Diplomatic Immunity--An Unemotional Primer and Contextual Reminder

None of the articles in the news media really make clear whether the lady in question is a diplomat or dependent which would bring the issue within the terms of the 1961 Vienna Convention or a consular officer or dependent which would bring the issue under the terms of the 1963 Vienna Convention. In addition, the United States is one of the states which has a bilateral Consular Convention with the UK which goes beyond the terms of the 1963 Vienna Convention. I am not sure what the terms of the bilateral convention are.
Does anyone on here know what the lady's actual status (diplomatic/consular and agent/dependent) is?
The press seems to throw the term "Diplomatic" around in a loose manner. A bit like referring to any vehicle painted green as a "tank"
Another issue not discussed so far is whether she was registered with the FCO as an agent or dependent.
All of us are debating this in the dark.
I read here recently she was not actually registered in the UK as a Diplomat prior to this incident...
 

Oyibo

LE
@Sixty @Forastero Mods. Any chance of clearing the detritus from this thread - It started well, but is turning into a pissing contest
 
None of the articles in the news media really make clear whether the lady in question is a diplomat or dependent which would bring the issue within the terms of the 1961 Vienna Convention or a consular officer or dependent which would bring the issue under the terms of the 1963 Vienna Convention. In addition, the United States is one of the states which has a bilateral Consular Convention with the UK which goes beyond the terms of the 1963 Vienna Convention. I am not sure what the terms of the bilateral convention are.
Does anyone on here know what the lady's actual status (diplomatic/consular and agent/dependent) is?
The press seems to throw the term "Diplomatic" around in a loose manner. A bit like referring to any vehicle painted green as a "tank"
Another issue not discussed so far is whether she was registered with the FCO as an agent or dependent.
All of us are debating this in the dark.
The latest I found on her status is that thr air base where she was located has some sort of "special arrangement" whereby personnel there and their dependents are afforded DI by the uK government.
 
The latest I found on her status is that thr air base where she was located has some sort of "special arrangement" whereby personnel there and their dependents are afforded DI by the uK government.
apparently Donald says that she should meet the family for 'some heeling'.
 
So two pages of "heated debate" can be boiled down to "Send the bloody woman back to answer the summons, dammit."

Good - that's settled, then. If they're quick they should be able to get her on tonight's flight; gets into LHR circa 0700BST. Cressida's finest will be there to greet her with warm smiles and cold bracelets. Northants plain clothes will pick her from Paddington Green just as soon as they can get through the morning rush on the North Circular.

All flippancy aside, in a just and conscionable world she'd have never attempted to evade justice and, if as she did, she were to attempt it the authorities on her side of the pond would send her straight back as soon as Priti got off of the 'phone with Pompeo, without waiting for an extradition request.

But we operate under the seemingly loaded-one-way US-UK extradition treaty and we can apparently go whistle for it.

Which are points all thrashed out in the original thread. Did that possibly divert because all the sensible on-topic arguments had played out, perhaps...?
Cressida closed Paddington Green.
 
The latest I found on her status is that thr air base where she was located has some sort of "special arrangement" whereby personnel there and their dependents are afforded DI by the uK government.
SOFA gives limited immunity, this kind of thing pops up every 8 or so years. If the person involved is carrying out their dut at the time they get immunity more or less.
 
apparently Donald says that she should meet the family for 'some heeling'.
I wouldn't know as I do not follow our "news" on a regular basis. By my reply to DavidBOCs query, I also do not mean to divert this thread over to the American woman's thread. Let's try to keep this one discussing DI more generally if we can to better understand the doctrine and those who desire can then share their newfound knowledge over in the other thread. Thanks.
 
SOFA gives limited immunity, this kind of thing pops up every 8 or so years. If the person involved is carrying out their dut at the time they get immunity more or less.
So what "duty" would a dependent be engaged in that would confer any immunity on them?

Notwithstanding any existing agreements, I fail to see how any dependent warrants the ability to circumvent national laws. Unlike a bona fide Diplomat whose presence is considered essential, there's no operational need for a dependent to be posted in and therefore no operational need for them to be able to bend any rules.

