[governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally
Jovan Kurbalija
jovank at diplomacy.edu
Mon Aug 20 12:04:13 EDT 2012
Dear Carlos,
It is a valid point and it is rare that countries do not have protecting
powers. However, if the UK wants to play a legal card it can find
strong one in the following two articles of the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations, specifying a need for the consent of the receiving
state:
Article 45: b) the sending sTate may entrust the custody of the premises
of the mission, together with its property and archives, to a third
State /*acceptable to the receiving State. */
Article 46: A sending State may /*with the prior consent of a receiving
State*/, and at the request of a third State not represented in teh
receiving state, undertake the temporary protection of the interests of
the third State nationals.
Regards, Jovan
On 8/20/12 5:40 PM, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/46>
>> 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 consent is withdrawn, diplomatic relations cease to exist.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, including1928 – Havana
>> <http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CEQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iidh.ed.cr%2FBibliotecaWeb%2FVarios%2FDocumentos%2FBD_1051382564%2FB.2.1.DOC%3Furl%3D%2FBibliotecaWeb%2FVarios%2FDocumentos%2FBD_1051382564%2FB.2.1.DOC&ei=JgExUPWEAcjU4QT28oCwDg&usg=AFQjCNEHWkWD8hItVeTFQtdXbZSHUj31ag>,
>> 1933 – Montevideo
>> <http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-37.html>, 1954 –
>> Caracas <http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-46.html>. The
>> right of asylum is also granted by Article 27 of the 1948 American
>> Declaration on Human Rights
>> <http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/oasinstr/zoas2dec.htm>.
>>
>>
>> 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
>> <http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/international-law-and-assange-asylum-case>
>> and FAQs about diplomatic asylum
>> <http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/frequently-asked-questions-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 <mailto: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
--
*Jovan Kurbalija, PhD*
Director, DiploFoundation
Rue de Lausanne 56 *| *1202 Geneva*|***Switzerland
*Tel.*+41 (0) 22 7410435 *| **Mobile.*+41 (0) 797884226
*Email: *jovank at diplomacy.edu*| **Twitter:*@jovankurbalija
*The latest from Diplo: *Learn about Internet governance and ICT policy:
enrol for the 2012 Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (more
info <http://bit.ly/t5fKnw>).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120820/9ee6e336/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