NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, this has been around the forums once already... the only difference is that it's been chopped slightly to come in under the character limit (we hope). So we're skipping straight to the Final Draft stage.

NB author's credit to Rehochipe.

Diplomatic Immunity

Category: Furtherment of Democracy (EDIT - this is Enodia's ruling)
Strength: Mild

The UN,
Convinced of the importance of diplomacy to international relations,

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

Believing that diplomacy should be based on trust and respect,

1. Declares the establishment of diplomatic missions to be by mutual consent, which may be withdrawn for any or no reason at any time. Consent to send does not entail consent to receive.

2. Instates the duties of the host nation ('the host') to be as follows:
a) To provide appropriate buildings for diplomatic use ('the Mission'),
b) To assist diplomatic staff and their families in finding appropriate housing,
c) To protect the Mission, its staff and their residences,
d) To provide diplomatic aides to familiarise diplomats with the host's customs and practises,
e) To provide appropriate transport for diplomats.

3. Instates the duties of diplomats to be as follows:
a) To carry at all times documentation proving their diplomatic status,
b) To familiarise themselves with the host's laws and customs and to respect these,
c) To eschew matters of business within the host, including owning shares in any company, assuming any position paid or unpaid on any workforce or board, owning land, employing any citizen of the host except as domestic servants or diplomatic staff, or selling goods or services,
d) To pay in full from their personal funds for any gift presented to them and accepted formally or informally.

4. Instates the rights of the sending nation ('the sender') to be as follows:
a) The Mission and residences of its staff are under the sender's law alone. No arrest, prosecution, punishment, legal harassment or similar may be applied by the host 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 except by express permission,
b) Diplomatic staff are not subject to the host's law and may not be subjected to arrest, prosecution, punishment, legal harassment or similar,
c) No taxes may be levied upon the Mission or its staff, except such as are included in the price of goods or services,
d) On arrival and departure from the host, the persons and property of diplomats may not be searched by any means,
e) To receive the Diplomatic Bag, a package from the sender subject to the same immunities from search as diplomats and not in excess of 20kg,
f) To use its flag and emblems within the Mission and the Head of the Mission's residence and transport,
g) To freedom of movement within the host, except into regions off-limits for reasons of national security.
h) Any of these rights may be ceded voluntarily by the Head of the Mission.

5. Instates the rights of the host to be as follows:
a) The Mission remains the host's property and may be withdrawn entirely by the host (cancelling the mission), or moved, at one month's notice,
b) At any time the host may veto the appointment of any Mission staff or expel existing staff to the sender. It may also send evidence against staff for use in any prosecutions within the sender,
c) The host must be informed by the Mission of the appointment, change of status, termination, and ingress/egress from the host of all Mission staff and their families and the employment or its cessation of any of the host's citizens by the Mission or its staff, as soon as possible.

6. Declares that, when diplomats temporarily visit a nation with no established Mission, all the above conditions apply save those pertaining to the Mission.

on the issue of category, I'd go with human rights. I say this because:

1. it does, at it's heart, deal with guidelines for diplomats (weak argument)
2. to use furthering democracy strikes me as a cheap grab for unthinking voters. Diplomacy involves all sorts of governments and all sorts of political atmospheres. While the resolution does attempt to regulate and order this process, that doesn't make it democratic.

Now, for the stupid question:

Is this to regulate UN diplomatic missions, or are you trying to regulate all diplomatic relations between all nations as well?

Dunlend

Category - I've TGed the proposal to Enodia, the forum moderator, and am waiting for his response. But yes, you have a point - this does protect the rights of (a very tiny group of) humans, so maybe that's more appropriate. We'll see what he says.

Effect - this is to provide basic protections for diplomatic missions between nations. We're not at all sure that there is such a thing as a UN diplomatic mission, for one.

Effect - this is to provide basic protections for diplomatic missions between nations. We're not at all sure that there is such a thing as a UN diplomatic mission, for one.

First, my nation backs this proposal 100%.

Second, it doesn't really fit in with most nation states categories. Bear in mind that the game seems to really have been created with a limited scope and wasn't intented to take on the drafting of really long conventions such as the following.

That said, it still is worthwhile for our nations to have a guide wrt to establishing missions.

10kMichael

*Wanders into thread, misjudges ceiling height and bumps head*

We much likey this.