To my mind, the whole concept of immunity and who is entitled to it needs reviewing. I'd start by listing exactly which laws can be flouted and which procedures aren't applicable to those with immunity. I would struggle to believe that DI was ever intended to give carte blanche exemption from the normal rule of law.
 
W
SOFA gives limited immunity, this kind of thing pops up every 8 or so years. If the person involved is carrying out their dut at the time they get immunity more or less.
WIth respect, SOFA is a bit separate, though they can overlap, from DI per se. This is the NATO SOFA that covers allocation of criminal juriisdiction between "sending" and "receuiving" nations'military forces (and civilians accompanying the military and dependents of either).

 
W

WIth respect, SOFA is a bit separate, though they can overlap, from DI per se. This is the NATO SOFA that covers allocation of criminal juriisdiction between "sending" and "receuiving" nations'military forces (and civilians accompanying the military and dependents of either).

As I understand it, under Articles II, IV and VII, dependents are bound by the Receiving State's law and don't have the rights afforded to the Sending State's military personnel and contractors (other than not needing visas). This extends to them also having to obtain, through normal routes, a driving licence from the Receiving State as they are not entitled to exemption or a military driving permit (assuming they intend to drive on the public road).
 
So what "duty" would a dependent be engaged in that would confer any immunity on them?
Notwithstanding any existing agreements, I fail to see how any dependent warrants the ability to circumvent national laws. Unlike a bona fide Diplomat whose presence is considered essential, there's no operational need for a dependent to be posted in and therefore no operational need for them to be able to bend any rules.
As to the status of diplomatic agents and their dependents it matters not what you, I or anyone else posting her believes what the rights of dependents of diplomatic agents should be. What matters is the language of the 1961 Vienna Convention which IIRC took effect in 1964 or thereabouts. The dependents of a diplomatic agent from a sending state have the same rights as the diplomatic agent unless they are nationals of the receiving state. Nothing in the news that I have seen indicates that the lady is a UK national.

Someone above indicated that the lady had not been registered as a diplomat. That would not be required for a dependent under the Vienna Convention. Ambassadors, Nuncios, heads of mission under other titles as well as a Chargé d'Affaires require the agrément of the receiving state others do not. If the receiving state objects to the presence of a person from a sending state they do have the option to declare the person persona non grata which would guarantee that the person be allowed to leave the receiving state freely

We do not know at this time if the lady also had official duties with the US Mission in some form. I recall a classmate from grad school at Harvard who worked for an other government agency than the State Department. Her husband, at that same time, was attending the Naval War College as a civilian as he worked for the same other government agency. Previously they both had served abroad with diplomatic cover and both were considered to have diplomatic status.

There seems to be a bit of a rush to judgement here as to the lady's diplomatic status with little knowledge of facts that important to know. I have no knowledge of the terms of the bilateral diplomatic agreement between the US and the UK. Perhaps someone here has that knowledge and can enlighten us.
 
I have no banning powers. Merely asking politely.
Dear arrser, in my clumsy way I sought to assist you and other contributors.

There are some, who, despite having many talents in other areas, do tend to jump to conclusions. Therefore, I attempted to clearly state that it is pure coincidence that you started this thread at a time when an associated matter is in the UK news. The two threads should not be linked and have no relevance to each other.

As for banning, I don't know how that got into the conversation. It seems a bit disproportionate to ban someone from not adhering strictly to the subject. But I am not a moderator and so do not know.
 
I wouldn't know as I do not follow our "news" on a regular basis. By my reply to DavidBOCs query, I also do not mean to divert this thread over to the American woman's thread. Let's try to keep this one discussing DI more generally if we can to better understand the doctrine and those who desire can then share their newfound knowledge over in the other thread. Thanks.
Keeping on track I'd say a meeting would satisfy the family and both governments in this case and future cases where immunity is used but some closure is needed on an event between friendly countries.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top