Diplomatic immunity is a principle ofinternational law by which certain foreign government officials are recognized as havinglegal immunity from thejurisdiction of another country.[1][2] It allowsdiplomats safe passage and freedom of travel in a host country, and affords almost total protection from local lawsuits andcriminal prosecution.[1]
Diplomatic immunity is one of the oldest and most widespread practices ininternational relations;[2] most civilizations sinceantiquity have granted some degree of special status to foreign envoys and messengers.[1] It is designed to facilitate relations between states by allowing their respective representatives to conduct their duties freely and safely, even during periods of political tension andarmed conflict. Moreover, such protections are generally understood to be reciprocal and therefore mutually beneficial.[2]
As a longstanding and nearly universal concept, diplomatic immunity has long been consideredcustomary law; however, it was traditionally granted on abilateral,ad hoc basis, leading to varying and sometimes conflicting standards of protection. Modern practices of diplomatic immunity have largely conformed to the 1961Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which formally codified the legal and political status of diplomats, and has been ratified by the vast majority of sovereign states.
Diplomats may be declaredpersona non grata and expelled, although not prosecuted. A foreign official's home country may waive immunity and allow prosecution, typically if the official was involved in a seriouscrime unrelated to their diplomatic role (such asvehicular homicide, as opposed to, for example, allegations ofspying). However, many countries refuse to waive immunity as a matter of course, and diplomats have no authority to waive their own immunity (except perhaps in cases ofdefection).[3][4] Alternatively, the home country may prosecute the diplomat on its own accord or at the behest of the host country.[4]
The concept of diplomatic immunity can be found in ancient Indian epics likeRamayana andMahabharata, where messengers and diplomats were given immunity from capital punishment. InRamayana, when the demon kingRavana ordered the killing ofHanuman, Ravana's younger brotherVibhishana pointed out that messengers or diplomats should not be killed, as per ancient practices.[5]
During the evolution of international justice, many wars were considered rebellions or unlawful by one or more combatant sides. In such cases, the servants of the "criminal" sovereign were often considered accomplices and their persons violated. In other circumstances, harbingers of inconsiderable demands were killed as a declaration of war.Herodotus records that when heralds of thePersian kingXerxes demanded "earth and water" (i.e., symbols of submission) of Greek cities, theAthenians threw them into a pit and theSpartans threw them down a well for the purpose of suggesting they would find both earth and water at the bottom, these often being mentioned by the messenger as a threat of siege. However, even for Herodotus, this maltreatment of envoys is a crime.[citation needed] He recounts a story of divine vengeance befalling Sparta for this deed.[6]
ARoman envoy was urinated on as he was leaving the city ofTarentum. The oath of the envoy, "This stain will be washed away with blood!", was fulfilled during thePyrrhic War.
Gregory of Tours recorded thatFrankish envoys sent from KingChildebert II to theByzantine emperorMaurice were killed inCarthage by the prefect of the city, after one of the Franks had murdered a merchant. After Emperor Maurice heard about this, he ordered for several Carthaginians to be arrested and sent to Childebert for judgment on account of what happened to his envoys.[7]
The arrest and ill-treatment of the envoy ofRaja Raja Chola by the king ofKulasekhara dynasty (Second Cheras), which is now part ofmodern India, led to the navalKandalur War in AD 994.[8]
The Islamic prophetMuhammad sent and received envoys and strictly forbade harming them. This practice was continued by theRashidun caliphs who exchanged diplomats with the Ethiopians and the Byzantines. This diplomatic exchange continued during theArab–Byzantine wars.[9]
ClassicalSharia called for hospitality to be shown towards anyone who has been grantedamān (or right of safe passage).Amān was readily granted to any emissary bearing a letter or another sealed document. The duration of theamān was typically a year. Envoys with this right of passage were given immunity of person and property. They were exempt fromtaxation, as long as they did not engage in trade.[9]
As diplomats by definition enter the country under safe conduct, violating them is normally viewed as a great breach of honor.Genghis Khan and theMongols were well known for insisting on the rights of diplomats, and would often take terrifying vengeance against any state that violated these rights; at times razing entire cities in retaliation for the execution of their ambassadors. The Mongolsinvaded and destroyed the Khwarezmid Empire after their ambassadors were mistreated.[10]
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(January 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
TheBritish Parliament first guaranteed diplomatic immunity to foreign ambassadors under theDiplomatic Privileges Act in 1709, after CountAndrey Matveyev, a Russian resident in London, was subjected to verbal and physical abuse byBritish bailiffs.
