Timeline for Could I take refuge in an embassy after commiting a crime?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 hours ago | comment | added | phoog | @Barmar normally not. Extraterritoriality means that the territory in question is entirely removed from the jurisdiction of the country. The most straightforward example of this is the provision for Princess Margriet of the Netherlands not to become a British subject by virtue of jus soli when she was born in Ottawa. The maternity ward of the hospital was made extraterritorial to achieve this. The status of any given foreign military base, however, will depend on an agreement between the country using the base and the country hosting it. But true foreign bases are fairly rare. | |
| 10 hours ago | comment | added | Barmar | @phoog Would "extraterritorial" apply to military bases located in foreign countries? | |
| Dec 8 at 18:56 | comment | added | o.m. | @SteveMelnikoff, thanks, corrected. | |
| Dec 8 at 18:55 | history | edited | o.m. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Dec 8 at 17:49 | comment | added | Steve Melnikoff | Assange was in the embassy for 7 years (June 2012 to April 2019). | |
| Dec 8 at 12:28 | comment | added | phoog | @SJuan76 the term in the Vienna Convention is "inviolable." The laws of both the sending country and the receiving (a.k.a. host) country apply in an embassy, but, as you note, the host authorities cannot enter an embassy without permission of the ambassador. "Extraterritorial" typically means that the embassy is actual territory of the sending country, which is, as you note, not how embassies are generally treated. | |
| Dec 8 at 12:21 | comment | added | phoog | Embassies are not extraterritorial. They are inviolable. There is a big difference. | |
| Dec 7 at 20:02 | comment | added | SJuan76 | @Relaxed Yes, "extraterriorality" usually means the jurisdiction of one country applying outside that country's borders. This is not the case of embassies; the host country law still applies, what happens is that (absent invitation from the diplomatic personnel), the host country security forces cannot enter to enforce it. I think that the correct term is "protected". | |
| Dec 7 at 10:59 | comment | added | Relaxed | @ItalianPhilosopher Depends a lot on the sending country. Some countries have diplomat pay their fines, others do not. The US is not among the most cooperating, I am not sure they ever handed over a diplomat, embassy staff, or relative. Best case scenario, if the matter is serious, they get prosecuted in the US or, as in the Harry Dunn case, appear in foreign court via video link. | |
| Dec 7 at 10:28 | comment | added | Relaxed | (+1) Where does the phrase “extraterritorial territory” comes from and what is it supposed to mean? Do you simply mean it enjoys the immunity you describe? I am familiar with the concept of extraterritoriality or extraterritorial rights, but “extraterritorial territory” seems nonsensical. Also note that embassies or consulates can be in apartment buildings, again not really “territory” in any usual sense of the word. | |
| Dec 7 at 5:17 | comment | added | o.m. | @origimbo, see my examples. It can be done, but it usually triggers a diplomatic crisis. | |
| Dec 6 at 20:32 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | Even in the case of nominally-immune diplomatic staff there is often an expectation that the embassy collaborates in normal, apolitical, matters. For example, there was a big hullaballoo in the 80s? 90s? when a drunk senior Soviet diplomat ran over someone in the US and was packed off home. Ditto when the wife of a US diplomat ran over a young man in the UK 5 yrs or so back. I don't know how often diplomats do get handed over in these cases, but the OP's situation is unlikely to work out to the claimant's benefit. | |
| Dec 6 at 18:17 | comment | added | origimbo | I'm not sure how many (if any) legal jurisdictions approach missions as genuinely extraterritorial. The protection of the premises as inviolable does follow from section 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/…) and breaking that is a good way for a state to lose all support from the international community. | |
| Dec 6 at 17:56 | comment | added | o.m. | @TedWrigley, added. | |
| Dec 6 at 17:56 | history | edited | o.m. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 96 characters in body
|
| Dec 6 at 17:36 | comment | added | Ted Wrigley | You should probably add that embassies generally cooperate with local authorities unless there is an exceptional reason not to. This is both practical and political: no one wants minor crimes to escalate to diplomatic incidents, and embassies and their staffs depend on the cooperation of locals. So unless the person in question is high-profile or there is a clear and obvious injustice occurring, they will almost certainly be turned over to police. | |
| Dec 6 at 17:12 | history | answered | o.m. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |