Who has jurisdiction for a crime committed in an embassy?Was the 2003 Iraq War an undeclared war to...
"It is what it is" in French
Why is chess failing to attract big name sponsors?
Who has jurisdiction for a crime committed in an embassy?
Can I pay with HKD in Macau or Shenzhen?
Character Frequency in a String
Found more old paper shares from broken up companies
Idioms: Should it be " the internet is a seemingly infinite well of information" or "the internet is a seemingly infinite wealth of information"
Monty Hall Problem with a Fallible Monty
What is an Eternal Word™?
Are gangsters hired to attack people at a train station classified as a terrorist attack?
Short story where a flexible reality hardens to an unchanging one
Why are angular mometum and angular velocity not necessarily parallel, but linear momentum and linear velocity are always parallel?
Why must API keys be kept private?
USA: Can a witness take the 5th to avoid perjury?
High income and difficulty during interviews
Short story about a group of sci-fi writers sitting around discussing their profession
Are rockets faster than airplanes?
Do Rabbis get punished in Heaven for wrong interpretations?
Area of parallelogram = Area of square. Shear transform
Grid/table with lots of buttons
I have a domain, static IP address and many devices I'd like to access outside my house. How do I route them?
Why did modems have speakers?
Running a linear programming model to maximize binned predictions
What is the meaning of "you has the wind of me"?
Who has jurisdiction for a crime committed in an embassy?
Was the 2003 Iraq War an undeclared war to circumvent the Geneva Conventions?Does the US often deny visas to UN diplomats?What's the purpose of the International Criminal Court?Could Assange be arrested if the Ecuadorian embassy is evacuated?Does the right to self-determination trump the requirement to accept refugees in international law?What are the objective minimum prerequisites for people of African descent in the Americas to form of an independent modern sovereign nation-state?Are there political reasons why Turkey would want to catch Saudi Arabian agents committing a crime?Sanctions on countries with legal but cruel punishmentsHow to interpret 'economic zones'?Are intrusions within a foreign embassy considered an act of war?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
Who would have prosecutorial/criminal jurisdiction if a crime was comitted in an embassy in a foreign nation. For example if someone was murdered in the US Embassy in Moscow, or if someone was murdered in the Indian embassy in the USA?
Also, who would have jurisdiction if a crime occurred in the UN building in New York since the UN is under no national jurisdiction?
international-relations international-law
asked 8 hours ago
YellowBadgerYellowBadger
4017 bronze badges
add a comment |
Who would have prosecutorial/criminal jurisdiction if a crime was comitted in an embassy in a foreign nation. For example if someone was murdered in the US Embassy in Moscow, or if someone was murdered in the Indian embassy in the USA?
Also, who would have jurisdiction if a crime occurred in the UN building in New York since the UN is under no national jurisdiction?
international-relations international-law
asked 8 hours ago
YellowBadgerYellowBadger
4017 bronze badges
The answer to this will depend on who committed the crime and who the victim was. For example if both of them where members of the diplomatic staff versus both of them being locals hired to work in the embassy.
– Joe W
4 hours ago
@JoeW the answer depends more on what two countries are involved. The receiving country always has jurisdiction; diplomatic immunity and imviolability do not remove the jurisdiction. The sending country may or may not have laws that apply extraterritorially to its diplomatic missions or diplomatic corps.
– phoog
59 mins ago
add a comment |
Who would have prosecutorial/criminal jurisdiction if a crime was comitted in an embassy in a foreign nation. For example if someone was murdered in the US Embassy in Moscow, or if someone was murdered in the Indian embassy in the USA?
Also, who would have jurisdiction if a crime occurred in the UN building in New York since the UN is under no national jurisdiction?
international-relations international-law
asked 8 hours ago
YellowBadgerYellowBadger
4017 bronze badges
Who would have prosecutorial/criminal jurisdiction if a crime was comitted in an embassy in a foreign nation. For example if someone was murdered in the US Embassy in Moscow, or if someone was murdered in the Indian embassy in the USA?
Also, who would have jurisdiction if a crime occurred in the UN building in New York since the UN is under no national jurisdiction?
international-relations international-law
international-relations international-law
asked 8 hours ago
YellowBadgerYellowBadger
4017 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
YellowBadgerYellowBadger
4017 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
YellowBadgerYellowBadger
4017 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
YellowBadgerYellowBadger
4017 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
YellowBadgerYellowBadger
4017 bronze badges
4017 bronze badges
The answer to this will depend on who committed the crime and who the victim was. For example if both of them where members of the diplomatic staff versus both of them being locals hired to work in the embassy.