Modern diplomatic immunity evolved parallel to the development of modern diplomacy. In the 17th century, European diplomats realized that protection from prosecution was essential to doing their jobs, and a set of rules evolved guaranteeing the rights of diplomats. These were still confined to Western Europe and were closely tied to the prerogatives of nobility. Thus, an emissary to the Ottoman Empire could expect to be arrested and imprisoned upon the outbreak of hostilities between his state and the empire. The French Revolution also disrupted this system, as the revolutionary state and Napoleon imprisoned numerous diplomats who were accused of working against France. More recently, theIran hostage crisis is universally considered a violation of diplomatic immunity. Although the hostage takers did not officially represent the state, host countries are obligated to protect diplomatic property and personnel. On the other hand, duringWorld War II, diplomatic immunity was upheld and the embassies of the belligerents were evacuated through neutral countries.
For the upper class of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, diplomatic immunity was an easy concept to understand. The first embassies were not permanent establishments but actual visits by high-ranking representatives, often close relatives of thesovereign, or by the sovereign in person. As permanent representations evolved, usually on a treaty basis between two powers, they were frequently staffed by relatives of the sovereign or high-ranking nobles.
Warfare was a status of hostilities not between individual states but between their sovereigns, as well as the officers and officials of European governments, and armies often changed employers. Truces and ceasefires were commonplace, as was the fraternization between officers of opposing armies. If officers were taken prisoner, they usually gave theirparole and were only restricted to a city away from the theatre of war. Almost always, they were given leave to carry their personal sidearms. Even during the French Revolutionary Wars, British scientists visited the French Academy. In such an atmosphere, it was easy to accept that some persons were immune to the laws. After all, they were still bound by strict requirements of honour and customs.
In the 19th century, theCongress of Vienna reasserted the rights of diplomats; they have been largely respected since then, as the European model has spread throughout the world. Currently, diplomatic relations, including diplomatic immunity, are governed internationally by the 1961Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which has been ratified by almost every country in the world.
In modern times, diplomatic immunity continues to provide a means, albeit imperfect, to safeguard diplomatic personnel from any animosity that might arise between nations. As one article put it: "So why do we agree to a system in which we're dependent on a foreign country's whim before we can prosecute a criminal inside our own borders? The practical answer is: because we depend on other countries to honor our own diplomats' immunity just as scrupulously as we honor theirs."[11]
During the 18 April 1961 Vienna Convention, theHoly See was granted diplomatic immunity to itsforeign ambassadors as well.[12]
In the United States, the Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978 (22 U.S.C. § 254a et seq.) follows the principles introduced by the Vienna Conventions. The United States tends to be generous when granting diplomatic immunity to visiting diplomats, because a large number of US diplomats work in host countries less protective of individual rights. If the United States were to punish a visiting diplomat without sufficient grounds,US representatives in other countries could receive harsher treatment. If a person with immunity is alleged to have committed a crime or faces a civil lawsuit, theState Department asks the home country to waive immunity of the alleged offender so that the complaint can be moved to the courts. If immunity is not waived, prosecution cannot be undertaken. However, the State Department still has the right toexpel the diplomat. In many such cases, the diplomat's visas are revoked, and they and their family may be barred from returning to the United States. Crimes committed by members of a diplomat's family can also result in dismissal.[13]
Some countries have madereservations to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, but they are minor. A number of countries limit the diplomatic immunity of persons who are citizens of the receiving country. As nations keep faith to their treaties with differing zeal, other rules may also apply, though in most cases this summary is a reasonably accurate approximation.[14] The Convention does not cover the personnel ofinternational organizations, whose privileges are decided upon on a case-by-case basis, usually in thetreaties founding such organizations.
| This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(September 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The United Nations system (including its agencies, which comprise the most recognizable international bodies such as the World Bank and many others) has a relatively standardized form of limited immunities for staff traveling onUN laissez-passer; diplomatic immunity is often granted to the highest-ranking officials of these agencies. Consular officials (that do not have concurrent diplomatic accreditation) formally have amore limited form of immunity, generally limited to their official duties. Diplomatic technical and administrative staff also have more limited immunity under the Vienna Convention; for this reason, some countries may accredit a member of technical or administrative staff as anattaché.
Other categories of government officials that may travel frequently to other countries may not have diplomatic passports or diplomatic immunity, such as members of the military, high-ranking government officials, ministers, and others. For the US military,official passports can be used for work related travels only.[15] Many countries provide non-diplomatic official passports to such personnel, and there may be different classes of such travel documents such asofficial passports,service passports, and others. De facto recognition of some form of immunity may be conveyed by states accepting officials traveling on such documents, or there may exist bilateral agreements to govern such cases (as in, for example, the case of military personnel conducting or observing exercises on the territory of the receiving country).
