What is diplomatic immunity and who does it have?

The concept of "diplomatic inviolability" is complex, as it is understood by countries in different ways. And there were examples in history. It's easy to give a definition, and it's harder to explain how it works. But let's examine in order to whom the right of diplomatic immunity is given, what it means.

Historical background

Probably the best way to make out a hypothetical example. Even the ancient peoples had their own ethical norms. It was not customary to offend strangers who arrived with any mission to the ruler. The world gradually changed, players in the international arena became more and more, this led to an increase in the number of problems and incidents. Representative functions abroad are carried out by special civil servants - diplomats. It's not just citizens, but part of the country that sent them. To kill or maim a representative means to offend the state. That is, the diplomat's status is high.

In order for countries not to fall into the "casus belli" situation and do not think whether to wage war or wait, the international community needed to agree on how to protect the said representatives. Special documents were adopted, that is, a legal framework was created. So the notion of "diplomatic inviolability" arose. It means insubordination of another's civil servant to the legislation of the host country. However, the interpretation of the term is much more complicated and is constantly supplemented by practice.

What is diplomatic immunity?

Under the concept under consideration, it is customary to mean a set of rules relating to official representatives of other countries. That is, diplomatic immunity (immunity) is absolute security:

• Personality;
• Residential and office space;
• Property;
• Non-judicature;
• Exemption from inspections and taxation.

In our definition, the word "official" is very important. That is, immunity rules apply only to persons whose credentials are confirmed by special documents.

Legal basis

The most famous document that describes diplomatic immunity is the Vienna Convention. It was adopted in 1961. This is a treaty between countries that have established rules and regulations for diplomats - official representatives of states. It regulates the procedures by which relations between countries are established and terminated. In addition, the convention contains a list of the functions of diplomatic missions, explains how they are granted accreditation, and solves other issues.

The scope of the immunity of diplomats is also described in this document. Usually, the parties develop relations with diplomats on a reciprocal basis, that is, they act symmetrically. On the international arena immunity is confirmed by a diplomatic passport. This is a special kind of document that is issued to an official representing the state. It is used in the process of relations with the authorities of the host country. His presentation releases the holder from the usual duties of foreigners, for example, customs screening.

The problems of the inviolability of diplomatic representation

In international relations, there were many cases when the immunity of foreigners was neglected. Classical is the example of Pinochet - the former president of Chile. This man went to the UK for treatment. During the trip, he had a lifetime status as a senator of his country. Such persons, as a rule, have immunity. But Pinochet was arrested in the host country. Officials did not react to the presentation of the diplomatic passport. The former president was subjected to a judicial procedure, during which a medical examination was conducted.

But under the agreement, persons who have diplomatic immunity are not subject to the laws of a foreign state. That is, there was an incident requiring clarification. English lawyers, of course, found an excuse for the actions of the authorities. They argued that only persons who have an assignment from their state possess immunity. Pinochet had no official accreditation confirming the existence of the mission. The government of Chile, too, could not provide documents that sent him to the UK. Despite the protests, the former president and the incumbent senator was not released.

Conclusion

Diplomatic immunity is a relative thing. If necessary, some states do not shun the violation of generally accepted rules. They come up with excuses for themselves, not caring at all about the fate of people or the norms of morality. Here you can talk about the right of the strong. There are also cases of violence against diplomats in undemocratic countries - the assassination of the US ambassador in Libya, for example. Each incident is dealt with separately by the parties involved in the conflict. That is, governments are trying to avoid open military clashes, to which such incidents have been brought since past centuries.