As part of my series of making informative topics, this thread is about diplomatic immunity.
Diplomatic immunity is something featured in a variety of fictional works. Just as most other things regarding law from fictional works, it has varying degrees of accuracy depending on the specific work. This leads to several misconceptions on the concept of diplomatic immunity and by extension embassies.
What is diplomatic immunity?
Diplomatic immunity is fairly self-explanatory on a basic level: it is a concept meant to protect ambassadors in a foreign state.
The purpose of diplomatic immunity is to allow for continued diplomatic relationships with ease to the ambassadors, who are unfamiliar with the host country's law. It also allows for diplomatic relations during times of difficulty, which may include armed conflict.
The biggest benefit for diplomatic immunity is the following:
One thing to note is that diplomatic immunity is not for those from within the same country - such as representatives and other political officials.
What ensures diplomatic immunity?
In real life, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is the treaty that the international community looks to when dealing with diplomatic immunity. Not following the treaty is a sure way to lose support in the international community. It also standardized diplomatic immunity.
Before the treaty though, diplomatic immunity depended on the two countries involved. Generally, if two countries wished to retain diplomatic relations, then they would agree to extend diplomatic immunity. The agreement would have to be mutual and also require that the two countries recognized each other as independent. Failure to uphold diplomatic immunity would cause backlash between those two countries and any allies.
Permanent embassies, as they are now, were also not guaranteed. The fact that the embassy was not truly a part of the sending nation was made more apparent at the time. For example, in World War II, the Soviet Union once it took over Budapest arrested the head of the Swedish diplomatic mission that had been there during the Nazi's reign. It would again fall under whether or not the two countries can reach a mutual agreement, with drastic consequences and a fallout in diplomatic relationships happening should one country wish to change things.
Star Wars Lore does not have a definite treaty that explains diplomatic immunity. Yet with the chaotic nature of the galaxy and the fact that the longest peaceful time was because of the Galactic Republic's hegemony of the entire galaxy, it is likely that Star Wars functioned the same as the real life war did before the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomatic immunity was not ensured by treaties or an international community, only by mutual agreement should both countries have interest in maintaining diplomatic relations.
How does one get diplomatic immunity?
One of the big confusions regarding diplomatic immunity is that it is blanket and always applies to people.
In fact, it is not automatic unless the host country's laws allow it to be based on an office (as in, the Republic Ambassador to Atrisia). Not only that, but those unofficially in a country do not get the privilege of diplomatic immunity. Not only that, but it can be denied based on who the person attempting to represent the consulate or diplomatic missions is. Not only again that, but diplomatic immunity is left in limbo if the dignitary is not from a country officially recognized. Taiwan is an example of this, as it's not officially recognized by most of the world in order for those countries to retain diplomatic relations with China, yet mutual agreements would allow for their ambassadors and "Economic and Cultural Centers" to be treated as part of a consulate and diplomatic mission.
So to simplify things, here are some usual basic requirements for an individual to receive diplomatic immunity in the Star Wars universe:
To give an example of when diplomatic immunity is not extended: an Atrisian ambassador goes to Coruscant from Atrisian Space and never goes through customs, thus the Republic never knew he was there.
The above situation means that the Atrisian ambassador is not protected if caught doing something illegal, there is nothing protecting him.
This means that the following types of people are never granted diplomatic immunity:
Now for what recognizing a country means: it's the same as saying whether or not a country is legitimate. While all Major Factions can legitimately hold territory, from a role-play stand point not all Major Factions would be recognized as legitimate. Not only that, but some Minor Factions would be considered legitimate countries despite not officially holding territory for this site.
To explain what I mean, the Black Sun can be used as an example. It is an organization of criminals that actively promotes illegal activities throughout the galaxy. The Republic has an interest to arrest the Underlord and Vigos. As a result, the Black Sun would likely not be considered an actual country and the Republic would willingly arrest any Black Sun member found in its territory.
