4 ms·

What is the purpose of diplomatic immunity anyway? I thought everyone was supposed to be equal under the law. If people don't like the law of a specific country

What is the purpose of diplomatic immunity anyway? I thought everyone was supposed to be equal under the law. If people don't like the law of a specific country, they should just stay in their own countries.

gambiting 6y ago
I mean, it's not difficult. The people traditionally given diplomatic immunity are representatives of a country, and they have it so they can carry on their work. Diplomatic immunity is not absolute, and can be voided at any point, or the receiver can be announced as persona non Grata and expelled. Like, think how in the old times it was traditional that messangers carrying news from one kingdom to the other were untouchable, they had free passage and it was a very bad idea to harm them in any way. In more practical terms it's so that countries which aren't on best of terms don't use their diplomats as bargaining chips. It would be super easy for say Russia to arrest an American diplomat on fake charges and just keep them in jail(or you know, the other way around). Diplomatic immunity prevents that - it basically says that as long as you are on a diplomatic mission you are immune from prosecution in that country, and for good reason.
- cryptica 6y ago
  I don't see what the problem is if some foreign country captures a diplomat. We can just elect another diplomat in their place. There isn't enough turnover of diplomats anyway and they typically have too much power or they know too much stuff that their citizens don't know - It creates a massive disconnect between politicians and citizens. Maybe they should be less powerful and more disposable. If every country had highly disposable diplomats and government officials, everything would probably be much better for everyone and each country should mind its own business. No matter how you put it, diplomatic immunity disproves the idea that everyone is equal under the law. You can't have diplomatic immunity and also have everyone equal under the law. It's a logical contradiction. You have to choose one or the other or else it's impossible to know where to draw the line.
  - gambiting 6y ago
    >>We can just elect another diplomat in their place. Wow, I wonder how would you ever attract anyone to that job then, if it basically comes with a "disposable" label, and if the government basically says "go and represent us, but if things go tits up we'll just replace you". >>No matter how you put it, diplomatic immunity disproves the idea that everyone is equal under the law. Well, that idea was never true, going back thousands of years. Diplomats are effectively guests and get special treatment, like any guests do. If they abuse our hospitality then they get kicked out, simple. >>You can't have diplomatic immunity and also have everyone equal under the law. Of course you can - after all this isn't a loophole, it's specifically agreed upon and allowed in the law of our democratic societies. >> You have to choose one or the other or else it's impossible to know where to draw the line. Why would it be impossible? It's pretty easy in fact - diplomats have immunity in order to carry on their jobs. Just like the American president(and most presidents and leaders in fact) is immune from prosecution while in the office - that's also not "equal under law". Or like police officers are immune from certain prosecution, how journalists are, private investigators etc. The rules are equal - but the rules also say that certain people are exempt. I just don't see the issue here.
    - cryptica 6y ago
      >> Wow, I wonder how would you ever attract anyone to that job then Most jobs these days are disposable, attracts plenty of people. Just pay a regular average salary and people will be lining up. >> Why would it be impossible? It's pretty easy in fact - diplomats have immunity in order to carry on their jobs. Clearly it's not. It's a slippery slope. For example, even corporations today have more rights than people, they can move to a new country and not have to apply for citizenship like people do. Corporations also pay lower taxes in many countries, also they can commit crimes and get away with only small fines; they are never jailed or terminated. By extension, corporate executives often get better treatment than regular people when it comes to certain crimes. It's also well know that rich people pay much lower % taxes on average. Nobody is equal under the law because we've allowed ourselves to diverge from this simple principle.
      - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

gambiting 6y ago

I mean, it's not difficult. The people traditionally given diplomatic immunity are representatives of a country, and they have it so they can carry on their work. Diplomatic immunity is not absolute, and can be voided at any point, or the receiver can be announced as persona non Grata and expelled. Like, think how in the old times it was traditional that messangers carrying news from one kingdom to the other were untouchable, they had free passage and it was a very bad idea to harm them in any way. In more practical terms it's so that countries which aren't on best of terms don't use their diplomats as bargaining chips. It would be super easy for say Russia to arrest an American diplomat on fake charges and just keep them in jail(or you know, the other way around). Diplomatic immunity prevents that - it basically says that as long as you are on a diplomatic mission you are immune from prosecution in that country, and for good reason.

cryptica 6y ago
I don't see what the problem is if some foreign country captures a diplomat. We can just elect another diplomat in their place. There isn't enough turnover of diplomats anyway and they typically have too much power or they know too much stuff that their citizens don't know - It creates a massive disconnect between politicians and citizens. Maybe they should be less powerful and more disposable. If every country had highly disposable diplomats and government officials, everything would probably be much better for everyone and each country should mind its own business. No matter how you put it, diplomatic immunity disproves the idea that everyone is equal under the law. You can't have diplomatic immunity and also have everyone equal under the law. It's a logical contradiction. You have to choose one or the other or else it's impossible to know where to draw the line.
- gambiting 6y ago
  >>We can just elect another diplomat in their place. Wow, I wonder how would you ever attract anyone to that job then, if it basically comes with a "disposable" label, and if the government basically says "go and represent us, but if things go tits up we'll just replace you". >>No matter how you put it, diplomatic immunity disproves the idea that everyone is equal under the law. Well, that idea was never true, going back thousands of years. Diplomats are effectively guests and get special treatment, like any guests do. If they abuse our hospitality then they get kicked out, simple. >>You can't have diplomatic immunity and also have everyone equal under the law. Of course you can - after all this isn't a loophole, it's specifically agreed upon and allowed in the law of our democratic societies. >> You have to choose one or the other or else it's impossible to know where to draw the line. Why would it be impossible? It's pretty easy in fact - diplomats have immunity in order to carry on their jobs. Just like the American president(and most presidents and leaders in fact) is immune from prosecution while in the office - that's also not "equal under law". Or like police officers are immune from certain prosecution, how journalists are, private investigators etc. The rules are equal - but the rules also say that certain people are exempt. I just don't see the issue here.
  - cryptica 6y ago
    >> Wow, I wonder how would you ever attract anyone to that job then Most jobs these days are disposable, attracts plenty of people. Just pay a regular average salary and people will be lining up. >> Why would it be impossible? It's pretty easy in fact - diplomats have immunity in order to carry on their jobs. Clearly it's not. It's a slippery slope. For example, even corporations today have more rights than people, they can move to a new country and not have to apply for citizenship like people do. Corporations also pay lower taxes in many countries, also they can commit crimes and get away with only small fines; they are never jailed or terminated. By extension, corporate executives often get better treatment than regular people when it comes to certain crimes. It's also well know that rich people pay much lower % taxes on average. Nobody is equal under the law because we've allowed ourselves to diverge from this simple principle.
    - 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]