United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the

High Seas, entry into force: 20 March 1966

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Although UNCLOS I was considered a success, it left open the
important issue of breadth of territorial waters.
Signed 10 December 1982 UNCLOS II[edit]
In 1960, the United Nations held the second Conference on the Law
Location Montego Bay, Jamaica of the Sea ("UNCLOS II"); however, the six-week Geneva conference
Effective 16 November 1994
[1] did not result in any new agreements. Generally speaking,
developing nations and third world countries participated only as
Condition 60 ratifications clients, allies, or dependents of United States or the Soviet Union,
[citation needed]
[2] with no significant voice of their own.
Signatories 157
UNCLOS III[edit]
[2][3]
Parties 166

Depositary Secretary-general of the United Nations

Languages Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),

also called the Law of the Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea
treaty, is the international agreement that resulted from the third
United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III),
which took place between 1973 and 1982. The Law of the Sea
Convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their
use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the
environment, and the management of marine natural resources. The
Convention, concluded in 1982, replaced four 1958 treaties. UNCLOS
came into force in 1994, a year after Guyana became the 60th
[1]
nation to sign the treaty. As of August 2013, 165 countries and the
European Union have joined in the Convention. However, it is
uncertain as to what extent the Convention codifies customary
international law.
While the Secretary General of the United Nations receives
instruments of ratification and accession and the UN provides
support for meetings of states party to the Convention, the UN has
no direct operational role in the implementation of the Convention.
There is, however, a role played by organizations such as the
International Maritime Organization, the International Whaling
Commission, and the International Seabed Authority (the latter
being established by the UN Convention).

