Diplomatic immunity.

ademort

Last Saturday a Russian diplomat was arrested in The Hague Netherlands after complaints to police from residents. Its alleged that Dmitri Borodin had been seen abusing his children. One example given was that Borodin had been seen dragging his kids around by their hair.Of course police had no choice but to arrest the Man.
When arrested Borodin tried to play his "I,m a diplomat you cant touch me card" but Dutch police said your nicked mate we will sort this out down the nick. After an investigation Borodin was released without charge. Apparently Russian president Vladimir Poetin demanded an apology on Tuesday but it wasnt until Wednesday that an apology was offered.
Han Busker the chairman of the Dutch police federation said the police were right to arrest Borodin as the interests and safety of the children must come before diplomatic immunity.I have to say in a country were almost anythings allowed i,m really pleased that this has happened. Too many diplomats around the world get away with breaking the law purely by claiming diplomatic immunity. What do you guys and girls think?

ballysmate

In the UK, Section 24 PACE, as amended by Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, confers a power of arrest whereby the Police, and in certain circumstances, any person may arrest anyone.
The arrest would be made and any diplomatic credentials established later.
The decision to prosecute and the waiver of immunity would be made at a very high level.

spen666

Not sure people have thought this through.

diplomatic immunity works both ways. it grants foreign diplomats in our country immunity AND it grants our diplomats abroad immunity.

If we breach this principle, then we open the door for tin pot foreign countries to arrest and detain our diplomats

Do we really want that situation?

monkimark

Probably not, but if the other option is state sanctioned child abuse...

spen666

monkimark wrote:

Probably not, but if the other option is state sanctioned child abuse...

Again, think about the effect on the bigger picture

Think of the consequences of random arrests for our diplomats

capt_slog

spen666 wrote:

Not sure people have thought this through.

diplomatic immunity works both ways. it grants foreign diplomats in our country immunity AND it grants our diplomats abroad immunity.

If we breach this principle, then we open the door for tin pot foreign countries to arrest and detain our diplomats

Do we really want that situation?

Suppose not, but not sure that you have either

There's diplomatic immunity as in 'they don't get harassed whilst going about their normal business', but the above sounds like just abuse of the privilege to me. Where would you draw the line? would you be satisfied for him to claim the same immunity if he assaulted you in the street for no reason?

monkimark

If he was dragging my daughter around by her hair and was released without charge, he'd be getting his face caved in, diplomatic immuntity or no.

markhewitt1978

Ballysmate wrote:

In the UK, Section 24 PACE, as amended by Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, confers a power of arrest whereby the Police, and in certain circumstances, any person may arrest anyone.
The arrest would be made and any diplomatic credentials established later.
The decision to prosecute and the waiver of immunity would be made at a very high level.

This sounds right. The police officers on the ground are not in a position to establish if a person has valid diplomatic credentials or not, therefore that needs to be sorted out later. In any case if the offence is serious enough the country may 'deport' the individual back to their embassy. Diplomats are still in any country as a guest and can't do anything they please.

spen666

Capt Slog wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Not sure people have thought this through.

diplomatic immunity works both ways. it grants foreign diplomats in our country immunity AND it grants our diplomats abroad immunity.

If we breach this principle, then we open the door for tin pot foreign countries to arrest and detain our diplomats

Do we really want that situation?

Suppose not, but not sure that you have either

There's diplomatic immunity as in 'they don't get harassed whilst going about their normal business', but the above sounds like just abuse of the privilege to me. Where would you draw the line? would you be satisfied for him to claim the same immunity if he assaulted you in the street for no reason?

Clearly you do not fully understand what diplomatic immunity is and why it is in place.

You either have it or you don't.

If your host country can decide when and whether to arrest and prosecute you there is no diplomatic immunity.

Diplomatic immunity is an absolute, not a partial


Hence why back in 1984 we allowed the murderer of WPC Yvonne Fletcher to leave the UK alongside the rest of the Libyan Embassy staff.

You can't operate it any other way.


Its an all or nothing situation - for very good reason

BigLights

Diplomatic Immunity is absolute and needs to be, without any exception, or it will be disregarded by other countries. This is how we maintain relations with some of our ropier world neighbours - on the understanding that 'our man in Moscow' is not to be touched and vice versa, even if war breaks out.

The way it works is an embassy, mission, diplomatic residence, car or briefcase (whilst on the person) are inviolable and foreign soil. So, for example, as soon as you step inside the British Embassy in Tokyo you are back in the UK. No local police can go past the gates. Equally, if you get arrested inside the Russian embassy in London, you're subject to Russian law. Hence the Julien Assange debacle....we cannot under any circumstances enter the embassy unless invited to do so.

Now, that can clearly be abused. I grew up all over the world, dad had immunity and by extension so did I (and many of my mates who were various embassy brats) and I can assure you in hindsight we may have extended the priviliges beyond what they were originally intended for....sorry all.

schlepcycling

BigLights wrote:

Diplomatic Immunity is absolute and needs to be, without any exception, or it will be disregarded by other countries. This is how we maintain relations with some of our ropier world neighbours - on the understanding that 'our man in Moscow' is not to be touched and vice versa, even if war breaks out.