On the other hand, Atrisia has a structured society and set of laws and doesn't run in anarchy. As a result, it is likely that the Atrisian Empire would be recognized by the Republic as a legitimate country and thus diplomatic relations would be maintained.
Some of the smaller factions in Star Wars (that are also independent) might also be recognized. The Chiss Ascendancy (if it was independent) would most likely be recognized.
What about embassies?
When diplomatic relations are decent (or if a treaty with recognized countries is made), then the host country never sets foot in an embassy without permission from the sending country. The host country also provides protection for the embassy. This extends to the permanent residences of those that are a part of the diplomatic mission.
So, for those seeking asylum, entering an embassy of a neutral country is usually a good idea. The host country will not enter.
However, this doesn't mean the embassy is a part of the sending country. If things get bad, the host country may lay siege to the embassy or forcibly deport everyone in the embassy. Also, the embassy cannot guarantee safe passage out of the country without negotiations, as leaving the country obviously involves leaving the confines of the embassy.
Instances of a country unilaterally taking over an embassy and arresting the diplomatic mission are extreme and will be explained later.
What happens if someone with diplomatic immunity commits a misdemeanor?
It usually depends on the misdemeanor, but usually nothing. In the case of traffic violations, a fine will be enacted yet may or may not be paid. Paying for the fine is a sign of good will by the sending country and its ambassador. Not paying is a sign of corruption, as in real life the amount of fines not paid correlates with measured corruption.
For something worse, the ambassador would likely be pulled by the sending country as a sign of disapproval.
Plus, while diplomatic immunity protects the diplomat from the host country's legal system, it doesn't mean he can't be banned from civilian establishments should he abuse his privilege.
What happens if someone with diplomatic immunity commits a felony?
Then things get bad no matter what.
Acts of murder, smuggling, and spying are generally the ones that will cause the most problems. It is not uncommon for an ambassador caught in the act of doing so being detained on the spot if he/she is unable to reach the embassy. What happens after detainment depends on the host country and circumstances of the crime.
For why police officers would detain ambassadors caught in the act of a felony, one has to look at what official policy is in real life. For the United States, the official government policy is to tell police officers that diplomatic immunity is not absolute and that it is still their responsibility to protect the people and police orderly conduct. This is why diplomats are still given traffic tickets.
What this implies, though, is that if an ambassador with diplomatic immunity poses a danger (ie, waving a gun around in public and threatening to kill people), the police officer will ignore anything about diplomatic immunity and act as he would normally do so in the situation (ie, meeting force with force, such as killing the ambassador to protect the public).
Those caught spying are usually detained. Smuggling likely would meet a similar fate. This assumes the ambassadors did not resist with force.
Yet once the individual that has committed a felony been detained or secured in an embassy, then things depend on the reaction of the two countries. The sending country may waive the individual (and by extension, their family's) protection due to heinous crimes, usually only involving murder. Doing so means that the individual is subject to prosecution as normal.
Should the sending country maintain that the individual is under diplomatic immunity, it must be due to a crime that is more or less acceptable or that the allegations can easily be seen as unfounded. Spying is a case where the sending country will normally always continue to assert that the individual is still protected. Murder depends on the validity of immediate evidence. If it is clear that the ambassador committed the murder, then the individual may lose diplomatic immunity because the sending country does not wish to be seen as condoning murder as condoning it could be seen as an assassination. If the facts surrounding the murder are dubious, then the sending country will still claim that diplomatic immunity is valid.
In any case that the sending country claims that diplomatic immunity is still valid, it is mostly because the country wants to maintain its authority and appearance. Generally though, it will want to do what would both make it seem to have authority as well as likely retain diplomatic relations with the country.
If the ambassador that has committed a felony still receives diplomatic immunity, then the host country has one of two options.
The first is to continue prosecutions. Doing so destroys the diplomatic relations between the two countries, but is generally done by the host country if it believes its fully in the right to prosecute the ambassador and if it no longer wishes to have the best of relations with the sending country. The sending country may also respond in kind by taking the host country's diplomats within its borders hostage.
