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
Recently the coup leaders in Niger asked the French ambassador to leave.
France declined the request and the ambassador is still in the embassy. The Nigerien coup's "government" considers his presence illegal and the ambassador may face arrest if he leaves the embassy.
I know that a Nigerien government cannot remove him by force since the embassy is considered to be French territory.
But can they for example cut food supply and electricity from the embassy forcing him to leave?
By declaring them "persona non grata" and telling them they need to leave. Just because someone is named as an ambassador doesn't mean that the host country is forced to accept them. This action has been taken many times in the past when one country does something that another country doesn't like.
So, How Do You Expel an Ambassador, Anyway?
It depends on why you’re expelling them. The 1961 Vienna Treaty on Diplomatic Relations, which codifies concepts such as diplomatic immunity and the inviolability of embassies, gives states quite a bit of leeway on kicking out diplomats. Article 9 states, "The receiving state may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending state that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending state shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission."
International norms treat embassies as sovereign territory of the nation that established the embassy. Any attack or incursion by the host country would be condemned and sanctioned by a large segment of the international community, and might be interpreted as an act of war by the embassy country. An expelled ambassador who refuses to leave the country would be forced to remain in the embassy, and would be safe there (comparatively speaking), but would be effectively useless without any contact with the host country's administration. The host nation could sever diplomatic ties with the embassy nation completely, of course — this would force the embassy to close, remove its 'sovereign territory' status, and compel everyone to leave — but that would be a drastic step.
It's worth noting that these kinds of maneuvers are generally shadow-boxing. Niger and France are both posturing, and will continue to do so until they've made their respective position clear (whatever those might be), and then will most likely settle back into a new diplomatic relationship. The more things change, the more they stay the same...
As other answers have pointed out, the host country can just declare the ambassador a persona non grata and they would legally be forced to leave the country.
"Storming the embassy" by Nigerien troops to expel them would be a violation of the embassy and a (further) diplomatic incident. Technically, cutting off the embassy from supplies will also cause an incident. The ambassador staying in the embassy also is a violation of the treaty, however. So we reach an impasse.
In the case of Niger, the issue is that the current "government" is considered illegitimate by France. Hence, they lack the authority to expel the French ambassador. If France were to withdraw their ambassador, they could be seen as legitimizing the coup. So, for the time being, this is not an option (until the costs become too high, and another excuse can be used).
Addendum: usually, withdrawing the ambassador would be seen as delegitimizing the host country and a sign of cooling relations. But that only counts, if the sending country does it of their own volition. So, France stays put and waits.
I know that the Nigerien government cannot remove him by force since the embassy is considered to be French territory.
This is untrue, an embassy remains the territory of the host country. It is a common misconception though.
Access to the embassy by agencies of the host government is restricted by international agreement, in particular the Vienna convention. Agencies of the host country may not enter the grounds of the embassy without the permission of the head of the diplomatic mission (the ambassador in this case). This is what prevents the Niger police or other agencies removing the ambassador from the embassy in Niger.
Example:
A host government can declare any member of a mission as persona non grata. That person may leave freely within a reasonably short period but their diplomatic protection is revoked and if they do not leave, they may be arrested in the same way as any foreign visitor can be. They are then subject to the jurisdiction of the host nation.
Vienna Convention article 9:
Article 9
The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission. A person may be declared non grata or not acceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State.
If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable period to carry out its obligations under paragraph 1 of this article, the receiving State may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission.
(my emphasis)
What constitutes "a reasonable period" is a matter of local law (in the host state). For example, in Canada it is 10 days
Too many people are focussing on the application of force (i.e. using a violent approach), which happens extremely rarely with embassies (cough, Iran, cough).
So how could the Niger government compel/force France to take back its ambassador, without resorting to violence? As there is no way to use violence on an embassy without infringing international norms.
If the Niger government is really serious and not just posturing it could make France's position untenable in the long run. Remember that France presumably has an embassy in Niger to benefit its own, French, interests. If those interests are not being served by the current situation at the embassy, it may have to revise that situation.
Niger could for example limit contacts between its own officials and embassy members other than the ambassador. Now, as that ambassador is not recognized... All sorts of actions and impediments are possible, short of violating international treaties that could make this into a hassle for France. Soviet Russia had all sorts of nifty tricks in its bag.
This is not to support Niger's current illegitimate government. But if they are serious and not just posturing - an assessment I share with Ted's answer - they could maintain pressure and I expect France would eventually back down.
