04-28-2005, 10:07 PM
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. ;-)
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. ;-)