Instructions: Use your textbook to read the case and then answer the questions below.
Chapter 16/ PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 487 "hotlines' such as the Kremlin-White House emergency line, or the video hotline between the US Department of Energy's Emer Emergency Operations Center in Washington, DC, and the MinAtom Situation an ion and Crisis Center in Russia. Despite these technologies, much diplomacy and negotiation are The text of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic in carried on by professional diplomats on a face-to-face basis. The Relations can be found at integrity and security of face-to-face communication has always required www.emp.ca/ the support of legal rules for the protection of diplomats, their staff and dimensionsoflaw families, embassies, consulates, and means of diplomatic communications. Diplomatic Immunity The fundamental rule expressed in the Vienna Convention is that the "per- son of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable." This means that diplomats are entitled to protection from physical harm and are not subject to arrest or detention (imprisonment or suspension of liberty) without recourse to the rules of international protocol set down by the Vienna Convention. Similarly, the premises of the mission or embassy shall be "inviolable" (note that, contrary to mistaken general belief, the territory of the embassy is not "foreign" territory of the sending state). In general, with respect to premises, this provision means that there can be no entry by agents or nationals of the host state without authorization from the sending state. The Vienna Convention extends this right of non-interference to such items as the files, documents, diplomatic bags (containers holding mail and other documents travelling to and from an embassy or consulate), diplomatic couriers, and means of communication. In the Iran hostages case that follows, the International Court of Justice noted: [TJhere is no more fundamental prerequisite for the conduct of relations between States than the inviolability of diplomatic envoys and embassies. .. [T]he institution of diplomacy, with its concomitant [asso- ciated] privileges and immunities, has withstood the test of centuries and proved to be an instrument essential for effective co-operation in the international community. Case US DIPLOMATIC HOSTAGES IN IRAN US Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran Case, [1979] ICJ Rep. 23 (Order); US v. Iran, [1980] ICJ Rep. 3 (Merits) Facts On November 4, 1979, several hundred Iranian students and other demonstrators took possession of the US embassy in Tehran by force, in protest at the admission of the deposed Shah of Iran into the United States for medical treatment. The demonstrators were not opposed by the488 INTERNATIONAL LAW / Mnil s Figure 16.8 One of 60 American hostages-blind- folded and with his hands bound-is displayed to the crowd outside the US embassy in Tehran, November 1979. Iranian security forces. US consulates elsewhere in Iran were similarly occupied. The demonstrators, who had seized archives and documents, were still in occupation when this case was decided, holding 52 US nationals as hostages. The United States asked the International Court of Justice for a declaration calling for the release of the hostages, evacu- ation of the embassy and consulates, punishment of the persons reparations: formal eco- responsible, and payment of reparations. nomic compensation, often from one sovereign Decision state to another, for harm The events that were the subject of the United States' claims fell into two done in the course of phases. The first related to the armed attack on the United States' embassy armed conflict by militants on November 4, 1979. No suggestion was made that the militants, when they executed their attack on the embassy, had any form of official status as recognized "agents" of the Iranian state. Their con- duct in mounting the attack-overrunning the embassy and seizing its inmates as hostages-could not, therefore, be regarded as an act of the Iranian government. The militants' conduct might be viewed in this way only if it were established that they had acted on behalf of the state, having been directed by some Iranian government authority to carry out a specific operation. The court found no credible evidence of such a link. However, this finding did not, in the court's view, absolve Iran of responsibility for the attacks. Under the Vienna Conventions of 1961 and 1963, and also under general international law, Iran was required to take appropriate steps to ensure the protection of the United States' embassy and consulates, their staffs, their archives, their means of com- munication, and the freedom of movement of their staffs. Iran failed to do this.489 Charles 1/ PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW The second phase of the claim related to events that followed the Gyi The Canadian upation of the US embassy by the militants and the seizure of the con- embassy in Tehran shel- fires at Tabriz and Shiraz. Once the occupation had taken place, the tered six American nian government was required to take every appropriate step to bring embassy workers for 79 it to a speedy end, to restore the consulates at Tabriz and Shiraz to US days during the hostage control, and in general to restore order and offer reparations for the crisis, and supplied them damage. No such steps were taken. with Canadian passports For these reasons, the court decided by majority vote that the Islamic Republic of Iran violated obligations owed by it to the United so that they could leave States of America under international conventions in force between the Iran. Ambassador Ken two countries, as well as under long-established rules of general inter- Taylor received a US Congressional Gold Medal national law. in thanks for his actions. Questions 1. Summarize the facts of this case. 2. What were the reasons for the decision of the International Court of Justice? 3. Do you think that this was a just decision? Explain your answer. 4. Is it necessary for all states to recognize and enforce rules of diplo- matic relations? Explain. While diplomatic protection is essential to the integrity of interna- tional relations, there have occasionally been problems related to abuses by diplomats of their special status. Such actions as smuggling drugs, selling duty-free liquor, avoiding legitimate debts, and drunk driving causing death threaten to tarnish the reputation of diplomacy. States concerned with public relations and the erosion of the principle of diplomatic immuni ty have often addressed these lapses by punishing misbehaving diplomats in the home country after refusing to allow a diplomat to be prosecuted in the receiving state (diplomats are generally considered immune to prose- cution). In March 2002, a Russian diplomat was found guilty in Russia of involuntary manslaughter in the drunk-driving death of a woman in Ottawa and received a sentence of four years in a penal colony, although Russia was adamant that he should not be prosecuted in a Canadian court. Diplomatic Asylum The question of diplomatic asylum arises when a national from a given country seeks protection within the embassy of another country. When diplomatic asylum: the United States invaded Panama in 1989, Panamanian leader Manuel protection sought in Noriega sought refuge (or sanctuary) in the Vatican embassy in Panama embassies of other coun- City to avoid arrest by US troops. Ultimately, he gave up the protection of tries by individuals fearing the embassy and surrendered to US authorities. One of the reasons (though for their safety not the only one) that he abandoned his safe haven was the fact that US soldiers played deafening rock music, 24 hours a day, over loudspeakers set