Formally, diplomatic immunity may be limited to officials accredited to a host country, or traveling to or from their host country. In practice, many countries may effectively recognize diplomatic immunity for those traveling on diplomatic passports, with admittance to the country constituting acceptance of the diplomatic status. However, this is not universal, and diplomats have been prosecuted and jailed for crimes committed outside the country they are accredited to.[16]
As a result of their title, diplomats are exempt from being prosecuted by the state in open court when they are suspected to be guilty of a crime.[17] Not only are these agents free from the criminal jurisdiction of the state, they are also immune from administrative and civil jurisdiction. This applies for most scenarios; however, there are some exceptions when the diplomatic immunity is subject to waiver.
Asadollah Asadi, anIranian diplomat, was arrested while returning to his residence inAustria on a highway inGermany on June 10, 2018, accused of being involved in an attempted bombing at a gathering of theNational Council of Resistance of Iran (a political organisation opposing the Iranian regime).[19] While Assadi was entitled to diplomatic immunity where applicable, it was deemed that he was not protected when he was arrested as he was on holiday (in Germany) outside the country where he was posted and hence protected.[20]
In reality, most diplomats are representatives of nations with a tradition of professionalcivil service; they are expected to obey regulations governing their behaviour and suffer severe disciplinary action if they flout local laws. In many nations, a professional diplomat's career may be compromised if they (or members of their family) disobey the local authorities or cause serious embarrassment. Such cases are, at any rate, a violation of the spirit of the Vienna Conventions.
The Vienna Convention is explicit that "without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State." Nevertheless, on some occasions, protected diplomats have violated laws (including those that would be violations at home as well) of the host country, and that country has been essentially limited to informing the diplomat's nation that the diplomat is no longer welcome (persona non grata). Diplomatic agents are not, however, exempt from the jurisdiction of their home state, and hence prosecution may be undertaken by the sending state. For minor violations of the law, the sending state may impose administrative procedures specific to the foreign service or diplomatic mission.
Violation of the law by diplomats has includedespionage, smuggling,child custody law violations, money laundering,[21] tax evasion, making terrorist threats,[22] slavery, child solicitation,[23] andmurder.
On-duty police officerYvonne Fletcher was murdered inLondon in 1984, by a person shooting from inside theLibyan embassy during a protest. The incident caused a breakdown indiplomatic relations until Libya admitted "general responsibility" in 1999.[24] The incident became a major factor in Prime MinisterMargaret Thatcher's decision to allowPresident of the United StatesRonald Reagan to launch theUS bombing of Libya in 1986 from American bases in the United Kingdom.[25]
In 1987, the Human Resources Administration of New York City placed 9-year-old Terrence Karamba in a foster home after his elementary school teachers noticed suspicious scars and injuries. He and his 7-year-old sister, who was also placed in city custody, told officials the wounds had been inflicted by their father, Floyd Karamba, an administrative attaché at the Zimbabwean Mission to the UN. No charges were filed, as Karamba had diplomatic immunity.[26]
In February 1999 inVancouver, British Columbia, Canada, Kazuko Shimokoji, wife of the Japanese Consul-General, showed up at theemergency department of a city hospital with two black eyes and a bruised neck. She told doctors that her husband had beaten her. When local police questioned her husband, Mr. Shimokoji said, "Yes, I punched her out and she deserved it", and described the incident as "a cultural thing and not a big deal". Although an arrest warrant was issued, Mr. Shimokoji could not be arrested due to his diplomatic immunity. However, his statement to the police was widely reported in both the local and Japanese press. The subsequent public uproar prompted the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to waive Mr. Shimokoji's immunity. Though he pleaded guilty in Canadian court, he was given anabsolute discharge. Nonetheless, he was recalled to Japan where he was reassigned to office duty and had his pay cut.[27]
In 2002, a Colombian diplomat in the United Kingdom was prosecuted for manslaughter once diplomatic immunity was waived by the Colombian government.[28][29]
In November 2006 in New York City, Fred Matwanga, Kenyan diplomat to the UN, was taken into police custody by officers responding to reports that he had assaulted his son; he was released after asserting diplomatic immunity.[30][31]
In 2011, Turkish president Erdogan and his team started fighting with UN officials at the United Nations Headquarters. The then secretary general,Ban Ki Moon, soon ran over and apologised to Erdogan.[32]
In April 2012 in thePhilippines, Erick Shcks Bairnals, a technical officer of the Panama Maritime Authority's regional office in Manila, was accused of raping a 19-year-oldFilipino woman. Being an attached agency to the Panamanian embassy in Manila, the AMP office was classified as a diplomatic entity, its officers possessing the same privileges conferred to the embassy's diplomats. Shcks was later released from detention because Shcks "enjoys protection under the 1961 Vienna Convention."[33]
In March 2013, theSupreme Court of India restricted Italian ambassadorDaniele Mancini from leaving India for breaching an undertaking given to the apex court.[34] Despite Italian and European Union protests regarding the restrictions as contrary to theVienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the Supreme Court of India said it would be unacceptable to argue diplomatic immunity after voluntarily submitting to the court's jurisdiction. The Italian envoy had invoked Article 32 of the Constitution of India when filing an affidavit to the Supreme Court taking responsibility for the return of the two Italian marines to India after casting their votes in the March 2012 general elections in Italy. The Indian Supreme Court opined that the Italian ambassador had waived his diplomatic immunity and could be charged for contempt. The two marines were being tried in India for the murder of two Indian fishermen off the coast of Kerala (see theEnrica Lexie case).
