vienna convention on diplomatic relations

Principles as regards diplomatic relations virtually go back to appearance of international law. But, when diplomats are not subjected to local jurisdictions, then how they can be held liable for the wrongs they commit? The abuse of diplomatic power can be curtailed by availability of effective judicial remedies. The article here has tried to come up with cases to clear air about these two concepts & analysed the problems related to these. The dilemma arises in this situation is that, in case of conflict between violation of human rights & diplomatic immunity, which one of them will prevail. Now, there is an urgent need to balance the abuse of diplomatic power & protect the rights of humans affected. Due to these immunities, many acts in the name of diplomacy had gone unpunished. This has violated human rights of people. But, in recent times, diplomats have started to abuse these privileges. It had been accepted that these diplomats require such privileges to protect them from local jurisdiction, as they would be easy targets in a foreign nation. Further, the people involved in diplomacy are given immunities & privileges, with fewer liabilities. Moreover, this has been structured by introducing various treaties & conventions.

The states involving in making connections use different diplomatic tools. When this concept is looked at the international level, between states, to promote international cooperation & benefit to each other, stands at a different footing. The idea of diplomacy begins with mutual understanding between people. Key words: Diplomatic Immunity, Abuse, Hierarchy of Norms, Remedies, Effectiveness

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. This makes any changes unlikely since it is in no State’s interests to leave its diplomats insufficiently protected. 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. However, any change to the current immunity assumes that the diplomat no longer requires the current immunity.

The greatest obstacle when dealing with proposed remedies and emerging trends, is usually political consensus. Effectiveness of remedies is greatly impacted by factors such as political relations, trade and reciprocity, which factors supersede the desire to attain justice. Such reasons for abuse make immunity the common principal object but not the only one. 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. This thesis discusses how immunity in itself fails to explain why certain diplomats abuse their immunity whilst others do not. Therefore, abuse of diplomatic immunity has often led governments, legal authors and the general public to question its very existence. 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. 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.

Vienna convention on diplomatic relations