Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I'm asking this because a Wikipedia's page states that:
...diplomatic immunity leads to some unfortunate results; protected diplomats have violated laws of the host country and that country has been essentially limited to informing the diplomat's nation that the diplomat is no longer welcome...
So, for example, if a U.S. consul kills someone in England (s)he will not be arrested and judged in the host country like everybody else?
In theory, yes, a diplomat can kill someone, refuse to be arrested and return to their host country. In practice, that does not prevent them from being judged. There are multiple cases where diplomats have caused deaths, e.g. in drunk driving. The usual result is that they actually are released due to diplomatic immunity, but afterwards either the country revokes their immunity and they're given to the host country for normal proceedings, or they are judged for the same event back home.
The intent is rather obvious—it is easy for a government to accuse someone of a crime, and we want diplomats (and opposition politicians—parliamentary immunity in many countries works in a similar way) to be protected from detention because of such accusations. It doesn't mean that diplomats are allowed to commit crime—it means that their home country is given a "veto vote" if they wish to do so.
This does give an opportunity to use officials with diplomatic immunity for intentionally breaking the law—espionage and assassinations. The expected response from the host country is not against the person, but against the country which is responsible for the actions of their diplomats. There likely are old historical precedents of military action caused by personal actions of emissaries, but nowadays it would likely result in expelling all diplomats of that country. As usually diplomatic relations and reputation are far more valuable than the career of some official, one could expect that if a diplomat intentionally kills someone without actual orders from their government, then they'd be given up to be punished.
Yes, diplomatic immunity can allow even individuals connected to diplomatic officials to kill someone and not face the consequences. While everything in the linked article is couched in tentative terms, there seems no doubt that the facts of the case are as alleged.
Anne Sacoolas is suspected of being involved in a car crash that killed British motorcyclist Harry Dunn, who died in Northamptonshire on 27 August.
Mrs Sacoolas later left the UK to return home to the US, after telling local police she had no such plans.
The note was photographed as Mr Trump addressed reporters at the White House.
It reads: "(If raised) Note, as Secretary Pompeo told Foreign Secretary Raab, that the spouse of the US government employee will not return to the United Kingdom."
The spouse of a US diplomat has caused the death of a young man through hitting him in a car, whilst driving on the wrong side of the road. She latter fled the country after promising not to do so.
Diplomatic immunity can be waived at the request of the Foreign office. However it seems in this case the US has no intention of waiving that protection and Mrs Sacoolas will not be returning to the UK to engage with the British justice system.
Downing Street confirmed Mr Johnson had urged the US president to reconsider the decision to grant immunity to Mrs Sacoolas.
Peteris covered most of the answer, but there are a couple other bits. First, diplomatic immunity doesn't take precedence over the host country's right and obligation to protect its citizens and to ensure public safety. If a diplomat is actively trying to kill someone, diplomatic immunity doesn't stop that person or the police from intervening with appropriate force, up to and including deadly force if needed. Diplomatic immunity only applies once the immediate issue is dealt with.
Second, consuls do not have diplomatic immunity. They only have consular immunity, which is limited to official acts. If someone tried to argue that that included murder, they would have to explain how murder is part of the official duties of a consular officer. In Lethal Weapon 2, consular immunity would not protect the South Africans from prosecution in the US, because drug-running and murdering witnesses are not part of the job of a consul.
Third, there are actually a couple cases illustrating point 1. In the 1980s, during a protest outside the Libyan embassy in London, someone inside the embassy shot and killed a police officer. Once the person inside stopped shooting the most the police could do was stand guard outside until the UK kicked out the embassy; the shooter was never prosecuted because Libya didn't want to do so. In contrast, in Paris in the 1970s, someone took hostages inside the Iraqi embassy. When the police were escorting them to a police car, someone inside shot at the criminal and the police; the police returned fire, and were considered justified in doing so.
As a Former UK military government official myself in an administrative technical capacity.