In October 2013, Russian diplomat Dmitri Borodin was arrested inThe Hague, The Netherlands, after neighbours called the police. Borodin was alleged to have been drunk and violent towards his children, aged two and four. Police were in the area because Borodin's wife had lost control over her car while also intoxicated, and had rammed four parked cars near the diplomats' house.[35] Russia immediately demanded an apology from the Dutch government for violating Borodin's diplomatic immunity. The row came at a time of tension between Russia and the Netherlands, after the Russian security services captured aGreenpeace vessel sailing under the Dutch flag,Arctic Sunrise, that was protesting against oil drilling in thePrirazlomnoye field.[36]
In June 2014, theNew Zealand government confirmed thatMohammed Rizalman Bin Ismail from Malaysia, aged in his 30s and employed atMalaysia's High Commission in Wellington, had invoked diplomatic immunity when faced with charges of burglary and assault with intent to rape after allegedly following a 21-year-old woman to her home.[37] He returned to Malaysia in May 2014 with his family while the case was still in hearing. The New Zealand foreign ministry was criticized for allowing the defendant to leave the country, which was blamed on miscommunication between the foreign ministries of the two countries, as Prime MinisterJohn Key expressed his view that "the man should have faced the charges in New Zealand".[37] Malaysia eventually agreed to send the diplomat back to assist in investigations[38][39] and he was eventually tried and sentenced to nine months' home detention in New Zealand.[40]
In July 2017, in Jordan, two Jordanian carpenters were invited to repair furniture at an Israeli diplomatic security agent's residence near the Israeli embassy. It is believed that the Jordanians and Israeli security agent quarreled over the ongoing tensions regarding the installations of metal detectors at entry points to al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.[41] One carpenter, a teenager of Palestinian origin, reportedly tried to stab the Israeli security agent with his screwdriver, and the Israeli security agent shot and killed the Jordanian carpenter, and also shot the property landlord, a doctor, who happened to be there at the time.[42] Israel refused to allow Jordanian authorities to question the agent, claiming diplomatic immunity under the Vienna convention.[43]
In August 2017,Grace Mugabe, the formerFirst Lady of Zimbabwe, invoked diplomatic immunity on 15 August after assault charges were laid against her by a South African model.[44]
In 2018, Saudi American journalistJamal Khashoggi was killed by Saudi officials inside the Saudi embassy in Turkey. The Turkish police were not allowed to enter the premises days after this death. Furthermore, a Saudi government vehicle with diplomatic license plates was spotted entering a park.[45]
In August 2022, UN diplomatCharles Dickens Imene Oliha of South Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs claimed diplomatic immunity and was released from jail in New York City after raping a woman twice inside her apartment building.[46] He subsequently returned to South Sudan, where he was suspended from his duties and is to be investigated.[47]
In April 2021, two Pakistani diplomats in South Korea were caught shoplifting in Seoul. The Pakistani diplomats were caught stealing $1.70 worth of chocolate and a $10 hat. The case was closed owing to their diplomatic immunity.[48]
Diplomats and officials involved in drug smuggling have benefited from diplomatic immunity. For example, a Venezuelan general wanted in the United States on drugs charges was arrested inAruba only to be released after the Venezuelan government protested his diplomatic immunity and threatened sanctions if Aruba did not release him.[49][50]
In December 2014, after their immunity was waived by Gambia, Gambian diplomats were found guilty bySouthwark Crown Court of London for selling tax-free tobacco from the Gambian embassy in the United Kingdom. TheCrown Prosecution Service told the court that much of this was sold from the embassy without payingvalue-added tax andexcise duty.[51]
Diplomatic immunity from local employment and labor law has precipitated incidents in which diplomatic staff have been accused of abusing local workers, who are often hired for positions requiring local knowledge (such as an administrative assistant, press/PR officer) or for general labor. In such situations, the employees are in a legal limbo where the laws of neither the host country nor the diplomat's country are enforceable. Diplomats have ignored local laws concerningminimum wages, maximum working hours, vacation and holidays, and in some cases have imprisoned employees in their homes, deprived them of their earned wages,passports, food, and communication with the outside world, abused them physically and emotionally, and invaded their privacy.[52][53] Reported incidents include the following:
A particular problem is the difficulty in enforcing ordinary laws, such as prohibitions ondouble parking. For example, theAutobahn 555 inCologne, Germany was nicknamed the "Diplomatenrennbahn" (Diplomat's Raceway), whenBonn was the capital ofWest Germany, because of the numerous diplomats that used to speed through the highway under diplomatic immunity. Certain cities, for exampleThe Hague and New York City have taken to impounding such cars rather than fining their owners. Diplomats' status does not guarantee the release of impounded cars.[63][64] Diplomats' cars may not be searched or entered in the US.[65]
