Author: Kevin Abrams
Fans of the colorful 2007 movie 300 will recall an early scene in which a group of Persian envoys, representing the divine voice of their King Xerxes, arrive at Sparta and demand its submission to their imperial agenda. King Leonidas, in response, has these representatives thrown down a (seemingly) bottomless pit. Though the lives of these people were, in all likelihood, expendable, the message Leonidas sends with these killings is clear: He is rejecting Xerxes’ “generous” offer and is instead declaring war.
Though it was officially made into international law less than 50 years ago, the inviolability of diplomatic representatives has informally been observed for centuries, and, as the above example shows, can be traced back to the Ancient Greeks, if not further.
In 1961, over 160 nations signed the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, thus agreeing to a standard set of principles regarding diplomatic immunity. Since then, no UN member state has proposed withdrawing from the Convention, or even revising the provisions thereof. On the whole, diplomatic immunity draws criticism primarily from those who don’t fully understand its purpose.
Despite the contentment that the nations of the world seem to have found with the treaty, and the custom of diplomatic immunity itself, controversy has been raised around the issue on at least two fronts. Intuitively speaking, the concept seems quite odd and inconsistent—why should a foreigner (or anyone, for that matter) receive more rights and protections than the rest of a country’s residents? Regardless of any benefits diplomatic immunity may have, the practice is, by its very nature, discriminatory. Complaints of this nature, however, fail to recognize the potential for corruption in governments. Without this elevated status, diplomats themselves would be subject to abuses from the governments of their host country, perhaps quite often. They would be seen and used as political leverage by the many authoritarian leaders around the world, seriously decreasing any nation’s incentive to engage in diplomacy.
The other criticism directed toward diplomatic immunity concerns its potential for and history of abuses among those granted such privileges. Obviously, handing out the “Get Out of Jail Free” card that is diplomatic immunity will inevitably lead to consequences involving corruption and misuse. When diplomats are sent on missions to a foreign land, they are subject neither to that country’s laws, nor to the laws of their homeland, at least not until they return. This scenario places the representatives in essentially a legal void; accordingly, a predictable and sometimes amusing history of abuses has naturally unfolded.
The list of diplomatic abuses varies in degree and has a wide range of consequences from tragic to humorous. In 1997, Georgian ambassador Gueorgui Makharadze, driving with a blood alcohol content of .15, caused an accident in which four were injured and one 16-year-old girl was killed. A similar incident occurred in 2001 when a Russian diplomat assigned to Canada ran over two pedestrians, injuring one and killing the other. In both cases, the perpetrators were eventually brought to justice, though their diplomatic statuses did cause their situations to become something of impeded, drawn out processes.
On a lighter note, diplomatic abuses can have a more comical edge to them. Complaints and protests regarding diplomatic immunity are somewhat commonplace in New York City, due to the abundance of parking violations and unpaid tickets from visitors to the United Nations. Just months ago, in April 2008, Rafael Quintero Curiel, a Mexican press attaché visiting New Orleans for a White House press meeting, was caught on security cameras stealing the Blackberry PDA devices of U.S. officials. When confronted by Secret Service officers regarding the incident, Curiel claimed the incident was accidental, stated his diplomatic immunity, and left.
Sovereign states, however, reserve the right to use several safeguards available to deter abuses by diplomats. Though they are exempt from the legal jurisdiction of their host country, this exemption may be waived by the diplomat’s home country. In the example above, the country of Georgia waived Gueorgui Makharadze’s immunity, and he was accordingly convicted of manslaughter. Should a nation refuse to waive a diplomat’s immunity, the host country may declare said diplomat a persona non grata. This may be done at any time, and there is no obligation to explain such a decision. Additionally, this usually results in a diplomat’s resignation.
Despite these safeguards, the potential for minor abuses still remains high. Regardless, the benefits of diplomatic immunity certainly outweighs the costs. The purpose of this practice is that it makes the diplomatic process and international relations in general easier. Diplomatic immunity, though it does give these representatives additional rights and protections that seem unreasonable, restricts the rights and abilities of corrupt governments to use these same diplomats as leverage on the international stage. The benefits of diplomatic immunity come from its reciprocity: Though we forfeit our right to prosecute a potential criminal in our own borders, our representatives around the world enjoy the same protections from what may be less ‘just’ governments. So, while diplomatic immunity may be bullshit, a world without this process would, in all likelihood, lead to a whole lot more bullshit.
Kevin Abrams is a junior DWA major. He can be reached at abrams@oxy.edu.
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
