Vienna Diplomatic Asylum Case Study

712 Words3 Pages
The premises of a diplomatic mission are, by Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relation 1961 (in short Convention 1961), both immune and inviolable. These terms overlap in some degree. Immunity mainly conveys freedom from legal process and duties, while inviolability chiefly suggests freedom from physical interference. The legal process, if allowed to run its course, could result in an order that would disturb the possession of the mission. Although the premises of and the personnel accredited to the mission are secured from interference by the Convention, it makes no reference to the practice of granting asylum to others who enter there. Diplomatic asylum is contentious enough that it was purposefully avoided at the Vienna…show more content…
The legal consequences of this distinction were emphasized by the International Court of Justice in the Asylum case (Colombia/Peru). Referring to the submission of the Colombian government, the majority of the Court said: “The arguments.........reveal confusion between territorial asylum (extradition), on the one hand, and diplomatic asylum, on the other. In the case of extradition, the refugee is within the territory of the state of refuge. A decision with regard to extradition implies only the normal exercise of the territorial sovereignty. The refugee is outside the territory of the state where the offence was committed, and the decision to grant him asylum in no way derogates from the sovereignty of that state. In case of diplomatic asylum, the refugee is within the territory of the state where the offense was committed. A decision to grant diplomatic asylum involves derogation from the sovereignty of that state. It withdraws the offender from the jurisdiction of the territorial state and constitutes an intervention in matters which are exclusively within the competence of that

More about Vienna Diplomatic Asylum Case Study

Open Document