Diplomatic missions have their own regulations, but many require their staff to pay any fines due for parking violations. A 2006 economic study found that there was a significant correlation between home-countrycorruption (as measured byTransparency International) and unpaid parking fines: six countries had in excess of 100 violations per diplomat:Kuwait,Egypt,Chad,Sudan,Bulgaria andMozambique.[66] In particular,New York City, which hosts theUnited Nations Headquarters, regularly protests to theUnited States Department of State about nonpayment of parking tickets because of diplomatic status. In 2001, the city had more than 200,000 outstanding parking tickets from diplomats, totaling more than $21.3 million, of which only $160,682 had been collected;[67] a decade later, the total cost of unpaid parking tickets was over $17 million.[68] In 1997, then-mayorRudy Giuliani proposed to theClinton administration that the U.S. State Department revoke the special DPL plates for diplomats who ignore parking summonses; the State Department denied Giuliani's request.[67]
In cities that impose acongestion charge, the decision of some diplomatic missions not to furnish payment has proved controversial. In London, embassies have amassed approximately £58 million in unpaid charges as of 2012, with the American embassy comprising approximately £6 million and the Russian, German and Japanese missions around £2 million each.[69][70]
In January 1997,Gueorgui Makharadze, a high-rankingGeorgian diplomat, caused a five-carpileup inWashington, D.C., in the United States, which killed a 16-year-old girl. Makharadze's claim of diplomatic immunity created a national outrage in the United States, particularly given Makharadze's previous record of driving offenses: In April 1996, Makharadze had been charged with speeding in Virginia, and four months later, he was detained by District of Columbia police on suspicion of drunk driving.[71] In both prior cases, charges were dismissed based on his immunity. On the basis of the media coverage, Georgia revoked Makharadze's immunity, and he was ultimately sentenced to seven years in prison after pleading guilty to one count of involuntary manslaughter and four counts of aggravated assault.[72]
On 27 October 1998, inVladivostok,Russia, Douglas Kent, the AmericanConsul General to Russia, was involved in a car accident that left a young man, Alexander Kashin, disabled. Kent was not prosecuted in a US court. Under theVienna Convention, diplomatic immunity does not apply to civil actions relating to vehicular accidents, but in 2006, theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that, since he was using his vehicle for consular purposes, Kent could not be sued civilly.[73][74][75]
In 2001, a Russian diplomat, Andrei Knyazev, hit and killed a woman while driving drunk in Ottawa. Knyazev refused to take a breathalyzer at the scene of the crash, citing diplomatic immunity.[76] Russia refused Canadian requests to waive his immunity, and Knyazev was expelled from Canada. Though the Russian Foreign Ministry fired him and charged him with involuntary manslaughter, and Russian and Canadian authorities cooperated in the investigation,[77] the case caused a political storm in Canada. Many accused the Foreign Ministry of incompetence after it emerged that Knyazev had twice been previously investigated for drunk driving. The Canadian Foreign Minister had fought unsuccessfully to have Knyazev tried in Ottawa.[78] In 2002, Knyazev was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in Russia.[76]
On 3 December 2004, inBucharest,Romania, Christopher Van Goethem, an AmericanMarine serving his embassy, ran a red traffic signal, collided with a taxi, and killed popular Romanian musicianTeo Peter.[79] The Romanian government requested the American government to lift his immunity, which it refused to do. In acourt-martial, he was acquitted ofmanslaughter andadultery but was convicted ofobstruction of justice andmaking false statements.[80]
On 9 December 2009, inTanzania, CanadianJunior Envoy Jean Touchette was arrested after it was reported that he spat at a traffic police officer on duty in the middle of atraffic jam in the Banana district on the outskirts ofDar es Salaam. Canada'sHigh Commissioner, Robert Orr, was summoned by the TanzanianForeign Ministry over the incident, and the junior envoy was later recalled.[81][82][83]
On 15 December 2009, in Singapore, theRomanianchargé d'affaires,Silviu Ionescu, was allegedly behind adrunk-driving hit-and-run accident that killed a 30-year-old man and seriously injured two others. He left Singapore for Romania three days after the accident.[84][85] The Romanian foreign ministry suspended Ionescu from his post.[86] A coroner's inquiry in Singapore, which included testimony by the Romanian embassy driver, concluded that Ionescu was solely responsible for the accident.[87] AnInterpol Red Notice was subsequently issued for his arrest and possible extradition[88] notwithstanding the fact that Romania had not waived his diplomatic immunity and had commenced criminal proceedings against him in Romania.[89] The Singapore government argued that by reason of Article 39(2) of the Vienna Convention, Ionescu was no longer protected by diplomatic immunity.[90][91] Ionescu was eventually sentenced to six years in jail.
