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?
What is the most 'environmentally friendly' way to learn to fly?
In a KP-K endgame, if the enemy king is in front of the pawn, is it always a draw?
How to avoid a lengthy conversation with someone from the neighborhood I don't share interests with
Difference between "jail" and "prison" in German
Pronouns when writing from the point of view of a robot
Is law enforcement responsible for damages made by a search warrant?
How was the cosmonaut of the Soviet moon mission supposed to get back in the return vehicle?
Is there a general term for the items in a directory?
How to transform a function from f[#1] to f[x]
How do I find version of Intel graphics card drivers installed?
Is there any difference between "result in" and "end up with"?
Is this popular optical illusion made of a grey-scale image with coloured lines?
Can there be multiple energy eigenstates corresponding to the same eigenvalue of a Hamiltonian (Pauli-X)?
Using Forstner bits instead of hole saws
Has J.J.Jameson ever found out that Peter Parker is Spider-Man?
Polygons crash kernel?
Does the problem of P vs NP come under the category of Operational Research?
Being told my "network" isn't PCI compliant. I don't even have a server! Do I have to comply?
Skipping same old introductions
What is Modern Vipassana?
Subverting the essence of fictional and/or religious entities; is it acceptable?
Accurately recalling the key - can everyone do it?
How to handle many times series?
Is an "are" omitted in this sentence
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 Jul 24 at 19:40
YellowBadgerYellowBadger
4531 silver badge10 bronze badges
|
show 1 more 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 Jul 24 at 19:40
YellowBadgerYellowBadger
4531 silver badge10 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
Jul 25 at 0:14
3
@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
Jul 25 at 3:36
You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. If this is a practical question based on an actual problem that you face, you should ask a lawyer in private rather than ask on the Internet.
– Peter Taylor
Jul 25 at 14:50
4
@Peter This is Politics.SE, where enforcing that rule would eliminate 99.9% of the content.
– Ben Voigt
Jul 26 at 2:36
@BenVoigt, I don't think that's true. Questions about understanding real events help to address actual problems of (a) assessing the truthfulness and spin of politicians and political journalists; and (b) deciding whom to vote for.
– Peter Taylor
Jul 26 at 10:53
|
show 1 more 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 Jul 24 at 19:40
YellowBadgerYellowBadger
4531 silver badge10 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 Jul 24 at 19:40
YellowBadgerYellowBadger
4531 silver badge10 bronze badges
asked Jul 24 at 19:40
YellowBadgerYellowBadger
4531 silver badge10 bronze badges
asked Jul 24 at 19:40
YellowBadgerYellowBadger
4531 silver badge10 bronze badges
asked Jul 24 at 19:40
YellowBadgerYellowBadger
4531 silver badge10 bronze badges
asked Jul 24 at 19:40
YellowBadgerYellowBadger
4531 silver badge10 bronze badges
4531 silver badge10 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
Jul 25 at 0:14
3
@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
Jul 25 at 3:36
You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. If this is a practical question based on an actual problem that you face, you should ask a lawyer in private rather than ask on the Internet.
– Peter Taylor
Jul 25 at 14:50
4
@Peter This is Politics.SE, where enforcing that rule would eliminate 99.9% of the content.
– Ben Voigt
Jul 26 at 2:36
@BenVoigt, I don't think that's true. Questions about understanding real events help to address actual problems of (a) assessing the truthfulness and spin of politicians and political journalists; and (b) deciding whom to vote for.
– Peter Taylor
Jul 26 at 10:53
|
show 1 more 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
Jul 25 at 0:14
3
@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
Jul 25 at 3:36
You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. If this is a practical question based on an actual problem that you face, you should ask a lawyer in private rather than ask on the Internet.
– Peter Taylor
Jul 25 at 14:50
4
@Peter This is Politics.SE, where enforcing that rule would eliminate 99.9% of the content.
– Ben Voigt
Jul 26 at 2:36
@BenVoigt, I don't think that's true. Questions about understanding real events help to address actual problems of (a) assessing the truthfulness and spin of politicians and political journalists; and (b) deciding whom to vote for.
– Peter Taylor
Jul 26 at 10:53
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
Jul 25 at 0:14
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
Jul 25 at 0:14
3
3
@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
Jul 25 at 3:36
@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
Jul 25 at 3:36
You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. If this is a practical question based on an actual problem that you face, you should ask a lawyer in private rather than ask on the Internet.
– Peter Taylor
Jul 25 at 14:50
You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. If this is a practical question based on an actual problem that you face, you should ask a lawyer in private rather than ask on the Internet.
– Peter Taylor
Jul 25 at 14:50
4
4
@Peter This is Politics.SE, where enforcing that rule would eliminate 99.9% of the content.
– Ben Voigt
Jul 26 at 2:36
@Peter This is Politics.SE, where enforcing that rule would eliminate 99.9% of the content.
– Ben Voigt
Jul 26 at 2:36
@BenVoigt, I don't think that's true. Questions about understanding real events help to address actual problems of (a) assessing the truthfulness and spin of politicians and political journalists; and (b) deciding whom to vote for.
– Peter Taylor
Jul 26 at 10:53
@BenVoigt, I don't think that's true. Questions about understanding real events help to address actual problems of (a) assessing the truthfulness and spin of politicians and political journalists; and (b) deciding whom to vote for.
– Peter Taylor
Jul 26 at 10:53
|
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
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 Jul 24 at 21:47
gnasher729gnasher729
2,4036 silver badges17 bronze badges
2
(+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
Jul 25 at 0:56
17
@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
Jul 25 at 3:42
3
Yvonne Fletcher was a British police officer on duty outside the Libyan Embassy in London in 1984 when she was fatally shot. British police determined that the shot was fired from inside the embassy but were unable to enter to conduct investigations. No-one was ever charged.
– Oscar Bravo
Jul 25 at 13:22
2
@OscarBravo +1. (this is an ill-phrased question) Whomever has jurisdiction to prosecute a suspect doesn't really matter. Where that suspect is and what they want to do, does. Which in that case was inside and nothing.
– Mazura
Jul 25 at 14:39
2
@OscarBravo that is a great illustration why having jurisdiction is not sufficient if they don't have the practical capability to prosecute - they could charge the culprit (likely in absentia) if they could identify them, but they apparently couldn't.
– Peteris
Jul 25 at 14:50
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 Jul 24 at 20:53
BrythanBrythan
79.8k8 gold badges174 silver badges276 bronze badges
2
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
Jul 25 at 3:39
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 Jul 25 at 0:52
RelaxedRelaxed
18.6k42 silver badges66 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
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 Jul 24 at 21:47
gnasher729gnasher729
2,4036 silver badges17 bronze badges
2
(+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
Jul 25 at 0:56
17
@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
Jul 25 at 3:42
3
Yvonne Fletcher was a British police officer on duty outside the Libyan Embassy in London in 1984 when she was fatally shot. British police determined that the shot was fired from inside the embassy but were unable to enter to conduct investigations. No-one was ever charged.
– Oscar Bravo
Jul 25 at 13:22
2
@OscarBravo +1. (this is an ill-phrased question) Whomever has jurisdiction to prosecute a suspect doesn't really matter. Where that suspect is and what they want to do, does. Which in that case was inside and nothing.
– Mazura
Jul 25 at 14:39
2
@OscarBravo that is a great illustration why having jurisdiction is not sufficient if they don't have the practical capability to prosecute - they could charge the culprit (likely in absentia) if they could identify them, but they apparently couldn't.
– Peteris
Jul 25 at 14:50
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 Jul 24 at 21:47
gnasher729gnasher729
2,4036 silver badges17 bronze badges
2
(+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
Jul 25 at 0:56
17
@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
Jul 25 at 3:42
3
Yvonne Fletcher was a British police officer on duty outside the Libyan Embassy in London in 1984 when she was fatally shot. British police determined that the shot was fired from inside the embassy but were unable to enter to conduct investigations. No-one was ever charged.
– Oscar Bravo
Jul 25 at 13:22
2
@OscarBravo +1. (this is an ill-phrased question) Whomever has jurisdiction to prosecute a suspect doesn't really matter. Where that suspect is and what they want to do, does. Which in that case was inside and nothing.
– Mazura
Jul 25 at 14:39
2
@OscarBravo that is a great illustration why having jurisdiction is not sufficient if they don't have the practical capability to prosecute - they could charge the culprit (likely in absentia) if they could identify them, but they apparently couldn't.
– Peteris
Jul 25 at 14:50
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 Jul 24 at 21:47
gnasher729gnasher729
2,4036 silver badges17 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 Jul 24 at 21:47
gnasher729gnasher729
2,4036 silver badges17 bronze badges
answered Jul 24 at 21:47
gnasher729gnasher729
2,4036 silver badges17 bronze badges
answered Jul 24 at 21:47
gnasher729gnasher729
2,4036 silver badges17 bronze badges
answered Jul 24 at 21:47
gnasher729gnasher729
2,4036 silver badges17 bronze badges
2,4036 silver badges17 bronze badges
2
(+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
Jul 25 at 0:56
17
@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
Jul 25 at 3:42
3
Yvonne Fletcher was a British police officer on duty outside the Libyan Embassy in London in 1984 when she was fatally shot. British police determined that the shot was fired from inside the embassy but were unable to enter to conduct investigations. No-one was ever charged.
– Oscar Bravo
Jul 25 at 13:22
2
@OscarBravo +1. (this is an ill-phrased question) Whomever has jurisdiction to prosecute a suspect doesn't really matter. Where that suspect is and what they want to do, does. Which in that case was inside and nothing.
– Mazura
Jul 25 at 14:39
2
@OscarBravo that is a great illustration why having jurisdiction is not sufficient if they don't have the practical capability to prosecute - they could charge the culprit (likely in absentia) if they could identify them, but they apparently couldn't.
– Peteris
Jul 25 at 14:50
add a comment |
2
(+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
Jul 25 at 0:56
17
@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
Jul 25 at 3:42
3
Yvonne Fletcher was a British police officer on duty outside the Libyan Embassy in London in 1984 when she was fatally shot. British police determined that the shot was fired from inside the embassy but were unable to enter to conduct investigations. No-one was ever charged.
– Oscar Bravo
Jul 25 at 13:22
2
@OscarBravo +1. (this is an ill-phrased question) Whomever has jurisdiction to prosecute a suspect doesn't really matter. Where that suspect is and what they want to do, does. Which in that case was inside and nothing.
– Mazura
Jul 25 at 14:39
2
@OscarBravo that is a great illustration why having jurisdiction is not sufficient if they don't have the practical capability to prosecute - they could charge the culprit (likely in absentia) if they could identify them, but they apparently couldn't.
– Peteris
Jul 25 at 14:50
2
2
(+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
Jul 25 at 0:56
(+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
Jul 25 at 0:56
17
17
@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
Jul 25 at 3:42
@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
Jul 25 at 3:42
3
3
Yvonne Fletcher was a British police officer on duty outside the Libyan Embassy in London in 1984 when she was fatally shot. British police determined that the shot was fired from inside the embassy but were unable to enter to conduct investigations. No-one was ever charged.
– Oscar Bravo
Jul 25 at 13:22
Yvonne Fletcher was a British police officer on duty outside the Libyan Embassy in London in 1984 when she was fatally shot. British police determined that the shot was fired from inside the embassy but were unable to enter to conduct investigations. No-one was ever charged.
– Oscar Bravo
Jul 25 at 13:22
2
2
@OscarBravo +1. (this is an ill-phrased question) Whomever has jurisdiction to prosecute a suspect doesn't really matter. Where that suspect is and what they want to do, does. Which in that case was inside and nothing.
– Mazura
Jul 25 at 14:39
@OscarBravo +1. (this is an ill-phrased question) Whomever has jurisdiction to prosecute a suspect doesn't really matter. Where that suspect is and what they want to do, does. Which in that case was inside and nothing.
– Mazura
Jul 25 at 14:39
2
2
@OscarBravo that is a great illustration why having jurisdiction is not sufficient if they don't have the practical capability to prosecute - they could charge the culprit (likely in absentia) if they could identify them, but they apparently couldn't.
– Peteris
Jul 25 at 14:50
@OscarBravo that is a great illustration why having jurisdiction is not sufficient if they don't have the practical capability to prosecute - they could charge the culprit (likely in absentia) if they could identify them, but they apparently couldn't.
– Peteris
Jul 25 at 14:50
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 Jul 24 at 20:53
BrythanBrythan
79.8k8 gold badges174 silver badges276 bronze badges
2
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
Jul 25 at 3:39
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 Jul 24 at 20:53
BrythanBrythan
79.8k8 gold badges174 silver badges276 bronze badges
2
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
Jul 25 at 3:39
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 Jul 24 at 20:53
BrythanBrythan
79.8k8 gold badges174 silver badges276 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 Jul 24 at 20:53
BrythanBrythan
79.8k8 gold badges174 silver badges276 bronze badges
answered Jul 24 at 20:53
BrythanBrythan
79.8k8 gold badges174 silver badges276 bronze badges
answered Jul 24 at 20:53
BrythanBrythan
79.8k8 gold badges174 silver badges276 bronze badges
answered Jul 24 at 20:53
BrythanBrythan
79.8k8 gold badges174 silver badges276 bronze badges
79.8k8 gold badges174 silver badges276 bronze badges
2
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
Jul 25 at 3:39
add a comment |
2
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
Jul 25 at 3:39
2
2
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
Jul 25 at 3:39
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
Jul 25 at 3:39
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 Jul 25 at 0:52
RelaxedRelaxed
18.6k42 silver badges66 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 Jul 25 at 0:52
RelaxedRelaxed
18.6k42 silver badges66 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 Jul 25 at 0:52
RelaxedRelaxed
18.6k42 silver badges66 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 Jul 25 at 0:52
RelaxedRelaxed
18.6k42 silver badges66 bronze badges
answered Jul 25 at 0:52
RelaxedRelaxed
18.6k42 silver badges66 bronze badges
answered Jul 25 at 0:52
RelaxedRelaxed
18.6k42 silver badges66 bronze badges
answered Jul 25 at 0:52
RelaxedRelaxed
18.6k42 silver badges66 bronze badges
18.6k42 silver badges66 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
Jul 25 at 0:14
3
@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
Jul 25 at 3:36
You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. If this is a practical question based on an actual problem that you face, you should ask a lawyer in private rather than ask on the Internet.
– Peter Taylor
Jul 25 at 14:50
4
@Peter This is Politics.SE, where enforcing that rule would eliminate 99.9% of the content.
– Ben Voigt
Jul 26 at 2:36
@BenVoigt, I don't think that's true. Questions about understanding real events help to address actual problems of (a) assessing the truthfulness and spin of politicians and political journalists; and (b) deciding whom to vote for.
– Peter Taylor
Jul 26 at 10:53