5 ms·

The UK has asserted[0] that they have a legal basis for arresting Assange even while he is inside the Ecuadorian embassy. They cite the Diplomatic and Consular

The UK has asserted[0] that they have a legal basis for arresting Assange even while he is inside the Ecuadorian embassy. They cite the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987; the counterpoint is the Vienna convention and centuries worth of international law. [0] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy-asylum http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-e...

peteretep 14y ago
My understanding is that it's a little more nuanced than that: that the UK believes it has the right to withdraw the diplomatic status of the building used for the Ecuadorian embassy. Ecuadorian diplomats would continue to have diplomatic protection, presumably would be given long notice of the requirement to vacate the embassy, and move goods from it... but Mr Assange would not have any of that protection. I'm not sure which part of the Vienna Convention you think this would violate?
- buro9 14y ago
  I feel hesitant to even speculate on the possibilities, but what if Ecuador made him a diplomat?
  - peteretep 14y ago
    They can't - he'd have to enter the country on a diplomatic passport. And the UK can refuse diplomatic visas to whomever they want.
  - Semaphor 14y ago
    Someone further up said the UK could choose to no accept that. No clue why;)
  - peteretep 14y ago
    Also relevant, from Wikipedia: "Although most persons with diplomatic immunity carry diplomatic passports, having a diplomatic passport is not the equivalent of having diplomatic immunity. A grant of diplomatic status, a privilege of which is diplomatic immunity, has to come from the government of the country in relation to which diplomatic status is claimed. Also, having a diplomatic passport does not mean visa-free travel. A holder of a diplomatic passport must obtain a non-diplomatic visa when traveling to a country where he is not currently nor is going to be accredited as a diplomat, if visas are required to nationals of his country." More frequently, I hear of UK embassies not offering full diplomatic protection to their non-political staff in foreign countries. If you're sending someone from your Tourism Board to the British embassy in Thailand, you simply don't want the hassle of having to specifically revoke his diplomatic privilege when he shows up in Pattaya with a dead hooker, where you're happy to give them diplomatic car plates so the traffic police don't try and get 500THB from them for speeding... I assume this is an international trend, rather than something the Brits thought up.
- eumenides1 14y ago
  I think the UK is working on a technicality. They could do this, but should they do this? The UK risks it's ties with Ecuador to get Mr. Assange. Also the UK puts it's entire foreign affairs/ministry (operating in other countries) at real risk as well. Usually in these situation there are always tit-for-tat repercussions. You expel my diplomat, I expel your diplomat. So far it's, Mr Assange applies (key word!) for asylum. Britain threatens Ecuador with a letter, Ecuador gives him asylum. Ecuador pretty much has to give him asylum or risk looking to be diplomatically weak. The next move will be the British's move because Mr. Assange doesn't have to leave the embassy. He could stay there the rest of his life and do pretty well. He got famous for leaking documents on the internet and I'm pretty sure the embassy has the internet. So he can continue leaking documents on the internet. The bonus is now that he is "on the run" he will have credibility and he can pretty much expose whatever he wants except for leaks of Ecuadorian issues.
  - peteretep 14y ago
    > I think the UK is working on a technicality Sure, but so are the Ecuadors - Diplomatic Immunity wasn't set up to allow embassies to offer temporary asylum for non-national fugitives :-) > They could do this, but should they do this? The UK risks it's ties with Ecuador to get Mr. Assange And Ecuador risks its ties by not giving him up, not to mention millions of pounds of development aid the UK gives them. These things are historically quietly resolved outside of the limelight. Sending this letter is just putting pressure on the Ecuadors ... they'll eventually give him up, and magically the EU's development budget for Ecuador increases in the next year... > The next move will be the British's move because Mr. Assange doesn't have to leave the embassy. He could stay there the rest of his life and do pretty well. I think you're mistaken there. In six months time, if he's still there, he'll quietly become a bargaining chip, and one day the Ecuadors will announce that "new evidence has come to light", and he'll be handed over, and some Ecuador-originated bill at the UN will have British support a few months later...
    - lmm 14y ago
      >Sure, but so are the Ecuadors - Diplomatic Immunity wasn't set up to allow embassies to offer temporary asylum for non-national fugitives :-) Originally no, but there are centuries of precedent for using it that way.
- LiveTheDream 14y ago
  Various media I've read makes the same claim that arresting Assange would violate the Vienna convention, including the linked article from GP. Seems like the main topic is this: Article 31. The host nation may not enter the consular premises, and must protect the premises from intrusion or damage. [0] I don't really believe the UK is going to march into the embassy and take Assange; can you imagine the political fiasco that would arise? The letter was probably meant to add pressure to use as a negotiating tactic. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Consular_Relations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Consular_R...
  - peteretep 14y ago
    The UK law they mention is the one about revoking the diplomatic state of land. Explicitly the idea seems to be to stop the land being diplomatic, meaning the Vienna convention not violated
zaidmo 14y ago
This is 2012. Can't they hold a videocon / telecon with Assange if they have questions? Why does he have to be on the ground in Sweden to be asked questions?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

peteretep 14y ago

My understanding is that it's a little more nuanced than that: that the UK believes it has the right to withdraw the diplomatic status of the building used for the Ecuadorian embassy. Ecuadorian diplomats would continue to have diplomatic protection, presumably would be given long notice of the requirement to vacate the embassy, and move goods from it... but Mr Assange would not have any of that protection. I'm not sure which part of the Vienna Convention you think this would violate?