In January 2011 inLahore,Pakistan, American embassy employeeRaymond Allen Davis shot and killed two Pakistani civilians, while a third man was struck and killed by a US consulate car responding to the shooting. According to Davis, they were about to rob him and he acted in self-defense. When detained by police, Davis claimed to be a consultant at the US consulate in Lahore. He was formally arrested and remanded into custody. Further investigations revealed that he was working with the CIA as a contractor in Pakistan. TheUS State Department declared him a diplomat and repeatedly requested immunity under theVienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, to which Pakistan is a signatory.[92][93] On 16 March 2011, Davis was released after the families of the two killed men were paid $2.4 million indiyya (a form of monetary compensation orblood money). Judges then acquitted him on all charges and Davis immediately departed Pakistan.[94]
On 10 April 2011, inIslamabad, Pakistan, Patrick Kibuta, an electrical engineer in theUnited Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan caused a vehicle collision with another vehicle, while under the influence of alcohol. Kibuta, who was driving in the opposing lane, injured aCanadian citizen residing in Islamabad, who suffered multiple fractures and required surgery. The Kohsar police impounded Kibuta's UN vehicle on the scene, and a blood test confirmed that he had an elevated blood alcohol level. Charges for reckless and drunken driving were filed against Kibuta, who enjoyed diplomatic immunity.[95][96]
On 14 February 2013, a vehicle bearing diplomatic plates registered to the US Embassy got into an accident inIslamabad,Pakistan involving two residents out of which one was killed and the other survived. Murder charges were laid under Section 320 of thePakistani Penal Code against the driver of the vehicle who is a diplomat according to Pakistani officials.[97]
In July 2013, Joshua Walde, an American diplomat in Nairobi, Kenya, crashed into a mini-bus, killing one man and seriously injuring eight others, who were left with no financial assistance to pay for hospital bills.[98] United States embassy officials took the diplomat and his family out of Kenya the following day.[98] The United States government was concerned about the impact the accident could have on bilateral relations with Kenya.[98] Walde gave a statement to police, but was not detained due to his diplomatic immunity.[98] Kenyan police say the case remains under investigation.[98]
In September 2013, Jad Saeed al-Hassan,Lebanese Ambassador toSouth Korea, was involved in ahit-and-run inSeoul.[99] Right after the accident, he drove directly into theLebaneseembassy compound and refused to cooperate with the local police investigation, claiming his diplomatic immunity. He stayed in his post asambassador until his death due to anothertraffic collision inSeoul in 2014.[100]
On 12 September 2015, SheikhKhalid bin Hamad Al Thani tried to claim diplomatic immunity when hisFerrari LaFerrari and aPorsche 911 GT3 were caught on cameradrag racing through a residential neighborhood inBeverly Hills. He owns the cars and a drag racing team, and is a member ofQatar's ruling family. TheBeverly Hills Police Department contacted theUS State Department to clarify if he had diplomatic immunity. They stated he did not. However, his face was not shown on camera, and no officer witnessed the crime, so the state of California has not yet pressed charges. He has since fled the country. The investigation is ongoing.[101][102]
In June 2017, in Berlin, Germany a Saudi driver killed a cyclist by opening the door of his Porsche directly into the cyclist's path without checking to see if the road was clear. Anger arose when the Saudi claimed diplomatic immunity. Police said that under normal circumstances the driver would face investigation and possible prosecution on suspicion of negligent manslaughter, but prosecutors said they had no choice but to close the case because he had diplomatic immunity.[103]
On 27 August 2019,Anne Sacoolas, the wife of an American government employee working in the United Kingdom, was a suspect in a traffic incident involving 19-year-oldHarry Dunn inCroughton,Northamptonshire,England.[104] Dunn was riding his motorcycle when it was reported that a woman emerged fromRAF Croughton driving on the wrong side of the road, resulting in a head-on collision. After999 handlers wrongly categorized the call, there was a 43-minute wait for an ambulance, resulting in a two-hour delay arriving at a trauma center, where Harry Dunn later died.[105] Sacoolas was breathalyzed at the accident site. The following day, police interviewed Sacoolas at her home, learning the US claimed diplomatic immunity.[citation needed]
Sacoolas told police she had no immediate plans to leave the country. However, on 13 October US authorities notified the UK'sForeign and Commonwealth Office of plans to send Sacoolas home, unless serious objections were raised: on 16 October, the UK's Foreign Secretary,Dominic Raab, went to present objections, a day after the family was sent back.[citation needed]