The second, and more common, choice is to declare the ambassador as persona non grata. Doing so means that the ambassador is no longer welcomed in the host country and has a set amount of time to leave or else the host country will pursue charges. It can be seen as an insult to the sending country.
If the sending country is going to prosecute the ambassador anyway, then they will usually ask for the ambassador to be recalled before he named a persona non grata.
Generally though, a felony committed by an ambassador is extremely rare and will usually result in the ambassador no longer being welcomed in the host country. Not only that, but it has ramifications in the two country's diplomatic relations that could escalate to one side ceasing all diplomatic relations.
In Summary
Diplomatic immunity for ambassadors and embassies is a thing, and it does get abused. However, egregious abuse results in consequences. While countries might assert that diplomatic immunity is absolute in certain cases, it is practically not so for extreme cases especially when allowing the ambassador to continue his actions would pose a danger to the public.
If there are any questions or comments regarding this, feel free to ask.
Diplomatic immunity is something featured in a variety of fictional works. Just as most other things regarding law from fictional works, it has varying degrees of accuracy depending on the specific work. This leads to several misconceptions on the concept of diplomatic immunity and by extension embassies.
What is diplomatic immunity?
Diplomatic immunity is fairly self-explanatory on a basic level: it is a concept meant to protect ambassadors in a foreign state.
The purpose of diplomatic immunity is to allow for continued diplomatic relationships with ease to the ambassadors, who are unfamiliar with the host country's law. It also allows for diplomatic relations during times of difficulty, which may include armed conflict.
The biggest benefit for diplomatic immunity is the following:
- It allows for dignitaries to not worry about misdemeanors unique to the host country (ie, cultural and religious laws that would otherwise get the dignitary in trouble)
- Dignitaries are also not financially burdened by the host country's taxes, which frequently extend to residents and guests as well.
- Countries in active war can safely continue diplomatic relations if both countries mutually agree to continue such relations.
- Misdemeanors may be due to safety reasons, such as traffic law violations, and thus endanger the dignitary and those around him/her. Not paying these violations is also a frequent complaint by the host country's law enforcement. Not paying is also a real life sign of the sending country's corruption if the dignitaries are not force to pay by the sending country.
- The rare felonies committed do cause diplomatic strife which is made worse if the sending country continues to assert that the dignitary is protected by diplomatic immunity rather than cutting all ties to the diplomat.
- Ambassadors and embassies are naturally a part of the intelligence system, even if not officially. Therefore, actual spies in the host country frequently escape prosecution - though not deportation if found.
One thing to note is that diplomatic immunity is not for those from within the same country - such as representatives and other political officials.
What ensures diplomatic immunity?
In real life, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is the treaty that the international community looks to when dealing with diplomatic immunity. Not following the treaty is a sure way to lose support in the international community. It also standardized diplomatic immunity.
Before the treaty though, diplomatic immunity depended on the two countries involved. Generally, if two countries wished to retain diplomatic relations, then they would agree to extend diplomatic immunity. The agreement would have to be mutual and also require that the two countries recognized each other as independent. Failure to uphold diplomatic immunity would cause backlash between those two countries and any allies.
Permanent embassies, as they are now, were also not guaranteed. The fact that the embassy was not truly a part of the sending nation was made more apparent at the time. For example, in World War II, the Soviet Union once it took over Budapest arrested the head of the Swedish diplomatic mission that had been there during the Nazi's reign. It would again fall under whether or not the two countries can reach a mutual agreement, with drastic consequences and a fallout in diplomatic relationships happening should one country wish to change things.
Star Wars Lore does not have a definite treaty that explains diplomatic immunity. Yet with the chaotic nature of the galaxy and the fact that the longest peaceful time was because of the Galactic Republic's hegemony of the entire galaxy, it is likely that Star Wars functioned the same as the real life war did before the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomatic immunity was not ensured by treaties or an international community, only by mutual agreement should both countries have interest in maintaining diplomatic relations.