Historical backgroundedit

The UNCLOS replaces the older and weaker 'freedom of the seas'
concept, dating from the 17th century: national rights were limited Sea areas in international rights
to a specified belt of water extending from a nation's coastlines, The issue of varying claims of territorial waters was raised in the UN
usually three nautical miles, according to the 'cannon shot' rule in 1967 by Arvid Pardo, of Malta, and in 1973 the Third United
developed by the Dutch jurist Cornelius van Bynkershoek. All waters Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was convened in New
beyond national boundaries were considered international waters: York. In an attempt to reduce the possibility of groups of nation-
free to all nations, but belonging to none of them (the mare liberum states dominating the negotiations, the conference used a
principle promulgated by Grotius). consensus process rather than majority vote. With more than 160
In the early 20th century, some nations expressed their desire to nations participating, the conference lasted until 1982. The resulting
extend national claims: to include mineral resources, to protect fish convention came into force on 16 November 1994, one year after
stocks, and to provide the means to enforce pollution controls. (The the sixtieth state, Guyana, ratified the treaty.
League of Nations called a 1930 conference at The Hague, but no The convention introduced a number of provisions. The most
agreements resulted.) Using the customary international law significant issues covered were setting limits, navigation,
principle of a nation's right to protect its natural resources, archipelagic status and transit regimes, exclusive economic zones
President Truman in 1945 extended United States control to all the (EEZs), continental shelf jurisdiction, deep seabed mining, the
natural resources of its continental shelf. Other nations were quick exploitation regime, protection of the marine environment, scientific
to follow suit. Between 1946 and 1950, Chile, Peru, and Ecuador research, and settlement of disputes.
extended their rights to a distance of 200 nautical miles (370 km) to The convention set the limit of various areas, measured from a
cover their Humboldt Current fishing grounds. Other nations carefully defined baseline. (Normally, a sea baseline follows the low-
extended their territorial seas to 12 nautical miles (22 km). water line, but when the coastline is deeply indented, has fringing
By 1967, only 25 nations still used the old three-mile (5 km) limit, islands or is highly unstable, straight baselines may be used.) The
while 66 nations had set a 12-nautical-mile (22 km) territorial limit areas are as follows:
and eight had set a 200-nautical-mile (370 km) limit. As of 28 May
2008, only two countries still use the three-mile (5 km) limit: Jordan Internal waters
[4]
and Palau. That limit is also used in certain Australian islands, an Covers all water and waterways on the landward side of the
area of Belize, some Japanese straits, certain areas of Papua New baseline. The coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use
Guinea, and a few British Overseas Territories, such as Anguilla. any resource. Foreign vessels have no right of passage within
UNCLOS I[edit] internal waters.
In 1956, the United Nations held its first Conference on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS I) at Geneva, Switzerland. UNCLOS I resulted in Territorial waters
four treaties concluded in 1958: Out to 12 nautical miles (22 kilometres; 14 miles) from the baseline,
Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, entry into the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any
force: 10 September 1964 resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through
Convention on the Continental Shelf, entry into force: 10 June 1964 any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of
Convention on the High Seas, entry into force: 30 September 1962 military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to
maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters.
"Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through unfavorable to American economic and security interests. Due to
waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not Part XI, the United States refused to ratify the UNCLOS, although it
"prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the coastal expressed agreement with the remaining provisions of the
state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not Convention.
"innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are From 1983 to 1990, the United States accepted all but Part XI as
required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations customary international law, while attempting to establish an
can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of alternative regime for exploitation of the minerals of the deep
their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its seabed. An agreement was made with other seabed mining nations
security. and licenses were granted to four international consortia.
Concurrently, the Preparatory Commission was established to
Archipelagic waters prepare for the eventual coming into force of the Convention-
The convention set the definition of Archipelagic States in Part IV, recognized claims by applicants, sponsored by signatories of the
which also defines how the state can draw its territorial borders. A Convention. Overlaps between the two groups were resolved, but a
baseline is drawn between the outermost points of the outermost decline in the demand for minerals from the seabed made the
islands, subject to these points being sufficiently close to one seabed regime significantly less relevant. In addition, the decline of
another. All waters inside this baseline are designated Archipelagic Socialism and the fall of Communism in the late 1980s had removed
Waters. The state has full sovereignty over these waters (like much of the support for some of the more contentious Part XI
internal waters), but foreign vessels have right of innocent passage provisions.
through archipelagic waters (like territorial waters). In 1990, consultations were begun between signatories and non-
signatories (including the United States) over the possibility of
Contiguous zone modifying the Convention to allow the industrialized countries to
Beyond the 12-nautical-mile (22 km) limit, there is a further 12 join the Convention. The resulting 1994 Agreement on
nautical miles (22 km) from the territorial sea baseline limit, the Implementation was adopted as a binding international Convention.
contiguous zone, in which a state can continue to enforce laws in It mandated that key articles, including those on limitation of seabed