Article 41 of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations (quoted below) clearly states: ‘do in Rome as the Romans do.’ (Respect the laws of the host state) - which applies to ALL persons under the convention and the spirit of... ‘don’t personally benefit from such protections afforded’ (Article 42). That is the general ‘spirit’ of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
Article 41
Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.
All official business with the receiving State entrusted to the mission by the sending State shall be conducted with or through the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or such other ministry as may be agreed.
The premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible with the functions of the mission as laid down in the present Convention or by other rules of general international law or by any special agreements in force between the sending and the receiving State
The US specifically categorizes Diplomatic staff into 3 categories: diplomatic agents, technical and admin staff, and service members with applicable differences in their level of immunity. It also deals with family members separately (since technically you could class a family member as civilian)
Case law determination in the US: “On 27 October 1998, in Vladivostok, Russia, Douglas Kent, the American Consul General to Russia, was involved in a car accident that left a young man, Alexander Kashin, disabled. Kent was not prosecuted in a U.S. court. Under the Vienna Convention, diplomatic immunity does not apply to civil actions relating to vehicular accidents, but in 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that, since he was using his vehicle for consular purposes, Kent could not be sued civilly.
Additional citations to the consular judgement appears to be archived but can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20080505012445/http://vn.vladnews.ru/issue531/Crime_watch/Immunity_shelters_former_US_Consul_from_Russian_invalid https://web.archive.org/web/20080608195621/http://media.www.dailylobo.com/media/storage/paper344/news/2002/09/16/News/Russia.Student.In.Diplomatic.Controversy-274101.shtml
Whilst the provisions of the convention as mentioned at the beginning of the CPS implementation does indeed state what has been commented with here: Would diplomatic immunity allow a Consul to kill someone and get away with it?
It doesn’t as such cover publicly, and for good reason, a realistic possibility that international military establishments have special provisions/agreements which are also referenced and provisioned for, in the convention and agreed between states... I would not be at liberty to discuss the particulars of any such agreement(s), if they were to exist, for obvious reasons. There is a due expectation/requirement of respect on both parties of the convention, both receiving and sending states.
It should be appropriately noted that Consular Diplomatic Immunities are covered under a different convention, yet it provides a general idea of ‘spirit’ and use case rulings of such protections.
Consider this: It would be somewhat a serious embarrassment to international relations, if a family member (usually classed as civilian?) of any ‘diplomat’ or ‘service member’ covered by the spirit of convention to not respect the host state’s laws and to claim vehicular accidents are somehow covered?
In a further ‘use’ update to recent news regarding Harry Dunn: Article 9 and Article 10 (b) of the convention apply. Also Article 21 and importantly Article 22, 27, 36(a) and (b) ... Article 37 to 44 says about ‘use’ quite specifically though. Though I doubt Article 43 was invoked in this case. Articles 24, 25 and 26 are likely to be relevant.
CPS guidance states regarding termination but not mentioning recall: “Upon the termination of their functions with their mission, qualifying officers and their qualifying dependents retain their privileges and immunities in the UK for 31 days, unless otherwise advised by HMG”
A letter to notify that diplomatic immunity no longer applies, and indicating waiver requests are now irrelevant... does not as such, unless explicitly stated: waiver the immunities or privileges during the time in the UK, it is more a letter explaining jurisdiction changed due to being in a different country. (Article 32 covers waivers)
With due respect to ‘Visiting Forces’ in the UK, applicable to Ministry of Defence establishments, published an August 2016 document referred to as DSA01.1 Found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/548060/DSA01_Defence_Policy_for_Health_Safety_and_Environmental_Protection-20160804.pdf It states: “5. Visiting Forces Under customary international law, Visiting Forces are not bound by domestic legislation: This is described in the Visiting Forces Act 1952. Visiting NATO Forces are subject to the Articles of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) 1951; of specific relevance to health, safety and environmental protection are Articles II, VII and IX. There is no similar agreement for non-NATO forces who visit, although certain aspects may be addressed in a Memorandum of Understanding; in these circumstances, normal protocol is applied bearing in mind that such Visiting Forces are covered by state immunity. 6. Interface arrangements for safety management between MOD, United States Visiting Forces and the HSE are set out in a Memorandum of Agreement, which is held on the Health and Safety website on the Defence Intranet. Enforcement action is limited to the issue of letters equivalent to Crown Notices with the recipient being an MOD employee. Similarly, there are interface arrangements for environment management between the Department, United States Visiting Forces and the EA.”