How does one get diplomatic immunity?
One of the big confusions regarding diplomatic immunity is that it is blanket and always applies to people.
In fact, it is not automatic unless the host country's laws allow it to be based on an office (as in, the Republic Ambassador to Atrisia). Not only that, but those unofficially in a country do not get the privilege of diplomatic immunity. Not only that, but it can be denied based on who the person attempting to represent the consulate or diplomatic missions is. Not only again that, but diplomatic immunity is left in limbo if the dignitary is not from a country officially recognized. Taiwan is an example of this, as it's not officially recognized by most of the world in order for those countries to retain diplomatic relations with China, yet mutual agreements would allow for their ambassadors and "Economic and Cultural Centers" to be treated as part of a consulate and diplomatic mission.
So to simplify things, here are some usual basic requirements for an individual to receive diplomatic immunity in the Star Wars universe:
- Both countries need to recognize each other are legitimate countries. What this means will be explained later.
- One needs to be in the host country through official means. This means the host country can deny the person entry or not.
- He/she also needs to be a part of the consulate or diplomatic mission officially. The above act of entering officially confirms such a thing for the host country, by extension meaning that ambassadors usually have to enter the country declaring that they are ambassadors.
- The sending country needs to continuously recognize them as a diplomat, meaning that the sending country can effectively waive diplomatic immunity in the event that their ambassador clearly commits a heinous act.
- While this goes with entering the country legally, the person in question also needs to be a persona grata, which will be explained further.
- They also have to be acting within their professional duties as ambassadors and not the professional duties of something else.
To give an example of when diplomatic immunity is not extended: an Atrisian ambassador goes to Coruscant from Atrisian Space and never goes through customs, thus the Republic never knew he was there.
The above situation means that the Atrisian ambassador is not protected if caught doing something illegal, there is nothing protecting him.
This means that the following types of people are never granted diplomatic immunity:
- Anyone that is not officially a part of the consulate or diplomatic mission (ie, tourists, refugees, and more).
- Under cover spies that had to enter under an alias.
- Those with past criminal histories, which would logically be denied entrance if not arrested on the spot.
- Those from another country deemed illegitimate by the Republic.
- And finally, those that are from the Republic itself.
Now for what recognizing a country means: it's the same as saying whether or not a country is legitimate. While all Major Factions can legitimately hold territory, from a role-play stand point not all Major Factions would be recognized as legitimate. Not only that, but some Minor Factions would be considered legitimate countries despite not officially holding territory for this site.
To explain what I mean, the Black Sun can be used as an example. It is an organization of criminals that actively promotes illegal activities throughout the galaxy. The Republic has an interest to arrest the Underlord and Vigos. As a result, the Black Sun would likely not be considered an actual country and the Republic would willingly arrest any Black Sun member found in its territory.
On the other hand, Atrisia has a structured society and set of laws and doesn't run in anarchy. As a result, it is likely that the Atrisian Empire would be recognized by the Republic as a legitimate country and thus diplomatic relations would be maintained.
Some of the smaller factions in Star Wars (that are also independent) might also be recognized. The Chiss Ascendancy (if it was independent) would most likely be recognized.
What about embassies?
When diplomatic relations are decent (or if a treaty with recognized countries is made), then the host country never sets foot in an embassy without permission from the sending country. The host country also provides protection for the embassy. This extends to the permanent residences of those that are a part of the diplomatic mission.
So, for those seeking asylum, entering an embassy of a neutral country is usually a good idea. The host country will not enter.
However, this doesn't mean the embassy is a part of the sending country. If things get bad, the host country may lay siege to the embassy or forcibly deport everyone in the embassy. Also, the embassy cannot guarantee safe passage out of the country without negotiations, as leaving the country obviously involves leaving the confines of the embassy.
Instances of a country unilaterally taking over an embassy and arresting the diplomatic mission are extreme and will be explained later.
