NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems incredible to me that the UN has no normative legislation on the issue of diplomatic immunity. If there's anything that needs to be changed on this... yell incoherent, incorrectly spelt abuse at me.


The General Assembly,

Convinced of the importance of diplomacy to international relations,

Concerned that the personal welfare and integrity of diplomats not impinge upon the conduct of international relations,

Believing that diplomatic relations should be built on a foundation of mutual trust and respect,

1. Declares the establishment of diplomatic missions to be by mutual consent, which may be withdrawn for any or no reason by either nation at any time. Consent to receive a mission is not necessarily implied by receiving permission to send one.

2. Instates the duties of the host nation to be as follows:
i. To provide appropriate building or buildings for diplomatic use, designated 'the grounds of the Mission.'
ii. To assist the staff of the Mission and their families in finding appropriate housing.
iii. To protect the grounds of the Mission, the residences of Mission staff, and the persons of Mission staff,
iv. To provide, where requested, diplomatic aides to familiarise Mission staff with the customs and practises of the host nation,
v. To provide appropriate transport for Mission staff.

3. Instates the duties of the staff of the Mission to be as follows:
i. To carry at all times, when not within the grounds of the Mission or their homes, documentation proving their diplomatic status,
ii. To familiarise themselves with the laws, customs and etiquette of the host State, and to do their best to respect these,
iii. To eschew matters of business within the host nation, neither owning shares in any company public or private, nor assuming any position paid or unpaid on any workforce or board within that nation, nor owning land, nor employing any citizen of the sending nation except for domestic servants or diplomatic staff, nor selling goods or services,
iv. To pay for, from their personal funds and in full, any gift presented to them and accepted formally or informally.

4. Instates the rights of the sending nation to be as follows:
i. Within the grounds of the Mission and residences of its staff, the law of the sending nation is to be followed rather than that of the host nation. No arrest, prosecution, punishment, legal harassment or similar may be applied by the host nation to any acts by any individual of any nationality. The Mission may not be searched, seized or bugged, nor may it be entered by agents of the host State except by express permission.
ii. The staff of the Mission are not subject to the criminal law of the host nation, and may not be subjected to arrest, prosecution, punishment, legal harassment or similar,
iii. No taxes may be levied upon the Mission or staff of the Mission, except such as are included in the price of goods or services,
iv. On arrival and departure from the host nation, the persons and property of the staff of the Mission may not be searched by any means,
v. To receive the Diplomatic Bag, a package dispatched from the host nation and subject to the same immunities from search as diplomatic staff and not in excess of one hundred kilos,
vi. To use their flag and emblems within the grounds of the Mission and the Head of the Mission's residence and transport.
vii. To freedom of movement within the host nation, except into regions off-limits for reasons of national security.
v. Any of these rights may be ceded voluntarily by the Head of the Mission.

5. Instates the rights of the host nation to be as follows:
i. The grounds of the Mission are not the property of the Head of the Mission or of the sending nation, and may be withdrawn entirely by the host nation (cancelling the mission), or moved, at one month's notice.
ii. At any time the host nation may veto the appointment of a member of the Mission or expel existing staff of the Mission to the sending country. They may also send evidence against expelled staff for use in prosecutions of said staff within the sending country, at the sending country's discretion.
iii. The host nation must be informed by the Mission of the appointment, change of status, termination, and entrance to / exit from the host nation of all Mission staff and their families, and also upon the change of any status of relevant family membership, and of the employment or cessation of employment of any of their own citizens by the Mission or its staff; as soon as it is possible to do so.

6. Declares that, in the case of diplomats visiting a nation with no established Mission for a short time, all the above conditions apply with the exception of those pertaining to the grounds of the Mission.

This is largely cribbed from the (much longer) Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which can be seen at http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/diplomat.htm

It seems incredible to me that the UN has no normative legislation on the issue of diplomatic immunity. If there's anything that needs to be changed on this... yell incoherent, incorrectly spelt abuse at me.

1. Declares the establishment of diplomatic missions to be by mutual consent, which may be withdrawn for any or no reason by either nation at any time. Consent to receive a mission is not necessarily implied by receiving permission to send one.


This is largely cribbed from the (much longer) Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which can be seen at http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/diplomat.htm

OK, I only made it half way through, but when I read this first clause I had three thoughts:

Thought #1
Wow, this really is a well written resolution! Way to go.

Thought #2
That resolution that was all bothered by the ballast water resolution and later picked his fight with the Rights and Duties resolution is so not going to understand what you've said here.

Thought #3
How funny is it that after my nation has been working to establish regular embassies with a few other nations, that I was actually wondering if in some cases that it might be better for the two parties to have a one way exchange (like suggested above).

That said, ignore my second thought. There will always be some people who just don't get it and will argue you to death. I will go through this in greater detail tomorrow, but with your permission, this is a proposal I'd like to bring before my region and seek input on as well. Basically, I hope to wrangle an endorsement or two for you through our allies.

10kMichael

The title of the resolution seems a bit misleading, but nevertheless, we approve. While an incredible zero nations have chosen to open diplomatic channels with our fine nation, the people of Sophista still feel it is important to have guidelines for those who do wish for frequent diplomatic exchanges. We will defend this proposal in the forum as is fit, and offer our assistance if you feel there is any other service we might provide.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

4. Instates the rights of the sending nation to be as follows:
...The Mission may not be searched, siezed or bugged

Since a first reading of this excellent proposal reveals no grounds for objection to the content, we're going to fall back on ludicrous pedantry instead. Seized.
We look forward to supporting it when it comes up for vote.