Woody Johnson, U.S. Ambassador to the UK, expressed "profound sadness" at the death of Harry Dunn and the US Embassy also offered their sympathies and condolences. U.S. PresidentDonald Trump called it a "terrible accident" and mentioned that the woman was "driving on the wrong side of the road, and that can happen".[106][107] The US government has not waived the diplomatic immunity afforded to Sacoolas and has stated she would not return to the UK, despite calls by the UK government to do so.[108][109]
Sacoolas was scheduled to appear in UK court via video link charged with causing the death of Mr Dunn by dangerous driving. A hearing took place inWestminster Magistrates Court on 18 January 2022.[110] She appeared by video-link at theOld Bailey, where she pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving on 20 October 2022. She was handed an eight-month prison term, suspended for 12 months, and was also disqualified from driving for 12 months.[111]
In 2023, U.S. diplomat Eric Kimpton, while driving, struck and killed 11-year-old Lillian Mapiye in Zimbabwe. Invoking diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention, Kimpton avoided legal proceedings and returned to the United States. The incident sparked discussions between the Zimbabwean government and the U.S. Embassy, with officials emphasizing that while immunity protects diplomats, it does not absolve them of their moral responsibility to respect the laws and lives of their host country.[112]
Historically, large debts run up by diplomats have caused many problems. Some financial institutions do not extend credit to diplomats because they have no legal means of ensuring the money be repaid. Local citizens and businesses are often at a disadvantage when filing civil claims against a diplomat, especially in cases of unpaid rent, alimony, and child support.
 | The examples and perspective in this articlemay not represent aworldwide view of the subject. You mayimprove this article, discuss the issue on thetalk page, orcreate a new article, as appropriate.(May 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The bulk of diplomatic debt lies in the rental of office space and living quarters. Individual debts can range from a few thousand dollars to $1 million in back rent. A group of diplomats and the office space in which they work are referred to as adiplomatic mission. Creditors cannot sue missions individually to collect money they owe. Landlords and creditors have found that the only thing they can do is contact a city agency to see if they can try to get some money back. They cannot enter the offices or apartments of diplomats to evict them because theForeign Sovereign Immunities Act says that "the property in the United States of a foreign state shall be immune fromattachment, arrest and execution" (28 U.S.C. § 1609). This has led creditors who are owed money by diplomats to become more cautious about their renters and to change their rental or payment policies.
In one case, for example, officials from Zaire stopped paying rent to their private landlord and ran up $400,000 in debt. When the landlord sued, the US State Department defended the Zaireans on the basis of diplomatic immunity, and a circuit court agreed. When the landlord finally cut off the utilities, the officials fled without paying their back rent. The landlords reportedly later reached an "amicable agreement" with the Zairean government.[54]
The issue of abusing diplomatic immunity in family relations, especiallyalimony andchild support, has become so widespread that it prompted discussion at the 1995 UN Fourth World Conference on Women, inBeijing. Historically, theUnited Nations has not become involved with family disputes and has refused to garnish the wages of diplomats who owe money for child support, citingsovereign immunity.[citation needed] However, in September 1995, the incumbent head ofLegal Affairs for theUnited Nations acknowledged there was a moral and legal obligation to take at least a partial responsibility in family disputes. Fathers working as diplomats who refused to fulfill their family-related financial duties were increasing in numbers in theUnited Nations: several men who had left their wives and children were still claiming UN dependency, travel, and education allowances for their families, though they are no longer supporting those families.[113]
Diplomats are exempt from most taxes, but not from "charges levied for specific services rendered". In certain cases, whether a payment is or is not considered a tax may be disputed, such ascentral London'scongestion charge. It was reported in 2006 that the UAE embassy had agreed to pay their own accumulated charges of nearly £100,000.[114]
There is an obligation for the receiving state not to "discriminate as between states"; in other words, any such fees should be payable by all accredited diplomats equally. This may allow thediplomatic corps to negotiate as a group with the authorities of the receiving country.
Diplomats are exempt fromimport duty andtariffs for items for their personal use. In some countries, this has led to charges that diplomatic agents are profiting personally from resale of "tax free" goods. The receiving state may choose to impose restrictions on what may reasonably constitute personal use (for example, only a certain quantity ofcigarettes per day). When enacted, such restrictions are generally quite generous so as to avoidtit-for-tat responses.
