[Groot Gouda]

Defining Diplomat Immunity
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Cobdenia

Description: RECALLING Article 2 of the ?Rights and Duties of UN States? and Article 5 of ?Definition of Fair Trial?

REALISING that national law can restrict Diplomatic and Consular personnel (hereafter referred to as Diplomats) from carrying out their assignment

Section I
1. Diplomats are to be immune from arrest, prosecution and detention, and are exempt from taxation (excluding sales tax) within the host nation
2. The residence and property of Diplomats and Diplomatic missions are inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and are exempt from taxation within the host nation
3. Goods and documents in transit to or from a Diplomats and missions within a sealed ?Diplomatic Bag? are inviolable from seizure or search by the government or government agents, and exempt from customs and excise duties
4. Diplomats-on official business and presenting a Diplomatic Passport with a valid Diplomatic Visa-and their property are inviolable from search and seizure at the entry and exit points of the host nation
5. The security of Diplomats and Missions is the primary concern of the host nation

Section II
1. Diplomatic or Consular status and privileges are to be recognised only within the host nation
2. Diplomats are expected to provide their Credentials to the appropriate authority prior to receiving Diplomatic status in the host nation and prior to their being posted to the host nation; proof of acceptance is to be in the form of an Exequatur
3. The decision to bestow Diplomatic Immunity is that of the host nation
4. Diplomatic status may be bestowed upon any individual (including, but not limited to Heads of Government on official visits) at the host nation?s discretion, provided the individual is not a resident of the nation in question.
5. Diplomats are to be issued Diplomatic Passports by the base country containing a diplomatic visa from the host country
6. Diplomatic vehicles are expected to display Diplomatic registration numbers, ensigns, etc.
7. Diplomats are subject to the laws, edicts, and taxation (excluding sales tax) of the base nation
8. Diplomats are not immune to arrest, prosecution and detainment within the base nation
9. Diplomats are within the jurisdiction of the government agents of the base nation
10. The government of the host nation has the ability to declare any Diplomat persona non grata (PNG), which is the defined as the revocation of a Diplomat?s Diplomatic status. A Diplomat declared PNG may face prosecution within the host nation under the laws of the base country prior to deportation, where they may serve a punishment. Only a Diplomat, and not a Mission, nor the property of a Mission or Diplomat, can be declared PNG; thus the property of a Diplomat who has been declared PNG remains inviolable from search and seizure
11. The government of the base country has the right to rescind the immunity of any of its diplomats/missions, and they may be searched or tried by the host country for a crime committed whilst the diplomat had immunity. This must be invoked if as prescribed under international law or under a set of laws negotiated by the two nations in the absence of such laws
12. Governments are free to negotiate other circumstances between them under which article 10 must be used
13. Diplomats may be put under ?house arrest? for a 24-hour period if they pose a direct threat to the local populace (including, but not limited to, drink driving)


Voting Ends: Mon May 2 2005

Groot Gouda's position: Undecided

[Groot Gouda]

I have previously approved this proposal. However, on second thought I see it as a slight problem that this resolution is restricting. Maybe technically the right category, and I know it's only mild, but not in spirit.

So shoot. What shall we do?

[Sober Thought]

Groot Gouda --

I say vote yes. I have already done so personally, and I publicly say so for the delegate vote. (Although I am open to arguments otherwise.)

Although it does have some problems, it is ultimately good. I think it is a little better than the RL conventions in that it allows the trial of real crimes to occur in the host nation, then the punishment is left up to the base country.

Diplomats driving drunk and causing serious injuries and death has been a problem in my RL national capital. Having justice seen to be done in the host country is important, and then leaving the punishment to the base country puts the obligation on the offender's country to do the right thing. If they don't, public opinion in the host country will turn against the base country. Remember Yvonne Fletcher in the UK? The 21st anniversary of her murder by Libyan embassy officials was just yesterday.

[Yuunli]

I'm in favor, too.

The resolution encourages diplomatic relations, because it protects diplomats from arbitrary acts of some nations' police forces (not just because they enjoy immunity, also because they don't pay taxes).

Though I'm not so sure about Section II, Paragraph 3:
"The decision to bestow Diplomatic Immunity is that of the host nation"
Does that mean the host nation can decide whether or not to give diplomats immunity? In other words: Can a host nation deny diplomats their special status, although that nation ratified the resolution? Sorry, I should have asked this question earlier, but I hadn't read the whole text before.

All things considered, I do support the resolution, as I think proper diplomatic relations can improve international relations. And they are interesting from a role-playing perspective, too. ;-)

[Sober Thought]

Yuunli --

I took Section II, Paragraph 3, to mean that a base country may offer a diplomat but the host country decides if that person is acceptable as one and warrants diplomatic immunity. The preceding paragraph is:

Quote: 2. Diplomats are expected to provide their Credentials to the appropriate authority prior to receiving Diplomatic status in the host nation and prior to their being posted to the host nation; proof of acceptance is to be in the form of an Exequatur[/quote]

So the host country can decide whether to accept or reject the credentials offered. Otherwise, a person who has committed a criminal act and been declared persona non grata may simply return in a different capacity and the host country would be forced to be allowed in. Or a known war criminal could be presented as an ambassador to evade extradition.

[Federalist]

I vote yes, though there may appeare to be a few technicalities in it. It is overall a very good piece of legislation.

[Grosseschnauzer]

I looked at the Jolt thread on this, and got little out of it that was useful. So I'm looking to see what is mentioned here and in a couple of other forums -- so far, not much at those places, either.

[Mikitivity]

There have been a number of resolutions my government has abstained on, like the Discrimination Accord. This particular resolution the Confederated City States of Mikitivity have voted yes for, but for those nations sitting on the fence, it might be helpful to point to your general or specific feelings, as my government fears that this resolution will come to a close vote.

[Grosseschnauzer]

I've decided to vote against the proposal because of some concerns about the wording of the resolution in the form it reached the floor for a votw.

Some of the word selection creates contradictions and inconsistencies that would create problems. For example, the definition and application of "persona non grata" as well as the provision about house arrest being limited to 24 hours in the event of a threat to public health and safety.

My concern is not with the concepts contained in the proposal, but the poor wording choices that were made in the process.

So I have cast my UN vote against the proposal, and vote against the proposal as far as a recommendation to our UN delegate.

[People from Nederland]

I voted No, and because nations should treat diplomats the way they like. There are to much rules and nations should make there on rules regarding diplomats.

In nederland it's also almost certain that there will be a Against vote. And the most used argument is that nation should make there own decisions regarding diplomats.

People from nederland

[Groot Gouda]

The People's Republic has decided, based on the input here and by TG, to vote FOR.