of authorization to enter the premises and effect the arrest, even under the laws of the UK, in which the provisions of the Vienna Convention have been given effect. So I do not agree that they have any obligation under the UK's laws to facilitate the execution of an arrest warrant. | |
| Apr 13, 2019 at 15:10 | comment | added | Damon | Thing is, they could have refused to give permission even though they actually had to, but they didn't want to. For... whatever reason. Maybe because Assange did cause so much friction, maybe because of something that Wikileaks published and they didn't like, maybe in exchange for some dirty deal. We will never know. In any case, it's all mighty fine from the "is it legal?" point of view. No law prevents police from dragging someone out of an embassy and embassy staff watching. | |
| Apr 13, 2019 at 15:08 | comment | added | Damon | @phoog: Art 21 states that the accomodation is to happen on the receiving state's territory, it doesn't say any such thing as "becomes sending state's territory". It does say in Art 22 that agents of the rec state may not enter without permission, that's right. However, Art 41 has it that ppl with privileges (= agents of sending state) must comply with receiving state's laws and regulations. So... they'd arguably have to give permission to enter upon being presented a valid warrant, or they'd violate said laws (without consequence, having immunity). | |
| Apr 13, 2019 at 2:42 | comment | added | phoog | "the mission is accomodated on the receiving state's territory. Which...means that if the UK...demands that a person for whom they have a warrant be handed over...then, in the strictest sense, the embassy had better do that": I don't see this in the convention. To which article are you referring? As to the receiving country's police entering, it explicitly says that the receiving country's agents require the permission of the head of the mission to enter, which of course they had in this case. | |
| Apr 12, 2019 at 18:40 | history | answered | Damon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |