Exemption from Giving Evidence

Author(s):  
Denza Eileen

This chapter considers Article 31.2 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which states that a diplomatic agent is not obliged to give evidence as a witness during trial. Under customary international law a diplomat was immune from compulsion in regard to appearing or giving evidence as a witness but was probably not exempt from the legal obligation to do so if requested in proper terms. It should be noted that the exemption from the duty to give evidence is not limited by the exceptions to immunity from jurisdiction set out in Article 31.1(a), (b), and (c). It was emphasized that a diplomatic agent involved for whatever reason as plaintiff or as defendant in legal proceedings would always have a strong incentive to give evidence in order to win his case, but that the decision whether to permit him to do so should remain with the sending State.

1993 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 668-700 ◽  

Two decisions were rendered recently by Israeli courts of lower instances which concern the field of diplomatic immunities. The first, delivered by the Magistrate Court in Petah Tikwa, deals with the inviolability of diplomatic premises and with the waiver thereof; and the second, by the District Court in Jerusalem, refers to the question of state immunity from attachment and execution, and seems to constitute a clear diversion from the accepted international norms and rules on this issue. Both decisions, rendered in the matter of the residence of the Ambassador of Côte d'Ivoire to Israel, will be examined separately, following the factual background relevant to each.The question of the inviolability of diplomatic premises, as well as that of a diplomat's immunity from jurisdiction, is a separate issue from that of state immunity. The first considers the treatment given to diplomats in foreign countries, and is codified in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (the “Convention”), while the latter consists only of customary international law, and deals with the concepts of acts of state and the immunity of sovereign states from jurisdiction by the courts of another state. In the following survey we will show that in some instances, the two issues have been confused and conclusions drawn from one to the other without consideration of the differences between the two.


2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 182-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. R. Subramanian

Abstract The successful adoption of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is hailed as the ‘landmark of the highest significance in the codification of international law’. It represented the first significant codification of any international instrument since the United Nations was established. However, despite the codification of the above rules, which is largely based on the pre-existing customary international law, the scope of diplomatic protection was not free from issues and controversies. In recent times, unfortunately, there is a growing tendency amongst the diplomats to abuse their diplomatic status to commit acts prohibited by law and still claim immunity from legal process. The States-parties also aggravate this situation by selectively interpreting the rules in their favor, ignoring the fact that reciprocity is the basis for the successful functioning of the diplomatic protection. In this connection, this paper addresses the problem of abuse of immunities and privileges and its adverse implications on the balance between immunities and the duty to respect the local laws and regulations, especially with special reference to the recent Indian experience. It explores the two recent Indian diplomatic confrontations, namely, the arrest of Devyani Khobragade and the travel ban on Daniele Mancini. Based on the study, it highlights the need for a well-balanced and equitable enforcement of the Vienna Conventions in the interest of maintenance of cordial diplomatic relations in the international community.


Author(s):  
Denza Eileen

This chapter examines Article 23 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which deals with the exemption of the diplomatic mission premises from taxation. Article 23 states that the sending State and the head of the mission shall be exempt from all dues and taxes in respect of the premises of the mission. This exemption however shall not apply to dues and taxes payable under the law of the receiving State by persons contracting with the sending State or the head of the mission. This practice traces its roots from the nineteenth century when it was not based on diplomatic immunity but on courtesy. Many States concluded bilateral agreements or arrangements providing exemption—a practice which would have been unnecessary if customary international law had required it. During the twentieth century, general practice based on courtesy or on reciprocity began to harden into a customary rule requiring exemption from central and local taxes on mission property.


Author(s):  
Denza Eileen

This chapter describes the Preamble of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations set forth by the International Law Commission, the main legal body which promotes the progressive development of international law and oversees its codification. It briefly describes three theories that form as the basis of the statements written at the Preamble —the ‘exterritoriality’ theory, the ‘representative character’ theory, and the ‘functional necessity’ theory. All of these theories heavily influence matters regarding diplomatic privileges and immunities. Ultimately, the Preamble to the Convention has two important legal functions—to state the view of the participating States on the theoretical basis of diplomatic privileges and immunities, and to make explicit the relationship between the Convention and customary international law.


Laws ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
Nehaluddin Ahmad

Under Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a receiving state may “at any time and without having to explain its decision” declare any member of a diplomatic staff persona non grata. A person so declared is considered unacceptable and is usually recalled to his or her home nation. If not recalled, the receiving state “may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission.” However, despite the codification of the above rules, which is largely based on pre-existing customary international law, the opportunity for diplomatic protection is not free of issues and controversies. In recent times, unfortunately, there has been a growing tendency amongst diplomats to abuse their diplomatic status, in order to commit acts prohibited by law and claim immunity from the legal process. This paper addresses the problem of abuse of immunities and privileges and its adverse implications on the balance between immunities and the duty to respect the local laws and regulations. We analyze several past cases of declaration of persona non grata involving various countries.


2021 ◽  
Vol 195 ◽  
pp. 219-226

219State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Immunity of individual officials — Head of State immunity — Immunity ratione personae and immunity ratione materiae — Immunity ratione personae confined to Head of State and certain high-ranking officials — Immunity ratione materiae applicable only in respect of official acts — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Vice-President of State accused of misappropriation of funds and money laundering by authorities of another State — Whether entitled to immunity — Immunity of diplomatic agents — State sovereignty — Customary international law — The law of France


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-71
Author(s):  
Devi Yusvitasari

A country needs to make contact with each other based on the national interests of each country related to each other, including among others economic, social, cultural, legal, political, and so on. With constant and continuous association between the nations of the world, it is one of the conditions for the existence of the international community. One form of cooperation between countries in the world is in the form of international relations by placing diplomatic representation in various countries. These representatives have diplomatic immunity and diplomatic immunity privileges that are in accordance with the jurisdiction of the recipient country and civil and criminal immunity for witnesses. The writing of the article entitled "The Application of the Principle of Non-Grata Persona to the Ambassador Judging from the Perspective of International Law" describes how the law on the abuse of diplomatic immunity, how a country's actions against abuse of diplomatic immunity and how to analyze a case of abuse of diplomatic immunity. To answer the problem used normative juridical methods through the use of secondary data, such as books, laws, and research results related to this research topic. Based on the results of the study explained that cases of violations of diplomatic relations related to the personal immunity of diplomatic officials such as cases such as cases of persecution by the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to Indonesian Workers in Germany are of serious concern. The existence of diplomatic immunity is considered as protection so that perpetrators are not punished. Actions against the abuse of recipient countries of diplomatic immunity may expel or non-grata persona to diplomatic officials, which is stipulated in the Vienna Convention in 1961, because of the right of immunity attached to each diplomatic representative.


Author(s):  
James Crawford

The rules of international law governing diplomatic relations are the product of long-established state practice reflected in treaties, national legislation, and judicial decisions, as codified in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. This chapter discusses the general legal aspects of diplomatic relations; staff, premises, and facilities of missions; inviolability of missions; diplomatic agents; consular relations; special missions; and crimes against internationally protected persons.


Author(s):  
Bjorge Eirik ◽  
Kolb Robert

This chapter considers an issue that has garnered sustained attention by States and international courts and tribunals in recent years — the potential to allow (or deny) evolutionary interpretations to treaty terms. It highlights five conclusions about the interpretation of treaties over time. First, evolutionary interpretations are made based on an array of means of ordinary interpretation, as enshrined in Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties Articles 31–33 and customary international law. Second, evolutionary interpretation is an issue of fact and law arising in the circumstances of particular cases. Third, the main principle is that of ‘contemporaneous interpretation’, a term referring not to the interpreter but to the parties (i.e. contemporaneous to the time of conclusion of the treaty). Fourth, it makes no sense to apply the principle of contemporaneity in all circumstances, since there are some terms used in treaties that make legal sense only when understood to evolve over time. Finally, to keep the unity of the treaty and its terms, the new interpretation is retrospective, having effect back to the time of the treaty’s conclusion.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document