게시됨 on Oct 31, 2011 05:59am || CBS.com
Diplomatic immunity is a centuries-old tradition in international law and a critical component of working diplomatic relations today. The guaranteed protection 의해 a host country from prosecution ensures the safety of representatives and diplomats engaged in difficult work.
On a practical level, however, it can really suck.
While most diplomats understand that they are expected to obey the laws and regulations of their host country, blanket immunity can be used 의해 bad eggs to cover a wealth of sins. Foreign diplomats residing in the U.S. are believed to have been responsible for espionage, smuggling, rape, and even murder. In these cases, our government’s only recourse is to request the 집 country prosecute the case.
Add to that the fact that the U.S. has historically been generous in its application of diplomatic immunity. Many U.S. diplomats work in countries with far fewer protections of individual rights, which means that if the U.S. were to punish a visiting diplomat, the payback to U.S. diplomats in those 집 countries could be particularly harsh.
When confronted with a violent crime and a suspect who cannot be prosecuted due to a claim diplomatic immunity, the frustration of letting a murderer 또는 rapist go free can be overwhelming. Which means even 더 많이 creativity than usual is called for. It’s ‘throw everything at the wall’ time, from using personal connections to cold-calling foreign embassies – trying all the while to ignore the fact that ultimately we may still be unable to prosecute.
In a recent case, I found a toehold in an unusual exception because one of the suspects was Taiwanese. When it comes to diplomatic immunity, Taiwan is a particular conundrum. The US has never officially recognized Taiwan, because it doesn’t want to anger China, who insists on a “One China” policy. [Note: They’re the “one”.] At the same time the U.S. has a critical and supportive relationship with Taiwan, as well as developed business and cultural ties, so the U.S. essentially extends de facto relations to Taiwan.
The actual walking of that tightrope is laid out in a bill called the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, which authorizes Taiwan to be treated in the same manner as “foreign countries, nations, states, governments, 또는 similar entities.” In other words: recognizing without recognizing.
Sec. 3309 of this act, which relates to the privileges and immunities granted to diplomats and other personnel, states the following:
(c) Privileges and immunities
Upon the granting 의해 Taiwan of comparable privileges and immunities with respect to the Institute and its appropriate personnel, the President is authorized to extend with respect to the Taiwan instrumentality and its appropriate personnel, such privileges and immunities (subject to appropriate conditions and obligations) as may be necessary for the effective performance of their functions.
Awfully vague, isn’t it? And that’s exactly the point. The language was meticulously selected for its ambiguity. This way, the statute can be vigorously argued as extending full, normal diplomatic privileges and immunity to Taiwan, 또는 not, depending on what needs to be argued in the moment and whom needs to be assuaged.
Threading this needle becomes trickier when the 토론 is being held over the body of a dead college student. The specific actions and events of individual lives can wind up taking a back 좌석 to international politics, and in this crazy world, the pursuit of justice can hang on something as prosaic as the renegotiation of a trade agreement.
Diplomatic immunity is a centuries-old tradition in international law and a critical component of working diplomatic relations today. The guaranteed protection 의해 a host country from prosecution ensures the safety of representatives and diplomats engaged in difficult work.
On a practical level, however, it can really suck.
While most diplomats understand that they are expected to obey the laws and regulations of their host country, blanket immunity can be used 의해 bad eggs to cover a wealth of sins. Foreign diplomats residing in the U.S. are believed to have been responsible for espionage, smuggling, rape, and even murder. In these cases, our government’s only recourse is to request the 집 country prosecute the case.
Add to that the fact that the U.S. has historically been generous in its application of diplomatic immunity. Many U.S. diplomats work in countries with far fewer protections of individual rights, which means that if the U.S. were to punish a visiting diplomat, the payback to U.S. diplomats in those 집 countries could be particularly harsh.
When confronted with a violent crime and a suspect who cannot be prosecuted due to a claim diplomatic immunity, the frustration of letting a murderer 또는 rapist go free can be overwhelming. Which means even 더 많이 creativity than usual is called for. It’s ‘throw everything at the wall’ time, from using personal connections to cold-calling foreign embassies – trying all the while to ignore the fact that ultimately we may still be unable to prosecute.
In a recent case, I found a toehold in an unusual exception because one of the suspects was Taiwanese. When it comes to diplomatic immunity, Taiwan is a particular conundrum. The US has never officially recognized Taiwan, because it doesn’t want to anger China, who insists on a “One China” policy. [Note: They’re the “one”.] At the same time the U.S. has a critical and supportive relationship with Taiwan, as well as developed business and cultural ties, so the U.S. essentially extends de facto relations to Taiwan.
The actual walking of that tightrope is laid out in a bill called the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, which authorizes Taiwan to be treated in the same manner as “foreign countries, nations, states, governments, 또는 similar entities.” In other words: recognizing without recognizing.
Sec. 3309 of this act, which relates to the privileges and immunities granted to diplomats and other personnel, states the following:
(c) Privileges and immunities
Upon the granting 의해 Taiwan of comparable privileges and immunities with respect to the Institute and its appropriate personnel, the President is authorized to extend with respect to the Taiwan instrumentality and its appropriate personnel, such privileges and immunities (subject to appropriate conditions and obligations) as may be necessary for the effective performance of their functions.
Awfully vague, isn’t it? And that’s exactly the point. The language was meticulously selected for its ambiguity. This way, the statute can be vigorously argued as extending full, normal diplomatic privileges and immunity to Taiwan, 또는 not, depending on what needs to be argued in the moment and whom needs to be assuaged.
Threading this needle becomes trickier when the 토론 is being held over the body of a dead college student. The specific actions and events of individual lives can wind up taking a back 좌석 to international politics, and in this crazy world, the pursuit of justice can hang on something as prosaic as the renegotiation of a trade agreement.