– Joe W
4 hours ago
@JoeW the answer depends more on what two countries are involved. The receiving country always has jurisdiction; diplomatic immunity and imviolability do not remove the jurisdiction. The sending country may or may not have laws that apply extraterritorially to its diplomatic missions or diplomatic corps.
– phoog
59 mins ago
add a comment |
The answer to this will depend on who committed the crime and who the victim was. For example if both of them where members of the diplomatic staff versus both of them being locals hired to work in the embassy.
– Joe W
4 hours ago
@JoeW the answer depends more on what two countries are involved. The receiving country always has jurisdiction; diplomatic immunity and imviolability do not remove the jurisdiction. The sending country may or may not have laws that apply extraterritorially to its diplomatic missions or diplomatic corps.
– phoog
59 mins ago
The answer to this will depend on who committed the crime and who the victim was. For example if both of them where members of the diplomatic staff versus both of them being locals hired to work in the embassy.
– Joe W
4 hours ago
The answer to this will depend on who committed the crime and who the victim was. For example if both of them where members of the diplomatic staff versus both of them being locals hired to work in the embassy.
– Joe W
4 hours ago
@JoeW the answer depends more on what two countries are involved. The receiving country always has jurisdiction; diplomatic immunity and imviolability do not remove the jurisdiction. The sending country may or may not have laws that apply extraterritorially to its diplomatic missions or diplomatic corps.
– phoog
59 mins ago
@JoeW the answer depends more on what two countries are involved. The receiving country always has jurisdiction; diplomatic immunity and imviolability do not remove the jurisdiction. The sending country may or may not have laws that apply extraterritorially to its diplomatic missions or diplomatic corps.
– phoog
59 mins ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
The host country always has jurisdiction. If the alleged criminals are diplomats, they have diplomatic immunity regardless of whether the crime was on embassy grounds or not.
It is often said that an embassy is foreign soil, but it isn't true. See Is an Embassy on Foreign Soil the Sovereign Territory of the Embassy's Country or the Host Country?
answered 7 hours ago
BrythanBrythan
78.4k8 gold badges168 silver badges269 bronze badges
Furthermore, embassies are inviolable, but that doesn't mean that the host country cannot prosecute crimes committed on embassy grounds. It just means they cannot arrest people on embassy grounds unless they are invited to do so. Similarly, diplomatic immunity can be waived by the sending state.
– phoog
56 mins ago
add a comment |
Legally the host country can prosecute the crime, but the guest country can refuse to let them enter the embassy, and then there is diplomatic immunity. What would happen in practice would depend on the situation.
If the guest country wants the crime to be punished, they can hand over the criminal to the host country's police. Or they can call the host country's police in so they can gather evidence to have a better chance for successful prosecution, obviously you would do that carefully so the police cannot spy on the embassy. In the unlikely case that a diplomat commits a crime (against the interest of his own country), the guest country can revoke that person's diplomatic immunity.
On the other hand, if they don't want the crime to be prosecuted, they can prevent the police from entering the embassy, or a diplomat criminal can just walk away due to diplomatic immunity.
answered 6 hours ago
gnasher729gnasher729
2,2936 silver badges16 bronze badges
(+1) It's not unheard of for diplomats to get involved in crimes (starting with traffic accidents while driving under the influence). But note that in that case, it's not uncommon for the sending country to repatriate the diplomat and pursue internal disciplinary action or criminal prosecution at home instead of waiving immunity.
– Relaxed
3 hours ago
@Relaxed, gnasher729: as I suppose you both know, but it's worth mentioning, even if the sending state does not waive immunity, the receiving state can still expel the diplomat. They cannot force a prosecution, but they do not have to tolerate the person waking around on their streets.
– phoog
53 mins ago
add a comment |
As others explained, the host country definitely has jurisdiction. Local law enforcement would need to be invited into the embassy to conduct investigations there and diplomatic staff has immunity against any coercive measure but it doesn't mean there is no crime or that prosecution itself is forbidden.
Additionally, some countries have laws on the books providing for prosecution of (serious) crimes committed by or against their citizens, no matter where they take place (abroad, in an embassy or not). Such a law could be used by the sending country to launch an investigation and create some accountability without waiving diplomatic immunity.
