Essay On Diplomatic Immunity

1877 Words8 Pages


It has been the opinion of some scholars that diplomatic immunity has been the ban of our society due to the abuses that have flowed from the misuse of the privileges granted to diplomats via the convention binding all modern states. Diplomatic immunity being one of the oldest elements of foreign relations , is the state of being free from prosecution for crimes committed. Article 29 of the Convention enshrines the oldest rule of diplomatic law: The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom, or dignity. The "inviolability of the
…show more content…
It contends that any harm done to anyone by a diplomat-who ought to be a responsible person of high intellect -in the ordinary course of his’ (diplomat’s) official activities should be able to fall under diplomatic immunity and thus should follow. This does not extend to acts of violence.
As the most controversial and dissenting issue in recent times, the central objective of this study is to attempt to address:
A. Whether the principle of diplomatic immunity has lost its place in time in the face of flagrant abuses . It gets credence from the government, when they are looking for a way to hold their ideals without losing face before other international players . Fairness is difficult to achieve under any government due to conflicting interests; so on the international playing field of diplomacy, where is a victim of diplomatic abuse left?

B. Whether (debased) diplomats are actually above the law. The fact that justice for the victim may not be served, should such an individual be allowed to go scott-free and continue to bask in the thought of being
Open Document