United States v. Al Sharaf is a criminal case which was filed by the government on March 5, 2015, in theUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia. Al Sharaf was a Kuwaiti financial attaché assigned to handle the finances of Kuwait Health Office in Washington, D.C. She was charged by the government with violating 18 U.S.C § 1956, conspiring to launder money. Al Sharaf filed a motion to dismiss the case on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction because as per the 22 U.S.C § 254d her actions were immune under the diplomatic immunity that she had. Since it was a criminal case, the prosecution presented evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove that Al Sharaf had engaged in commercial activity and her actions were different from her official functions as a representative of Kuwait, thereby, as per the VCDR art. 31(c) her diplomatic immunity was subject to waiver. The court ruled in prosecution's favor and stated that since the defendant had engaged in commercial activity which was different from her official functions, her diplomatic immunity was subject to waiver and hence the defendant's motion to dismiss the case on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction was denied.[115]
Franz von Papen entered the diplomatic service in December 1913 as amilitary attaché to the German ambassador in the United States. Starting in September 1914, Papen abused his diplomatic immunity as German military attaché, violating US laws to start organising plans for incursions intoCanada for a campaign ofsabotage against canals, bridges and railroads.[116] In October 1914, Papen became involved with what was later dubbed "theHindu–German Conspiracy", by covertly arranging withIndian nationalists based inCalifornia forarms trafficking to the latter for a planned uprising against theBritish Raj.[117] In February 1915, Papen also covertly organised theVanceboro international bridge bombing, in which his diplomatic immunity protected him from arrest.[118] At the same time, he remained involved in plans to restore Huerta to power, and arranged for the arming and financing of a planned invasion of Mexico.[119] Papen's covert operations were known toBritish intelligence, which shared its information with the US government.[120] As a result, for complicity in the planning of acts of sabotage[121] on 28 December 1915, Captain von Papen was declaredpersona non grata and recalled to Germany.[122] Upon his return, he was awarded theIron Cross.
On 24 April 2008, inNew Orleans, Mexicanpress attaché Rafael Quintero Curiel was seen stealingBlackBerryPDA units from aWhite House press meeting room. Quintero made it all the way to the airport before members of theUnited States Secret Service caught up with him. He initially denied taking the devices, but after being confronted with security video, Quintero claimed it was purely accidental, gave the devices back, claimed diplomatic immunity and left New Orleans with the Mexican delegation. He was eventually fired for the incident.[123]
In 2021, it was reported that the UAE Embassy in Canberra was building non-compliant fences and installing CCTV.[124]
The following chart outlines the immunities afforded to foreign diplomatic personnel residing in the United States.[125] In general, these rules follow the Vienna Convention (or theNew York Convention for UN officials) and apply in other countries as well (with the exceptions of immunities for United Nations officials, which can vary widely across countries based on the "Host Country Agreement" signed between the UN and the host country, whereby additional immunities beyond those granted by the New York Convention may be established).
| Category | May be arrested or detained | Residence may be entered subject to ordinary procedures | May be issued traffic ticket | May be subpoenaed as witness | May be prosecuted | Official family member | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diplomatic | Diplomatic agent | No[a] | No | Yes (although not obliged to pay) | No | No | Same as sponsor |
| Member of administrative and technical staff | No[a] | No | Yes | No | No | Same as sponsor | |
| Service staff | Yes[b] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No[b] | |
| Consular | Career consular officers | Yes, if for a felony and pursuant to a warrant.[b] | Yes[c] | Yes | No, for official acts. Testimony may not be compelled in any case. | No, for official acts. Otherwise, yes[d] | No[b] |
| Honorary consular officers | Yes | Yes | Yes | No, for official acts. Yes, in all other cases | No, for official acts. Otherwise, yes | No | |
| Consular employees | Yes[b] | Yes | Yes | No, for official acts. Yes, in all other cases | No, for official acts. Otherwise, yes[b] | No[b] | |
| International organization | Diplomatic-level staff of missions to international organizations | No[a][e] | No[e] | Yes | No[e] | No[e] | Same as sponsor |
| International organization staff[d] | Yes[d] | Yes[d] | Yes | No, for official acts. Yes, in all other cases | No, for official acts. Otherwise, yes[d] | No[b] | |
| Support staff of missions to international organizations | Yes | Yes | Yes | No, for official acts. Yes, in all other cases | No, for official acts. Otherwise, yes | No | |
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link){{cite web}}:|archive-url= is malformed: timestamp (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)| Roles |
| ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Offices | |||||||||||||||||
| Types | |||||||||||||||||
| Topics | |||||||||||||||||
| Documents | |||||||||||||||||
| Other topics | |||||||||||||||||