Similarly, the sending country could open an investigation if the victim is a diplomat and the host country does not seem interested in prosecuting the crime. Obviously, any coercive measure (subpoena, etc.) and most investigative actions on the territory of the host country would require its cooperation (this has happened before). Depending on the specifics, a third country could even do the same.
Importantly, diplomatic immunity can be waived and, for a diplomat working for an international organization, the decision would be made by the organization itself (and not by the diplomat's country of origin). Depending on who is involved, seeing the immunity waived is a very real possibility in the UN scenario. By contrast, for a diplomat working for a country's delegation, immunity would have to be waived by the sending country and many countries practically never do that (either preferring to prosecute crimes committed by diplomats back home or not holding them accountable at all).
answered 3 hours ago
RelaxedRelaxed
18.5k41 silver badges65 bronze badges
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f43201%2fwho-has-jurisdiction-for-a-crime-committed-in-an-embassy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The host country always has jurisdiction. If the alleged criminals are diplomats, they have diplomatic immunity regardless of whether the crime was on embassy grounds or not.
It is often said that an embassy is foreign soil, but it isn't true. See Is an Embassy on Foreign Soil the Sovereign Territory of the Embassy's Country or the Host Country?
answered 7 hours ago
BrythanBrythan
78.4k8 gold badges168 silver badges269 bronze badges
Furthermore, embassies are inviolable, but that doesn't mean that the host country cannot prosecute crimes committed on embassy grounds. It just means they cannot arrest people on embassy grounds unless they are invited to do so. Similarly, diplomatic immunity can be waived by the sending state.
– phoog
56 mins ago
add a comment |
The host country always has jurisdiction. If the alleged criminals are diplomats, they have diplomatic immunity regardless of whether the crime was on embassy grounds or not.
It is often said that an embassy is foreign soil, but it isn't true. See Is an Embassy on Foreign Soil the Sovereign Territory of the Embassy's Country or the Host Country?
answered 7 hours ago
BrythanBrythan
78.4k8 gold badges168 silver badges269 bronze badges
Furthermore, embassies are inviolable, but that doesn't mean that the host country cannot prosecute crimes committed on embassy grounds. It just means they cannot arrest people on embassy grounds unless they are invited to do so. Similarly, diplomatic immunity can be waived by the sending state.
– phoog
56 mins ago
add a comment |
The host country always has jurisdiction. If the alleged criminals are diplomats, they have diplomatic immunity regardless of whether the crime was on embassy grounds or not.
It is often said that an embassy is foreign soil, but it isn't true. See Is an Embassy on Foreign Soil the Sovereign Territory of the Embassy's Country or the Host Country?
answered 7 hours ago
BrythanBrythan
78.4k8 gold badges168 silver badges269 bronze badges
The host country always has jurisdiction. If the alleged criminals are diplomats, they have diplomatic immunity regardless of whether the crime was on embassy grounds or not.
It is often said that an embassy is foreign soil, but it isn't true. See Is an Embassy on Foreign Soil the Sovereign Territory of the Embassy's Country or the Host Country?
answered 7 hours ago
BrythanBrythan
78.4k8 gold badges168 silver badges269 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
BrythanBrythan
78.4k8 gold badges168 silver badges269 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
BrythanBrythan
78.4k8 gold badges168 silver badges269 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
BrythanBrythan
78.4k8 gold badges168 silver badges269 bronze badges
78.4k8 gold badges168 silver badges269 bronze badges
Furthermore, embassies are inviolable, but that doesn't mean that the host country cannot prosecute crimes committed on embassy grounds. It just means they cannot arrest people on embassy grounds unless they are invited to do so. Similarly, diplomatic immunity can be waived by the sending state.
– phoog
56 mins ago
add a comment |
Furthermore, embassies are inviolable, but that doesn't mean that the host country cannot prosecute crimes committed on embassy grounds. It just means they cannot arrest people on embassy grounds unless they are invited to do so. Similarly, diplomatic immunity can be waived by the sending state.
– phoog
56 mins ago
Furthermore, embassies are inviolable, but that doesn't mean that the host country cannot prosecute crimes committed on embassy grounds. It just means they cannot arrest people on embassy grounds unless they are invited to do so. Similarly, diplomatic immunity can be waived by the sending state.