buro9 14y ago
I feel hesitant to even speculate on the possibilities, but what if Ecuador made him a diplomat?
- peteretep 14y ago
  They can't - he'd have to enter the country on a diplomatic passport. And the UK can refuse diplomatic visas to whomever they want.
- Semaphor 14y ago
  Someone further up said the UK could choose to no accept that. No clue why;)
- peteretep 14y ago
  Also relevant, from Wikipedia: "Although most persons with diplomatic immunity carry diplomatic passports, having a diplomatic passport is not the equivalent of having diplomatic immunity. A grant of diplomatic status, a privilege of which is diplomatic immunity, has to come from the government of the country in relation to which diplomatic status is claimed. Also, having a diplomatic passport does not mean visa-free travel. A holder of a diplomatic passport must obtain a non-diplomatic visa when traveling to a country where he is not currently nor is going to be accredited as a diplomat, if visas are required to nationals of his country." More frequently, I hear of UK embassies not offering full diplomatic protection to their non-political staff in foreign countries. If you're sending someone from your Tourism Board to the British embassy in Thailand, you simply don't want the hassle of having to specifically revoke his diplomatic privilege when he shows up in Pattaya with a dead hooker, where you're happy to give them diplomatic car plates so the traffic police don't try and get 500THB from them for speeding... I assume this is an international trend, rather than something the Brits thought up.
eumenides1 14y ago
I think the UK is working on a technicality. They could do this, but should they do this? The UK risks it's ties with Ecuador to get Mr. Assange. Also the UK puts it's entire foreign affairs/ministry (operating in other countries) at real risk as well. Usually in these situation there are always tit-for-tat repercussions. You expel my diplomat, I expel your diplomat. So far it's, Mr Assange applies (key word!) for asylum. Britain threatens Ecuador with a letter, Ecuador gives him asylum. Ecuador pretty much has to give him asylum or risk looking to be diplomatically weak. The next move will be the British's move because Mr. Assange doesn't have to leave the embassy. He could stay there the rest of his life and do pretty well. He got famous for leaking documents on the internet and I'm pretty sure the embassy has the internet. So he can continue leaking documents on the internet. The bonus is now that he is "on the run" he will have credibility and he can pretty much expose whatever he wants except for leaks of Ecuadorian issues.
- peteretep 14y ago
  > I think the UK is working on a technicality Sure, but so are the Ecuadors - Diplomatic Immunity wasn't set up to allow embassies to offer temporary asylum for non-national fugitives :-) > They could do this, but should they do this? The UK risks it's ties with Ecuador to get Mr. Assange And Ecuador risks its ties by not giving him up, not to mention millions of pounds of development aid the UK gives them. These things are historically quietly resolved outside of the limelight. Sending this letter is just putting pressure on the Ecuadors ... they'll eventually give him up, and magically the EU's development budget for Ecuador increases in the next year... > The next move will be the British's move because Mr. Assange doesn't have to leave the embassy. He could stay there the rest of his life and do pretty well. I think you're mistaken there. In six months time, if he's still there, he'll quietly become a bargaining chip, and one day the Ecuadors will announce that "new evidence has come to light", and he'll be handed over, and some Ecuador-originated bill at the UN will have British support a few months later...
  - lmm 14y ago
    >Sure, but so are the Ecuadors - Diplomatic Immunity wasn't set up to allow embassies to offer temporary asylum for non-national fugitives :-) Originally no, but there are centuries of precedent for using it that way.
LiveTheDream 14y ago
Various media I've read makes the same claim that arresting Assange would violate the Vienna convention, including the linked article from GP. Seems like the main topic is this: Article 31. The host nation may not enter the consular premises, and must protect the premises from intrusion or damage. [0] I don't really believe the UK is going to march into the embassy and take Assange; can you imagine the political fiasco that would arise? The letter was probably meant to add pressure to use as a negotiating tactic. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Consular_Relations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Consular_R...
- peteretep 14y ago
  The UK law they mention is the one about revoking the diplomatic state of land. Explicitly the idea seems to be to stop the land being diplomatic, meaning the Vienna convention not violated

zaidmo 14y ago

This is 2012. Can't they hold a videocon / telecon with Assange if they have questions? Why does he have to be on the ground in Sweden to be asked questions?

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]