Frank Chalmers
Speaker for International Relations and Roving Diplomat

Thanks all. Does anyone spot any wording issues or major holes left unfilled? This has been chopped down from the original, much longer wording (damn character limit), so it's possible there's necessary stuff missing.

If no-one sees any problems, we'll submit it in a couple of days.

If you want it as close to the Real... you might want to add a clause on the fact that Mission Grounds would be considered territory of the Diplomats Nation.

You also might want to state how a host nation may get a diplomat removed if the Diplomat abuses his power/posistion/immunity.

Just a suggestion.

If you want it as close to the Real... you might want to add a clause on the fact that Mission Grounds would be considered territory of the Diplomats Nation.

You also might want to state how a host nation may get a diplomat removed if the Diplomat abuses his power/posistion/immunity.

Just a suggestion.

And a good one, at that. Hopefully clause 4a - putting the Mission grounds under the sender's law rather than the hosts - covers the first adequately.

5b does state that the host may expel diplomatic staff. Sadly, this proposal is pretty much at the absolute length limit, so if we add anything we also have to cut stuff from elsewhere. It would be good to have more detail on these points, but we think that the existing wording just about covers them sufficiently. Your thoughts?

oops, my bad.... how did I miss that???
[Takes glasses off and gives them a good cleaning]

I like this proposal, but I'm hesitant to approve it. There is a provision in there that says the diplomat is subject to the host's laws but cannot be arrested by the host, who can only "send evidence for prosecution". There should at least be a provision that states if the diplomat breaks the sender's laws they will be held responsible. Or to create a standard of laws simply for diplomats tried by the International Court. As-is, the diplomat has far too much freedom.

I like this proposal, but I'm hesitant to approve it. There is a provision in there that says the diplomat is subject to the host's laws but cannot be arrested by the host, who can only "send evidence for prosecution". There should at least be a provision that states if the diplomat breaks the sender's laws they will be held responsible. Or to create a standard of laws simply for diplomats tried by the International Court. As-is, the diplomat has far too much freedom.

Does it need to be stated? Obviously, if my nation were to send a diplomat to your country and if she broke your laws, it would be in my nation's interest to work out the differences between our countries if my nation wanted to maintain an embassy with your nation. I would think the nature of the crime would be something both our nations would want to consider.

10kMichael

Seems like a reasonable idea.

OK, Enodia's said that this should be a Furtherment of Democracy proposal. So, barring last-minute U-turns by our Most Mighty Mods, that's what it'll be.

I'm likely to oppose it with that categorization. There's nothing democratic about regulating diplomacy and as the last resolution folks know by now I'm a big stickler for wording and meaning.

Other than that, it looks solid. Good luck!

Dunlend

I'm likely to oppose it with that categorization...I'm a big stickler for wording and meaning.Dunlend

*shrugs* Well, this is an official ruling from the forum moderator (ie God) on what the most appropriate category is. You could argue the toss with him, I guess...

A very sound proposal, with all the neccesary rights and restrictions AND under the length limit. Bootai-Bootai will certainly support it if it ever came to a vote.

I am very impressed by this, and hereby support this proposal when it is proposed. Please let us know when!

I am very impressed by this, and hereby support this proposal when it is proposed. Please let us know when!

I like this proposal, but I'm hesitant to approve it. There is a provision in there that says the diplomat is subject to the host's laws but cannot be arrested by the host, who can only "send evidence for prosecution". There should at least be a provision that states if the diplomat breaks the sender's laws they will be held responsible. Or to create a standard of laws simply for diplomats tried by the International Court. As-is, the diplomat has far too much freedom.

*Sven Wailwulf, U.N. Delegate for the Fiefdom of Esfenn steps to the podium*

(clears throat)

Honored delegates,

I must agree with my fellow delegate from the Empire of Rome W.

Too many times diplomats have flaunted the laws of my fair country, driving unsafely around schools, parking at fire hydrants, and refusing to pay restaurant bills. These diplomats have shown no care for my country's culture and laws. If Esfenn decides to prosecute and throw these brazen "ambassadors of peace" into jail, my small nation would be creating an international incident and probably be over ran their nation's army.

On the other hand, when we evict these offenders, they are replaced by those who are as law abiding as their predecessors.

Thank You.

*Mr. Wailwulf leaves the podium.*

Does it need to be stated? Obviously, if my nation were to send a diplomat to your country and if she broke your laws, it would be in my nation's interest to work out the differences between our countries if my nation wanted to maintain an embassy with your nation. I would think the nature of the crime would be something both our nations would want to consider.