– phoog
56 mins ago
Furthermore, embassies are inviolable, but that doesn't mean that the host country cannot prosecute crimes committed on embassy grounds. It just means they cannot arrest people on embassy grounds unless they are invited to do so. Similarly, diplomatic immunity can be waived by the sending state.
– phoog
56 mins ago
add a comment |
Legally the host country can prosecute the crime, but the guest country can refuse to let them enter the embassy, and then there is diplomatic immunity. What would happen in practice would depend on the situation.
If the guest country wants the crime to be punished, they can hand over the criminal to the host country's police. Or they can call the host country's police in so they can gather evidence to have a better chance for successful prosecution, obviously you would do that carefully so the police cannot spy on the embassy. In the unlikely case that a diplomat commits a crime (against the interest of his own country), the guest country can revoke that person's diplomatic immunity.
On the other hand, if they don't want the crime to be prosecuted, they can prevent the police from entering the embassy, or a diplomat criminal can just walk away due to diplomatic immunity.
answered 6 hours ago
gnasher729gnasher729
2,2936 silver badges16 bronze badges
(+1) It's not unheard of for diplomats to get involved in crimes (starting with traffic accidents while driving under the influence). But note that in that case, it's not uncommon for the sending country to repatriate the diplomat and pursue internal disciplinary action or criminal prosecution at home instead of waiving immunity.
– Relaxed
3 hours ago
@Relaxed, gnasher729: as I suppose you both know, but it's worth mentioning, even if the sending state does not waive immunity, the receiving state can still expel the diplomat. They cannot force a prosecution, but they do not have to tolerate the person waking around on their streets.
– phoog
53 mins ago
add a comment |
Legally the host country can prosecute the crime, but the guest country can refuse to let them enter the embassy, and then there is diplomatic immunity. What would happen in practice would depend on the situation.
If the guest country wants the crime to be punished, they can hand over the criminal to the host country's police. Or they can call the host country's police in so they can gather evidence to have a better chance for successful prosecution, obviously you would do that carefully so the police cannot spy on the embassy. In the unlikely case that a diplomat commits a crime (against the interest of his own country), the guest country can revoke that person's diplomatic immunity.
On the other hand, if they don't want the crime to be prosecuted, they can prevent the police from entering the embassy, or a diplomat criminal can just walk away due to diplomatic immunity.
answered 6 hours ago
gnasher729gnasher729
2,2936 silver badges16 bronze badges
(+1) It's not unheard of for diplomats to get involved in crimes (starting with traffic accidents while driving under the influence). But note that in that case, it's not uncommon for the sending country to repatriate the diplomat and pursue internal disciplinary action or criminal prosecution at home instead of waiving immunity.
– Relaxed
3 hours ago
@Relaxed, gnasher729: as I suppose you both know, but it's worth mentioning, even if the sending state does not waive immunity, the receiving state can still expel the diplomat. They cannot force a prosecution, but they do not have to tolerate the person waking around on their streets.
– phoog
53 mins ago
add a comment |
Legally the host country can prosecute the crime, but the guest country can refuse to let them enter the embassy, and then there is diplomatic immunity. What would happen in practice would depend on the situation.
If the guest country wants the crime to be punished, they can hand over the criminal to the host country's police. Or they can call the host country's police in so they can gather evidence to have a better chance for successful prosecution, obviously you would do that carefully so the police cannot spy on the embassy. In the unlikely case that a diplomat commits a crime (against the interest of his own country), the guest country can revoke that person's diplomatic immunity.
On the other hand, if they don't want the crime to be prosecuted, they can prevent the police from entering the embassy, or a diplomat criminal can just walk away due to diplomatic immunity.
answered 6 hours ago
gnasher729gnasher729
2,2936 silver badges16 bronze badges
Legally the host country can prosecute the crime, but the guest country can refuse to let them enter the embassy, and then there is diplomatic immunity. What would happen in practice would depend on the situation.
If the guest country wants the crime to be punished, they can hand over the criminal to the host country's police. Or they can call the host country's police in so they can gather evidence to have a better chance for successful prosecution, obviously you would do that carefully so the police cannot spy on the embassy. In the unlikely case that a diplomat commits a crime (against the interest of his own country), the guest country can revoke that person's diplomatic immunity.