What happens if someone with diplomatic immunity commits a misdemeanor?
It usually depends on the misdemeanor, but usually nothing. In the case of traffic violations, a fine will be enacted yet may or may not be paid. Paying for the fine is a sign of good will by the sending country and its ambassador. Not paying is a sign of corruption, as in real life the amount of fines not paid correlates with measured corruption.
For something worse, the ambassador would likely be pulled by the sending country as a sign of disapproval.
Plus, while diplomatic immunity protects the diplomat from the host country's legal system, it doesn't mean he can't be banned from civilian establishments should he abuse his privilege.
What happens if someone with diplomatic immunity commits a felony?
Then things get bad no matter what.
Acts of murder, smuggling, and spying are generally the ones that will cause the most problems. It is not uncommon for an ambassador caught in the act of doing so being detained on the spot if he/she is unable to reach the embassy. What happens after detainment depends on the host country and circumstances of the crime.
For why police officers would detain ambassadors caught in the act of a felony, one has to look at what official policy is in real life. For the United States, the official government policy is to tell police officers that diplomatic immunity is not absolute and that it is still their responsibility to protect the people and police orderly conduct. This is why diplomats are still given traffic tickets.
What this implies, though, is that if an ambassador with diplomatic immunity poses a danger (ie, waving a gun around in public and threatening to kill people), the police officer will ignore anything about diplomatic immunity and act as he would normally do so in the situation (ie, meeting force with force, such as killing the ambassador to protect the public).
Those caught spying are usually detained. Smuggling likely would meet a similar fate. This assumes the ambassadors did not resist with force.
Yet once the individual that has committed a felony been detained or secured in an embassy, then things depend on the reaction of the two countries. The sending country may waive the individual (and by extension, their family's) protection due to heinous crimes, usually only involving murder. Doing so means that the individual is subject to prosecution as normal.
Should the sending country maintain that the individual is under diplomatic immunity, it must be due to a crime that is more or less acceptable or that the allegations can easily be seen as unfounded. Spying is a case where the sending country will normally always continue to assert that the individual is still protected. Murder depends on the validity of immediate evidence. If it is clear that the ambassador committed the murder, then the individual may lose diplomatic immunity because the sending country does not wish to be seen as condoning murder as condoning it could be seen as an assassination. If the facts surrounding the murder are dubious, then the sending country will still claim that diplomatic immunity is valid.
In any case that the sending country claims that diplomatic immunity is still valid, it is mostly because the country wants to maintain its authority and appearance. Generally though, it will want to do what would both make it seem to have authority as well as likely retain diplomatic relations with the country.
If the ambassador that has committed a felony still receives diplomatic immunity, then the host country has one of two options.
The first is to continue prosecutions. Doing so destroys the diplomatic relations between the two countries, but is generally done by the host country if it believes its fully in the right to prosecute the ambassador and if it no longer wishes to have the best of relations with the sending country. The sending country may also respond in kind by taking the host country's diplomats within its borders hostage.
The second, and more common, choice is to declare the ambassador as persona non grata. Doing so means that the ambassador is no longer welcomed in the host country and has a set amount of time to leave or else the host country will pursue charges. It can be seen as an insult to the sending country.
If the sending country is going to prosecute the ambassador anyway, then they will usually ask for the ambassador to be recalled before he named a persona non grata.
Generally though, a felony committed by an ambassador is extremely rare and will usually result in the ambassador no longer being welcomed in the host country. Not only that, but it has ramifications in the two country's diplomatic relations that could escalate to one side ceasing all diplomatic relations.
In Summary
Diplomatic immunity for ambassadors and embassies is a thing, and it does get abused. However, egregious abuse results in consequences. While countries might assert that diplomatic immunity is absolute in certain cases, it is practically not so for extreme cases especially when allowing the ambassador to continue his actions would pose a danger to the public.
If there are any questions or comments regarding this, feel free to ask.
