[governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally
Carlos Vera Quintana
cveraq at gmail.com
Mon Aug 20 11:40:32 EDT 2012
Jovan but even on the situation you describe, Ecuador can work with another country to represent their interest with UK so Assange is under new diplomatic umbrella.
Ecuador gov hopes that situation you describe does not occur but is ready to take action with other country Representing their interest if happen
Carlos Vera
Enviado desde mi iPhone
El 20/08/2012, a las 9:57, Jovan Kurbalija <jovank at diplomacy.edu> escribió:
> Hi Mawaki,
>
> Here is an attempt to answer your question on the international legality of the 1987 Act in three ways: Twitter, e-mail and blog post.
>
> The short answer – Twitter – is that the 1987 UK Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act is in accordance with international law (the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations - VCDR and international customary law).
> A bit longer answer for this e-mail should rely on the sequence in establishing diplomatic relations between states with three important moments:
>
> - First, states have to recognise each other.
> - Second, after recognition, states establish diplomatic relations.
> - Third, after two states establish diplomatic relations, they can open diplomatic missions.
>
> Here is how this sequence can apply to the Assange asylum case:
>
> The UK can sever diplomatic relations unilaterally. Diplomatic relations are concluded by mutual consent (Article 2 of VCDR). If consent is withdrawn, diplomatic relations cease to exist.
> After severing diplomatic relations, the UK would require Ecuador to close its embassy in London, and Ecuadorian diplomats to leave the territory of the United Kingdom within a reasonable time. ‘Reasonable time’ is not specified, but it usually takes between 7 days (in the case of the closure of the Libyan mission in London in 1984) and one month. On this point Assange would remain alone in the Ecuadorian embassy. The VDRC does not specify how long the premises of the mission mission should preserve diplomatic status (remain inviolable).
> Most of the practice in diplomatic law provides the ‘reasonable time’ needed to protect and move the mission’s archives and property. The 1987 Act codifies this practice and specifies how to deal with this lacuna in the VCDR (time for closing the mission).
> Once the premises are no longer inviolable, the UK can enter the premises of the Embassy and arrest Assange if he is still there.
>
> It is very difficult to envisage a scenario in which the UK police could enter the Ecuadorian embassy without following the above described sequence – starting with the severing of diplomatic relations with Ecuador. Any other action would be a serious blow to the modern diplomatic system exposing – among others – the UK diplomatic missions worldwide, to high risks.
>
> While the UK has a legal basis for an action against the Ecuadorian embassy, its initiative could turn into a real diplomatic fiasco. It is surprising that UK diplomacy did not take into account the strong attachment of Latin American countries to the right of diplomatic asylum. Even in the case of political conflicts among themselves, Latin American countries have supported diplomatic asylum. It is a well-established regional customary law, codified in a few conventions, including 1928 – Havana, 1933 – Montevideo, 1954 – Caracas. The right of asylum is also granted by Article 27 of the 1948 American Declaration on Human Rights.
>
> By accelerating the Assange asylum case, the UK – to use a football metaphor – put the ball into penalty and asked President Correa to strike without a goal-keeper. He could not miss such a chance. In a few days, President Correa will gather all LA ministers of foreign affairs as a symbol of unity against the UK action. Given his political situation, it is an unexpected and welcome gift.
>
> The Assange asylum case, like other similar cases, is likely to be solved through negotiations that will provide the UK with a face-saving exit strategy. Might the Swedish authorities be persuaded to conduct the hearing ‘remotely’? If negotiations fail, Assange is likely to be long-term tenant of the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
>
> You can also see two texts with more detailed legal elaboration of this e-mail and FAQs about diplomatic asylum.
>
> I hope it will help in clarifying, at least, legal aspect of this complex case.
>
> As ever, Jovan
>
> On 8/19/12 4:26 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
>> Two things:
>>
>> 1. Has anyone looked into or analyzed what the ground is in that
>> Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987 on which the UK
>> authorities are basing their argument and decision? and how is that
>> act supposed to relate to the Vienna Convention of 1961? Maybe there
>> is some defect in the conditions/circumstance that surrounded the
>> attribution of those premises or building to the Ecuador? I mean, what
>> could possibly be the legally defensible basis from a domestic law
>> that came about more than a quarter century after an international
>> convention to which the concerned country was signatory - while nobody
>> seems to have known that that law meant for the said country an
>> amendment or a notable qualification to some significant provisions of
>> the convention?
>>
>> 2. It might be a little too late for anyone to be able to disentangle
>> possible political motivations from these legal procedures (in UK and
>> Sweden). The party that appears the most obscure to me in terms of
>> their true motivation and intent is the Swedish judiciary,
>> surprisingly. To my recollection, the charges of sexual misconduct
>> were dropped at some point and a while thereafter they were taken up
>> again by another (higher?) level of the judiciary in Sweden. I have
>> never come across any credible account as to why that was so, and I
>> was surprised at the time I couldn't hear much about (at least not any
>> substantial investigation of) that question in the US-based cable news
>> as I tried to find an explanation. Adding to that the questions raised
>> above by Norbert and also emphasized by Ginger... Furthermore, I too
>> (as Carlos Vera) remember that it was mentioned in the news reports
>> that the substance of the sexual charges - or at least the allegations
>> - revolved around Assange not using a protection during those
>> encounters, etc. I am not sure whether - indeed, I did not hear that -
>> the presumed victims have alleged any physical coercion to that effect
>> or whether those news reports were accurate as to the exact or
>> official content of the charges, if any. The fact is, it is already
>> difficult enough to get to the bottom of allegations of rape without
>> third party witness and without evidence of violence, but now you have
>> some hot political concoction surrounding it...
>>
>> Troubling.
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ecuadorian gov. Express to Mr Assange he is welcome to Ecuador from the
>>> begining of rhis affair. If he only would listen from that time this
>>> political advise...
>>>
>>> Carlos Vera
>>>
>>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>>>
>>> El 18/08/2012, a las 18:26, Ginger Paque <ginger at paque.net> escribió:
>>>
>>> A very important point is stated at
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341
>>> This would appear to make the extradition unnecessary.
>>>
>>> This doesn't mean that the sexual misconduct charges should not be
>>> investigated (whatever they actually are: I don't know).
>>>
>>> 18 November 2010
>>>
>>> Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain Mr Assange for
>>> questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful c
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120820/e4866d9a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list