On the other hand, if they don't want the crime to be prosecuted, they can prevent the police from entering the embassy, or a diplomat criminal can just walk away due to diplomatic immunity.
answered 6 hours ago
gnasher729gnasher729
2,2936 silver badges16 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
gnasher729gnasher729
2,2936 silver badges16 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
gnasher729gnasher729
2,2936 silver badges16 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
gnasher729gnasher729
2,2936 silver badges16 bronze badges
2,2936 silver badges16 bronze badges
(+1) It's not unheard of for diplomats to get involved in crimes (starting with traffic accidents while driving under the influence). But note that in that case, it's not uncommon for the sending country to repatriate the diplomat and pursue internal disciplinary action or criminal prosecution at home instead of waiving immunity.
– Relaxed
3 hours ago
@Relaxed, gnasher729: as I suppose you both know, but it's worth mentioning, even if the sending state does not waive immunity, the receiving state can still expel the diplomat. They cannot force a prosecution, but they do not have to tolerate the person waking around on their streets.
– phoog
53 mins ago
add a comment |
(+1) It's not unheard of for diplomats to get involved in crimes (starting with traffic accidents while driving under the influence). But note that in that case, it's not uncommon for the sending country to repatriate the diplomat and pursue internal disciplinary action or criminal prosecution at home instead of waiving immunity.
– Relaxed
3 hours ago
@Relaxed, gnasher729: as I suppose you both know, but it's worth mentioning, even if the sending state does not waive immunity, the receiving state can still expel the diplomat. They cannot force a prosecution, but they do not have to tolerate the person waking around on their streets.
– phoog
53 mins ago
(+1) It's not unheard of for diplomats to get involved in crimes (starting with traffic accidents while driving under the influence). But note that in that case, it's not uncommon for the sending country to repatriate the diplomat and pursue internal disciplinary action or criminal prosecution at home instead of waiving immunity.
– Relaxed
3 hours ago
(+1) It's not unheard of for diplomats to get involved in crimes (starting with traffic accidents while driving under the influence). But note that in that case, it's not uncommon for the sending country to repatriate the diplomat and pursue internal disciplinary action or criminal prosecution at home instead of waiving immunity.
– Relaxed
3 hours ago
@Relaxed, gnasher729: as I suppose you both know, but it's worth mentioning, even if the sending state does not waive immunity, the receiving state can still expel the diplomat. They cannot force a prosecution, but they do not have to tolerate the person waking around on their streets.
– phoog
53 mins ago
@Relaxed, gnasher729: as I suppose you both know, but it's worth mentioning, even if the sending state does not waive immunity, the receiving state can still expel the diplomat. They cannot force a prosecution, but they do not have to tolerate the person waking around on their streets.
– phoog
53 mins ago
add a comment |
As others explained, the host country definitely has jurisdiction. Local law enforcement would need to be invited into the embassy to conduct investigations there and diplomatic staff has immunity against any coercive measure but it doesn't mean there is no crime or that prosecution itself is forbidden.
Additionally, some countries have laws on the books providing for prosecution of (serious) crimes committed by or against their citizens, no matter where they take place (abroad, in an embassy or not). Such a law could be used by the sending country to launch an investigation and create some accountability without waiving diplomatic immunity.
Similarly, the sending country could open an investigation if the victim is a diplomat and the host country does not seem interested in prosecuting the crime. Obviously, any coercive measure (subpoena, etc.) and most investigative actions on the territory of the host country would require its cooperation (this has happened before). Depending on the specifics, a third country could even do the same.
Importantly, diplomatic immunity can be waived and, for a diplomat working for an international organization, the decision would be made by the organization itself (and not by the diplomat's country of origin). Depending on who is involved, seeing the immunity waived is a very real possibility in the UN scenario. By contrast, for a diplomat working for a country's delegation, immunity would have to be waived by the sending country and many countries practically never do that (either preferring to prosecute crimes committed by diplomats back home or not holding them accountable at all).
answered 3 hours ago
RelaxedRelaxed
18.5k41 silver badges65 bronze badges
add a comment |
As others explained, the host country definitely has jurisdiction. Local law enforcement would need to be invited into the embassy to conduct investigations there and diplomatic staff has immunity against any coercive measure but it doesn't mean there is no crime or that prosecution itself is forbidden.
Additionally, some countries have laws on the books providing for prosecution of (serious) crimes committed by or against their citizens, no matter where they take place (abroad, in an embassy or not). Such a law could be used by the sending country to launch an investigation and create some accountability without waiving diplomatic immunity.