10kMichael

I think it needs to. The way it is, it is way too ambiguous- it only says that the diplomat has to respect the host's laws but does not say what could happen if the diplomat does break the laws. It's like saying "respect the fact that I have this shirt" and then not outlining what could happen if I take the shirt- if I'm led to believe nothing will happen if I do so, what's to stop me? I think there needs to be something that outlines that there WILL be reprecussions if the laws are broken, because without penalties there's nothing to deter diplomats from going overboard.

I think there needs to be something that outlines that there WILL be reprecussions if the laws are broken, because without penalties there's nothing to deter diplomats from going overboard.

Well that is the key problem.

We really don't want to spell out a procedure manual or even an outline of what the exact reprecussions will be, because, different nations will react differently.

For example, if the Spazoid Ambassador comes to Miervatia (the capital of Mikitivity) and starts fights in bars, my nation isn't going to hold Spazoidia completely responsible -- but we'd certainly demand that he be removed at the risk of us just closing down the Spazoidia embassy.

But in East Hackney the Spazoid Ambassador acting this way might not get a second thought. (Not that I'm saying that Hackneyians are lawless, but they might be more fun loving than your average Miervatian.)

It was stink for a law to require my nation to respond with the same passion as another nation, if that passion isn't shared.

But I do agree that there should be rules on how you cancel diplomatic missions. It wouldn't be fair for my nation to just boot Spazoidia out without notice. If they aren't in this version of the proposal, let's debate this one, and revisit this issue in May.

10kMichael
p.s. ok, I'm really heading out now ... later

In the case of diplomats arrangemef between nations, those nations should be able to define their own terms between themselves for diplomatic immunity. It is of course different for UN Ambassidors, but that is not a concern on this site. The UN has no juirstiction over ambassidors appointed metween individual nations.

In the case of diplomats arrangemef between nations, those nations should be able to define their own terms between themselves for diplomatic immunity. It is of course different for UN Ambassidors, but that is not a concern on this site. The UN has no juirstiction over ambassidors appointed metween individual nations.

That could work- the countries could agree before the Mission what rules/laws the diplomat must follow to maintain diplomatic immunity (e.g. they can't park in front of fire hydrants). However, there could be the potential for countries to disagree and thus the Mission could be cancelled, potentially leading to armed conflict. So I'm thinking that if this proposal passes as a resolution, another proposal be made which outlines the laws which govern diplomats, or that a body be created which handles "diplomatic law". Although either way could work.

While we may not charge a diplomat with a criminal offense, we will still tow and impound her car if it is parked in an emergency zone.

I think there needs to be something that outlines that there WILL be reprecussions if the laws are broken, because without penalties there's nothing to deter diplomats from going overboard.
Then you could charge a diplomat with Unpatriotic Thinking or some such other spurious offence and then chuck him in jail.

There's plenty to deter a diplomat from going overboard. You can send him home in disgrace and issue a strongly worded expression of your displeasure to his government. This basically will mean he's failed horribly at his job, and put his bosses in an embarrassing situation besides. If he's committed a crime, you can demand that his nation punish him for it; they don't have to, strictly speaking, but if they want to stay friendly with you, and your demand is fairly reasonable, they will.

If you believe a diplomat will act unreasonably, or that his nation won't act honourably if he goes unexpectedly psycho, there's no need to let him into your country.

In the case of diplomats arrangemef between nations, those nations should be able to define their own terms between themselves for diplomatic immunity.

We assume that that's what goes on now.
This resolution doesn't stop you from granting your own version of diplomatic immunity, but it provides accountability that independent arrangements do not. You could grant your own form of diplomatic immunity, and promptly breach it; the sending nation would be able to do nothing about it. In other words, it wouldn't be a very good assurance of the diplomat's safety.

While we may not charge a diplomat with a criminal offense, we will still tow and impound her car if it is parked in an emergency zone.

You'll note that there's a clause in there that mentions that you're obliged to provide transport for the diplomat, right? That remains your vehicle just as the Mission remains your property, but it's not inviolable. You can do whatever you like with it.
Also, countries generally provide a chauffeur as part of the vehicle-providing clause - it's difficult to get used to driving in a foreign country, so this is just another matter of politeness. And as a convenient side-benefit, it means they'll drive nice and safe.