Vienna convention on diplomatic relations : abuse arising therefrom

Abstract

Diplomatic Immunity has strong reason for its existence principally, that of guaranteeing the freedom and independence of diplomats in order to permit them to carry out their functions without risk of undue pressure by receiving States. However since privileges and immunities form an evident exception to general rules of accountability within national and international law, diplomats are able to turn immunity into impunity. Therefore, abuse of diplomatic immunity has often led governments, legal authors and the general public to question its very existence. This thesis discusses how immunity in itself fails to explain why certain diplomats abuse their immunity whilst others do not. The reasons behind abuse are several and include culture, norms, corruption in one’s home country, the country’s attitude towards the host state, the international political atmosphere, duration of tenure and the willingness to commit abuse by the diplomat. Such reasons for abuse make immunity the common principal object but not the only one. Effectiveness of remedies is greatly impacted by factors such as political relations, trade and reciprocity, which factors supersede the desire to attain justice. The greatest obstacle when dealing with proposed remedies and emerging trends, is usually political consensus. However, any change to the current immunity assumes that the diplomat no longer requires the current immunity. The need to protected freedom and independence of diplomats in order to permit them to carry out their functions without risk of undue pressure by receiving States is still very real, just as abuse is. This makes any changes unlikely since it is in no State’s interests to leave its diplomats insufficiently protected. Interfering with absolute immunity risks weakening protection provided therefrom, risking the ability of diplomats to perform their functions and cancelling out the intent of diplomacy.