The way it works is an embassy, mission, diplomatic residence, car or briefcase (whilst on the person) are inviolable and foreign soil. So, for example, as soon as you step inside the British Embassy in Tokyo you are back in the UK. No local police can go past the gates. Equally, if you get arrested inside the Russian embassy in London, you're subject to Russian law. Hence the Julien Assange debacle....we cannot under any circumstances enter the embassy unless invited to do so.

Now, that can clearly be abused. I grew up all over the world, dad had immunity and by extension so did I (and many of my mates who were various embassy brats) and I can assure you in hindsight we may have extended the priviliges beyond what they were originally intended for....sorry all.

It's a common misconception but an embassy is NOT considered the soil of the country represented they remain under the jurisdiction of the host state whilst being afforded special privileges under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and it is under this convention that the host country may not enter the embassy without the permission of the represented country.

I knew watching QI would be useful one day.

BigLights

I have just checked - you are quite right. I stand corrected.

Rather corroborates my admission that I was not entirely paying attention at the time!

Daz555

majormantra

...IS REVOKED.

meagain

Diplomatic immunity has to be absolute. Any exception simply opens the door to exception at the whim of the host state.

Hoopdriver

Interesting this complaint happened to arise just when a Dutch registered Greenoeace ship is being held by the Russians.

ademort

Thats a good point, however the two cases are not related.

izza

However, the Dutch have the right to send him back to Moscow.

Whilst the Russians could do a tit for tat as they do with Diplomats caught spying it would be a good lesson for the bloke to arrive back in Moscow holding witness statements stating he was beating his kids and explain that to the KGB boss.

ademort

According to reports a full copy of the case file is to be sent to Moscow.Its strange that a number of people who live in the area where Borodin lives all say hes abused his kids and yet police arrest him and then say there is no case to answer. This incident is not just going to be forgotten as the Russians are still complaining about it and have refused to accept the apologies of the Dutch government saying they took far too long to apologise and Mr Borodin should never have been arrested in the first place.

Hoopdriver

ademort wrote:

Thats a good point, however the two cases are not related.

And you know this how?

DeVlaeminck

It's a nonsense to say diplomatic immunity can only be all or nothing. Some staff do have limited diplomatic immunity so it is clearly possible.

As to whether it is desirable to limit diplomatic immunity - yes there would be consequences but personally I think in exceptional circumstances it should be limited.

spen666

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's a nonsense to say diplomatic immunity can only be all or nothing. Some staff do have limited diplomatic immunity so it is clearly possible.

That is I think not correct.

Diplomatic immunity is diplomatic immunity.

A country can waive the immunity its diplomats have, but the host country cannot make exceptions to it

As to whether it is desirable to limit diplomatic immunity - yes there would be consequences but personally I think in exceptional circumstances it should be limited.

Have you thought through the consequences of this?
Adopting your idea,

The Dutch decide to ignore diplomatic immunity in this case and arrest the russian , prosecute hiom and jail him


What is to stop Russia randomly arresting a Dutch diplomat in Moscow, accuse him ( on a trumped up charge perhaps) of child abuse and jail him?

What is to stop any country deciding they want to make an exception to arrest a diplomat?


diplomatic imunity is an all or nothing thing.

spen666

For those who seemingly know so little about diplomatic immunity that they think it is not an all or nothing thing and that the host country can make exceptions to it in relation to criminal matters....

The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which governs the position is rather clear

Article 29
The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest
or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to
prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity.

Article 31
1. A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.....

Notice in that convention there are no exceptions, no doctines of partial immunity in relation to arrest etc.


The position is slightly different in relation to civil law




Now we have established that Diplomatic Immunity from prosecution/ arrest is an absolute, .....

DeVlaeminck

I believe you are factually incorrect about it being absolute in all cases - there are staff with limited immunity.

meagain

The POST rather than the STAFF may be "partial" e.g.

"This is because entitlement
to privileges and immunities stems from the
status accorded a particular individual when he or
she is formally accepted in a particular capacity by
the receiving state and the post to which the person is
assigned in that country. Status is not determined, in
this context, by any professional designation, rank, or
title that the sending state may assign.

Possession of a diplomatic passport alone affords its
holder no privileges or immunities of any kind."

Source: USA Foreign Service.

Diplomatic passports are interesting. The UK is one of few countries where state employees on official business do NOT have a separate, work, passport. Once caused me much delay at Iranian immigration - and UK passports no longer even give an "occupation". Diplomatic couriers carry a To Whom It May Concern letter, really quite impressive a document! The instructions to the carrier of a dip bag verge(d) on the bizarre, but clear that must be protected up to and including the the bearer's life.

pinno

Surely, if you are an ambassador in a foreign country, you should behave in a fashion that befits a foreign diplomat.

So what we are saying here is that diplomatic immunity is as good as moral immunity? If I was Putin, I would have the feckers balls boiled in oil for bringing shame to the State of Russia. But then I am not Putin and Putin is a law unto himself.

Pity that there is not a international code of conduct which should be implicit and comes with the privaledge of being an ambassador or diplomat.

meagain

An ambassador is an honourable man sent abroard to lie for his country. Can't remember the source!

pinno

meagain wrote:

An ambassador is an honourable man sent abroard to lie for his country. Can't remember the source!

youagain !!

meagain

Even older than I:

"In spite of the joking description of diplomats attributed to Sir Henry Wotton, a late sixteenth-century English diplomat, that "an ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country," "

"Joking" has to be taken in the context of the quote - a diplomat!