0

This is just a hypothetical that I am curious about, but I don't see a definite answer for this anywhere which is surprising.

So, lets say I am in India, and then I get into a confrontation where I have no choice but to defend myself (I am saying this because the US recognizes self-defense, and even though India does as well, its not as definite). And then, lets say that, the police are looking to arrest me, could I flee to a US Embassy to seek refuge there?

What would happen?

Improve this question
New contributor
AstroGuy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
12
  • 11
    This is a legal question and not a political one.
    – Joe W
    Commented Dec 6 at 16:44
  • 1
    @o.m. That doesn't mean it is a valid question for this site as there are so many different variables that would factor into that decision that it would be impossibly broad.
    – Joe W
    Commented Dec 6 at 18:13
  • 3
    Nah, this seems like a valid enough question about inter-state relations and diplomatic prerogatives. For one thing, international law, as is often said here, isn't the same thing as national laws. For another that the ambassy is largely in the right to grant asylum, but is unlikely to do so in this instance, so the legal environment is not the full answer.
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented Dec 6 at 20:35
  • 3
    This is only tangentially related to the embassy status question but there are several flaws in your pretext scenario. First, self-defense is typically an excuse or legal defense, it doesn't mean there should be no investigation and no trial. And that's clearly for Indian courts to judge, why would the US definition(s) or your personal feeling that it was self-defense override the Indian legal system and justify preempting any proceedings?
    – Relaxed
    Commented Dec 7 at 20:12
  • 3
    Surely, if at the end of the day an Indian judge considers it wasn't self-defense, it means that you did have a choice, at least in the eyes of the Indian legal system. It seems this whole self-defense thing is a red herring, the question is whether you can escape the law by entering an embassy.
    – Relaxed
    Commented Dec 7 at 20:13

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6

An embassy is considered extraterritorial territory. The police of the host country cannot enter (without the permission of the ambassador), and cannot arrest anybody (without the permission of the ambassador). If the host country gets seriously upset about the actions of the embassy, they can take various steps to make things unpleasant for the occupants of the embassy. In relatively recent history, consider

The questions, then, does the fugitive believe that the ambassador will let him in, and is the fugitive right or will the ambassador throw him out? Usually, the answer to the second part is that an embassy will not antagonize the host country.

Improve this answer
14
  • 11
    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.
    – Ted Wrigley
    Commented Dec 6 at 17:36
  • 4
    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.
    – origimbo
    Commented Dec 6 at 18:17
  • 1
    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.
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented Dec 6 at 20:32
  • 1
    Embassies are not extraterritorial. They are inviolable. There is a big difference.
    – phoog
    Commented Dec 8 at 12:21
  • 5
    @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.
    – phoog
    Commented Dec 8 at 12:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .