Diplomatic Immunity: A Lethal Weapon in International Law

In the midst of the 2008 fnancial crisis, then president of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, infamously said that the EU would do “whatever it takes” to save the euro. It is a shame that the EU cannot say the same for the planet and those who inhabit it.

International Law Eoin Gormley JS Law and Political Science A foreign diplomat isn’t your typical Hollywood villain, but in the 1989 buddy-cop comedy Lethal Weapon 2 LAPD detectives Riggs and Murtagh found out that a foreign representative’s legal superpowers cannot be underestimated. Te heroes’ initial attempt to foil a million-dollar drug cartel came to an abrupt halt when they discovered that the ring was run entirely by South African diplomats, immune from prosecution. Te chargé d’affaires of the entire South African diplomatic mission, who was also the ringleader of the cartel, sneered at Riggs’ eforts to reprimand him: “My dear ofcer, you could not even give me a parking ticket.” Whilst the movie’s dramatic gun fghts and car chases trivialise the subject somewhat, the second instalment in the Lethal Weapon series nonetheless demonstrates the power of diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity refers to the agreement between countries that foreign representatives of a state are not to be held to the laws of the state in which they are based. It exists to ensure that any diplomat sent as a representative in a foreign country is protected from unjust and politically motivated prosecution.

Diplomatic immunity has been practised by governments for centuries, but it was the 1961 Vienna Convention on international relations that formalised diplomatic immunity and brought it into the realm of international law. Article 29 of the Convention states that a foreign diplomat “shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention” and Article 31 states that “[a] diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.” Tere are some exceptions, such as actions on private property or actions pertaining to a diplomat’s commercial practices outside of their work as a diplomat. However, in practice, these exceptions are quite limited - meaning that diplomats (and their families) remain virtually unaccountable to the law of the state they operate in. Section 5 of the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Act 1967 enshrines in Irish law the full provisions of the 1961 Vienna Convention without exception, giving Irish-based diplomats this same freedom.

Tough this is such a well-established practice in international law, it is not without its controversy. Public outrage is not so much targeted at diplomats avoiding petty ofences such as parking fnes, but concerns cases in which diplomats have escaped punishment for devastating crimes unrelated to their work. Te most recent example of this was the death of nineteen-year-old Harry Dunne in England in August 2019. Anne Sacoolas, the wife of a U.S. diplomat based in the U.K., was driving on the wrong side of the road when she collided with Dunne who was riding his motorcycle at the time. Before she could be charged for dangerous driving, Ms Sacoolas was escorted out of the country on a U.S. Air Force plane. Te U.S. government refused to honour the U.K. Government’s extradition request for her, on the grounds of her diplomatic immunity. While Dunne’s parents continue to lobby the U.K. government to take action against Sacoolas and the U.S.

EU Page 24 government, U.K. Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has insisted that there is no way to force the U.S. to comply with this extradition; even an Interpol Red Notice could not compel the U.S. to send Sacoolas to the U.K. for trial and rectify what Raab has described as a “denial of justice.” Tis is because the Vienna Convention states that the only way a diplomat can be tried for a crime is that if their home country formally waives the diplomatic immunity of the accused. Te U.S. has thus far refused to waive the immunity of Sacoolas, and has instead decided to shelter her from prosecution. A U.S. government spokesperson on the matter insisted that American authorities were working closely with the U.K. government but sought to remind the public that “[i]mmunity is rarely waived.” While this is true, there are many examples of governments choosing to waive immunity for diplomats who committed serious crimes. In 1997, the Georgian embassy waived diplomatic immunity for a senior diplomat based in Washington whose driving while under the infuence of alcohol caused a fve-car pile-up and the death of sixteen-year-old Jovianne Walrick. Te Belgian government did the same, waiving the immunity of an employee at its U.S. mission afer he was charged with the killing of two men in Florida in 1989. However, states are in no way bound by this precedent; they will usually choose to protect their citizens, rather than allow them to be tried for their ofences, no matter how serious the charge. Te U.S., in taking the former approach, has spared Anne Sacoolas.

Events such as Harry Dunne’s tragic death raise the question of just how far diplomatic immunity should go. Te broad language in the Vienna Convention means that ofenders may walk free afer committing even the most heinous of crimes, is in any way related to Though this is such a well-established whether or not the ofence their work as a diplomat. Providing for a narrow- practice in international law, it is not er wording in the Vienna Convention so that dip- lomats are only protected from actions related to without its controversy. Public outrage is their service as a diplomat may help lower the nega- immunity. However, not so much targeted at diplomats avoidtive implications of blanket states will be reluctant to accede the substantial priv- ing petty offences such as parking fines, ilege and protection their diplomats have under the mention how difcult it but concerns cases in which Convention. Tis is not to would be to get countries to agree on the precise point diplomats have escaped punishment for in which a diplomat is “too protected” from the law. Terefore, it is likely that diplomatic immunity will devastating crimes unrelated to their remain a powerful legal tool, and national legisla- work. tion will prove too weak to punish diplomats guilty of even the most reprehensible criminal ofences. It certainly appears that Riggs and Murtagh’s job won’t be getting any easier any time soon.

How the EU Commission’s Breach of Our Right to Access Environmental Information Diminishes Access to Justice Katharina Neumann JS Law and Political Science In light of the 2019 EU declaration of the climate emergency, it is now more important than ever that European citizens have access to accurate environmental information. Facilitating easy access to environmental data encour-