Comrade Rust
Delegate for Ludicrous Pedantry

I think there'll be rejoicing at this proposal in a certain Wee Free Country of our acquaintance :D

What about diplomatic bags? present company excepted...

What about diplomatic bags?

This cover it?

4. Instates the rights of the sending nation to be as follows:
...
v. To receive the Diplomatic Bag, a package dispatched from the host nation and subject to the same immunities from search as diplomatic staff and not in excess of one hundred kilos

More importantly, what about undiplomatic bags? East Hackney's still terrified of Bahgum's mothers-in-law...

My, my..an essay. How about the right of a nation to forbid embassies or to eject unwanted diplomats?

Also covered.

How about the right of a nation to forbid embassies

1. Declares the establishment of diplomatic missions to be by mutual consent, which may be withdrawn for any or no reason by either nation at any time

or to eject unwanted diplomats?

4. Instates the rights of the host nation to be as follows:
i. The grounds of the Mission are not the property of the Head of the Mission or of the sending nation, and may be withdrawn entirely by the host nation (cancelling the mission), or moved, at one month's notice.
ii. At any time the host nation may veto the appointment of a member of the Mission or expel existing staff of the Mission to the sending country.

* The Rep of Komokom's seat is empty, he's probably down in the club, taking a wee'dram of something, but his new Aide of Staff, one Bill Cuiarde is seen to stand holding a small yet powerful stereo system, which proceeds to belt out several rounds of applause... :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Since a first reading of this excellent proposal reveals no grounds for objection to the content, we're going to fall back on ludicrous pedantry instead. Seized.

In our defence, this proposal was completed at an hour of the morning when the spelling-related regions of the brain are already asleep. We're just impressed that nobody noticed that there were two Article 4s (which we did notice, and then couldn't get at the forums to edit).

I think there'll be rejoicing at this proposal in a certain Wee Free Country of our acquaintance

You can't fit many stolen cows into 100 kilos.

You can fit in several volumes of poetry though...

The title of the resolution seems a bit misleading, but nevertheless, we approve.

Would a title involving embassies more explicitly be better? Immunity of Diplomats and Embassies? Resolution 418a: Spurious Indexicals?

We will defend this proposal in the forum as is fit, and offer our assistance if you feel there is any other service we might provide.

At the approval stage we might appreciate help on the delegate-telegramming front, because if the International Narcotics Accord taught us anything, it's that a proposal of universal facility needs to be commended to an awful lot of people, and that a proposal is likely to sink or swim based on the point at which you go 'sod this, I'm going to bed'.

This is useful and thorough.

Thank you for giving credit to the source; that's a rare practice around here.

Very nicely done.

Good night, everyone.

Bumped to request any final amendments before Rehochipe submits it...

Mmm. Spurious. Now there's a word that needs to be used more.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Bumped to request any final amendments before Rehochipe submits it...

I brought the draft proposal forward to the North Pacific forums, where it generated little discussion. A few nations voiced concerns over exempting diplomats from not local laws, but the laws of their host nations ... assuming I did not miss read their statements.

Overall, I think this is one of the best proposals to hit the forum. But I do think that a section by section break down describing in more simple terms what the clauses mean might bring in more support.

10kMichael

We're not entirely sure what we think of the fact that they are not suject to the laws of the host nation when not in the grounds of the mission. That's a little freaky.

It reminds us of old Fantastic Four comics, where Doctor Doom would go on a rampage and then walk because he had diplomatic immunity. It was dumb - and that sort of thing really shouldn't work.

Once people pull out rocket launchers - the gloves are off, baby!

Don't make me come over there.

Hooglastan: there are three things to prevent this. Firstly, diplomats are at pains to do their best to respect local laws and customs. Secondly, if they really piss you off you can veto their post and send them scurrying back home, where a government who wants to maintain cordial relations with you will be likely to censure them strongly and, if the crimes are serious, try them under their own law. Thirdly, nobody is going to be sending you criminals; you don't have to permit embassies with anybody you don't want to, and apart from a few wackos who you won't allow to establish embassies, nations are going to be sending diplomats and diplomatic staff: that is, responsible professionals (at least outside the UN Stranger's Bar).

I think I need a clause about diplomats entering and leaving the host country. Clearly diplomatic staff shouldn't be blocked from returning temporarily or permanently to their host nation at any time, they shouldn't be blocked from re-entering the country unless they've been officially vetoed, and they should probably have special visa status.

apart from a few wackos who you won't allow to establish embassies, nations are going to be sending diplomats and diplomatic staff

I think I need a clause about diplomats entering and leaving the host country. Clearly diplomatic staff shouldn't be blocked from returning temporarily or permanently to their host nation at any time, they shouldn't be blocked from re-entering the country unless they've been officially vetoed, and they should probably have special visa status.

Two quick comments:

#1. Don't Increase the Length

While your idea to include provisions related to the freedom of passage for diplomats is well received, I think your proposal is probably long enough in length that this would make a better amendment down the road.

The truth is currently diplomatic rights and immunity is handled on a case by case basis. Your proposal (which is excellent) is meant to standardize and improve diplomatic exchanges. Waiting a month or two to get this last section in may actually be a better move than overwhelming a vocal minority.

I'll support the proposal either way.

#2. Exchanges Are Always Voluntary

Your response was great, but I just wanted to underscore the point that nations have the right to refuse embassies. My Confederation certainly would never think of allowing a small handle of nations whos UN representatives are hardly better than drunken frat boys into its borders. The chances of a Victor Von Doom abusing his diplomatic immunity are really incredibly low.

10kMichael

One last BUMP before I submit.

This is a great proposal!