Similarly, the sending country could open an investigation if the victim is a diplomat and the host country does not seem interested in prosecuting the crime. Obviously, any coercive measure (subpoena, etc.) and most investigative actions on the territory of the host country would require its cooperation (this has happened before). Depending on the specifics, a third country could even do the same.
Importantly, diplomatic immunity can be waived and, for a diplomat working for an international organization, the decision would be made by the organization itself (and not by the diplomat's country of origin). Depending on who is involved, seeing the immunity waived is a very real possibility in the UN scenario. By contrast, for a diplomat working for a country's delegation, immunity would have to be waived by the sending country and many countries practically never do that (either preferring to prosecute crimes committed by diplomats back home or not holding them accountable at all).
answered 3 hours ago
RelaxedRelaxed
18.5k41 silver badges65 bronze badges
add a comment |
As others explained, the host country definitely has jurisdiction. Local law enforcement would need to be invited into the embassy to conduct investigations there and diplomatic staff has immunity against any coercive measure but it doesn't mean there is no crime or that prosecution itself is forbidden.
Additionally, some countries have laws on the books providing for prosecution of (serious) crimes committed by or against their citizens, no matter where they take place (abroad, in an embassy or not). Such a law could be used by the sending country to launch an investigation and create some accountability without waiving diplomatic immunity.
Similarly, the sending country could open an investigation if the victim is a diplomat and the host country does not seem interested in prosecuting the crime. Obviously, any coercive measure (subpoena, etc.) and most investigative actions on the territory of the host country would require its cooperation (this has happened before). Depending on the specifics, a third country could even do the same.
Importantly, diplomatic immunity can be waived and, for a diplomat working for an international organization, the decision would be made by the organization itself (and not by the diplomat's country of origin). Depending on who is involved, seeing the immunity waived is a very real possibility in the UN scenario. By contrast, for a diplomat working for a country's delegation, immunity would have to be waived by the sending country and many countries practically never do that (either preferring to prosecute crimes committed by diplomats back home or not holding them accountable at all).
answered 3 hours ago
RelaxedRelaxed
18.5k41 silver badges65 bronze badges
As others explained, the host country definitely has jurisdiction. Local law enforcement would need to be invited into the embassy to conduct investigations there and diplomatic staff has immunity against any coercive measure but it doesn't mean there is no crime or that prosecution itself is forbidden.
Additionally, some countries have laws on the books providing for prosecution of (serious) crimes committed by or against their citizens, no matter where they take place (abroad, in an embassy or not). Such a law could be used by the sending country to launch an investigation and create some accountability without waiving diplomatic immunity.
Similarly, the sending country could open an investigation if the victim is a diplomat and the host country does not seem interested in prosecuting the crime. Obviously, any coercive measure (subpoena, etc.) and most investigative actions on the territory of the host country would require its cooperation (this has happened before). Depending on the specifics, a third country could even do the same.
Importantly, diplomatic immunity can be waived and, for a diplomat working for an international organization, the decision would be made by the organization itself (and not by the diplomat's country of origin). Depending on who is involved, seeing the immunity waived is a very real possibility in the UN scenario. By contrast, for a diplomat working for a country's delegation, immunity would have to be waived by the sending country and many countries practically never do that (either preferring to prosecute crimes committed by diplomats back home or not holding them accountable at all).
answered 3 hours ago
RelaxedRelaxed
18.5k41 silver badges65 bronze badges
answered 3 hours ago
RelaxedRelaxed
18.5k41 silver badges65 bronze badges
answered 3 hours ago
RelaxedRelaxed
18.5k41 silver badges65 bronze badges
answered 3 hours ago
RelaxedRelaxed
18.5k41 silver badges65 bronze badges
18.5k41 silver badges65 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f43201%2fwho-has-jurisdiction-for-a-crime-committed-in-an-embassy%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
The answer to this will depend on who committed the crime and who the victim was. For example if both of them where members of the diplomatic staff versus both of them being locals hired to work in the embassy.
– Joe W
4 hours ago
@JoeW the answer depends more on what two countries are involved. The receiving country always has jurisdiction; diplomatic immunity and imviolability do not remove the jurisdiction. The sending country may or may not have laws that apply extraterritorially to its diplomatic missions or diplomatic corps.
– phoog
59 mins ago