Now, as for reciprocal diplomatic immunity in the US specifically covered here: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title22/chapter6&edition=prelim covered in section 254b of USC 22 Chapter 6 which references: (Pub. L. 95–393, §3(b), Sept. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 97–241, title II, §203(b)(2), Aug. 24, 1982, 96 Stat. 291.) It states: “With respect to a nonparty to the Vienna Convention, the mission, the members of the mission, their families, and diplomatic couriers shall enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in the Vienna Convention.”
Since the complaint derives from an incident in UK territory, the US could argue that it didn’t happen on their territory. (Jurisdiction)
The only feasible recourse, in my view, would be referenced in Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1964/81 Which references applications of the convention i.e. “Articles 35, 36 and 40 shall be construed as granting any privilege or immunity which they require to be granted.“ AND: “The references in Articles 37 and 38 to the extent to which any privileges and immunities are admitted by the receiving State and to additional privileges and immunities that may be granted by the receiving State shall be construed as referring respectively to the extent to which any privileges and immunities may be specified by Her Majesty by Order in Council and to any additional privileges and immunities that may be so specified.”
This recourse in particular: “Her Majesty may by an Order in Council withdraw such of the privileges and immunities so conferred from the mission of that State or from such persons connected with it as appears to Her Majesty to be proper.” However the evidence section applies: “ If in any proceedings any question arises whether or not any person is entitled to any privilege or immunity under this Act a certificate issued by or under the authority of the Secretary of State stating any fact relating to that question shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.“
In conclusion: It is more a case of extent, application and use of such privilege or immunity for purposes that MAY or MAY NOT be connected to the functions AND performance AND transport AND even property (300-400 yards?) of the mission.
The way original question is posed doesn't clearly differentiate between premeditated murder and involuntary manslaughter. If negligent homicide is included then the following example applies. In 2013 an American diplomat did get away with negligent driving that killed one person an injured eight more without suffering legal consequence.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/02/diplomat-kenya-car-crash/2612229/
Diplomatic immunity does not allow or preclude diplomats from doing anything. Mostly, it's a set of procedural rules formalized in some treaties that provide that consuls, ambassadors and some other diplomats cannot be arrested, prosecuted, etc. (incidentally, the protections afforded to a consul are defined in a separate treaty and less extensive than those enjoyed by an ambassador for example). But states never agreed to suspend their laws, they fully apply to consuls and other diplomats alike, with a few exceptions (in particular taxation laws).
Of course, even if something isn't allowed, consuls can certainly, like everybody else, break the law and do it anyway. The main difference is what happens afterwards. Instead of using regular law enforcement measures, states have to resort to diplomatic means: demanding that a diplomat be disciplined or diplomatic immunity waived, declaring a diplomat persona non grata, summoning its home country's ambassador, breaking off diplomatic relationship, etc.
Because diplomats are expected to serve their country, these political consequences also provide a strong deterrent. A consul who would commit a serious crime might not face immediate arrest but he or she might find himself out of a job and prosecuted in his home country. Even if they do get away with a crime, as has happened to a handful of US diplomats (and many others from other countries as well), they run a very high risk of ruining their career.
Of course, diplomatic immunities can also be abused by people with sufficient political connections in their country of origin or for official purposes like espionage. But diplomats are not generally allowed to kill people in the course of their duties. And even things they do easily get away with like poor driving are not allowed per se.
In summary whether one can kill someone else, is allowed to do it or would face negative consequences after doing it are three entirely distinct questions. Consuls are to some extent protected from some of the negative consequences a private person might expect but they are not allowed to commit murder and generally cannot expect to do it without suffering very negative consequences.
