[Closed] Diplomatic Immunity.........why?

So they can do their jobs...it's a give/take thing I'd guess.

Are there many instances of abuse?

Has just been revoked!
[img] [/img]

Supposedly because a) they're too important to the running of the country to have them locked up/have things held against them as blackmail? Only vague excuse I can think of.

It is possible for the official's home country to waive immunity; this tends to only happen when the individual has committed a serious crime, unconnected with their diplomatic role (as opposed to, say, allegations of spying), or has witnessed such a crime. Alternatively, the home country may prosecute the individual. Many countries refuse to waive immunity as a matter of course; individuals have no authority to waive their own immunity (except perhaps in cases of defection).

Did Denomolos have diplomatic immunity?

No way, dude!

Most heinous

Al - not too sure on number of cases of abuse but I was reading one of the sunday papers a few weeks backs and I'm pretty sure it mentioned Saudi ambassadors and abuse and allegations. OK, so they were only allegations but it just got me wondering 'why?'

I assumed it was something to do with them not being potentially brought up on politically motivated false charges or intimidated by police into working for foreign intelligence etc.

Might be utter bollocks though.

grumm - maybe, but it sounds like you know what you're talking about!!

When I was a coureer in London the only vehicles I gave a very wide berth to were cars with a big D in the middle of the numberplate, more dangerous than 20 Standard vans.

I thought the reason for immunity is that the every embassy, and by extension, their staff, is regarded as being part of the country that owns it. So our foreign office people in Saudi & ****stan are allowed to drink alcohol, f'rinstance.

Remember how in the opening sequence of Gladiator, the Romans are awaiting the return of their negotiator with the Germani

and they send him back headless on a horse

and then a huge German comes out and throws them the head of their negotiator

and then the Romans absolutely slaughter the Germani, at least in part fuelled by the fate of their negotiator

Russell Crowe's call to "unleash hell" was justified by the violation of diplomatic immunity (though obviously it wasn't called that then)

In the Middle Ages, heralds were inviolable. Killing a herald was a legitimate justification for all-out war.

You've heard the expression "don't shoot the messenger"?

That's where it comes from.

Even the most vicious of enemies need to keep open the possiblity of talking to each other

The British and Americans were in constant touch with the Germans in WW2

British governments were always in touch with the IRA

Just realised I haven't actually made my point, which is:

A government must not interfere with the legitimate representatives of its enemies, because the governments of its enemies might thereby be provoked into interfering with that government's own legitimate representatives