four specific areas: customs, taxation, immigration and pollution, if production and mandatory technology transfer, would not be
the infringement started within the state's territory or territorial applied, that the United States, if it became a member, would be
waters, or if this infringement is about to occur within the state's guaranteed a seat on the Council of the International Seabed
[5]
territory or territorial waters. This makes the contiguous zone a Authority, and finally, that voting would be done in groups, with
hot pursuit area. each group able to block decisions on substantive matters. The 1994
Agreement also established a Finance Committee that would
Exclusive economic zones (EEZs) originate the financial decisions of the Authority, to which the
These extend from the edge of the territorial sea out to 200 nautical largest donors would automatically be members and in which
miles (370 kilometres; 230 miles) from the baseline. Within this decisions would be made by consensus.
area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural On 1 February 2011, the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the
resources. In casual use, the term may include the territorial sea and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued an
even the continental shelf. The EEZs were introduced to halt the advisory opinion concerning the legal responsibilities and obligations
increasingly heated clashes over fishing rights, although oil was also of States Parties to the Convention with respect to the sponsorship
becoming important. The success of an offshore oil platform in the of activities in the Area in accordance with Part XI of the Convention
[8]
Gulf of Mexico in 1947 was soon repeated elsewhere in the world, and the 1994 Agreement. The advisory opinion was issued in
and by 1970 it was technically feasible to operate in waters 4000 response to a formal request made by the International Seabed
metres deep. Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and Authority following two prior applications the Authority's Legal and
overflight, subject to the regulation of the coastal states. Foreign Technical Commission had received from the Republics of Nauru and
states may also lay submarine pipes and cables. Tonga regarding proposed activities (a plan of work to explore for
polymetallic nodules) to be undertaken in the Area by two State-
Continental shelf sponsored contractors (Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. (sponsored by
The continental shelf is defined as the natural prolongation of the the Republic of Nauru) and Tonga Offshore Mining Ltd. (sponsored
land territory to the continental margin’s outer edge, or 200 nautical by the Kingdom of Tonga). The advisory opinion set forth the
miles (370 km) from the coastal state's baseline, whichever is international legal responsibilities and obligations of Sponsoring
greater. A state's continental shelf may exceed 200 nautical miles States AND the Authority to ensure that sponsored activities do not
(370 km) until the natural prolongation ends. However, it may never harm the marine environment, consistent with the applicable
exceed 350 nautical miles (650 kilometres; 400 miles) from the provisions of UNCLOS Part XI, Authority regulations, ITLOS case law,
baseline; or it may never exceed 100 nautical miles (190 kilometres; other international environmental treaties, and Principle 15 of the
[9]
120 miles) beyond the 2,500 meter isobath (the line connecting the UN Rio Declaration.
depth of 2,500 meters). Coastal states have the right to harvest Signature and ratification[edit]
mineral and non-living material in the subsoil of its continental shelf,
to the exclusion of others. Coastal states also have exclusive control The convention was opened for signature on 10 December 1982 and
over living resources "attached" to the continental shelf, but not to entered into force on 16 November 1994 upon deposition of the
[1]
creatures living in the water column beyond the exclusive economic 60th instrument of ratification. The convention has been ratified
zone. by 166 parties, which includes 165 states (163 member states of the
Aside from its provisions defining ocean boundaries, the convention United Nations plus the Cook Islands and Niue) and the European
[2][10]
establishes general obligations for safeguarding the marine Union.
environment and protecting freedom of scientific research on the UN member states that have signed, but not ratified
high seas, and also creates an innovative legal regime for controlling Cambodia, Colombia, El Salvador, Iran, North Korea, Libya, United
mineral resource exploitation in deep seabed areas beyond national Arab Emirates
jurisdiction, through an International Seabed Authority and the landlocked: Afghanistan, Bhutan, Burundi, Central African Republic,
[6]
Common heritage of mankind principle. Ethiopia, Liechtenstein, Rwanda
UN member states that have not signed
Landlocked states are given a right of access to and from the sea, Eritrea, Israel, Peru, Syria, Turkey, United States, Venezuela
[7]
without taxation of traffic through transit states. landlocked: Andorra, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, San
Part XI and the 1994 Agreement[edit] Marino, South Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan
Part XI of the Convention provides for a regime relating to minerals The UN Observer states of the Vatican City and the State of Palestine
on the seabed outside any state's territorial waters or EEZ (Exclusive have not signed the convention.
Economic Zones). It establishes an International Seabed Authority Territories that are part of ratified countries, but where the
(ISA) to authorize seabed exploration and mining and collect and convention is not in force
[11
distribute the seabed mining royalty. Aruba (Kingdom of the Netherlands)
The United States objected to the provisions of Part XI of the
Convention on several grounds, arguing that the treaty was
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
-
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia UNCLOS adopted 10 December 1982
Jump to: navigation, search

-
) UNCLOS in force 16 November 1994

Website
http://www.itlos.org

Seat Hamburg, Germany

ITLOS seen from the River Elbe.
Working  English
The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) is an
languages  French intergovernmental organization created by the mandate of the Third
United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. It was established
Judges from 21 nations by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, signed at
Montego Bay, Jamaica, on December 10, 1982. The Convention
entered into force on November 16, 1994, and established an
Leaders
international framework for law over "all ocean space, its uses and
resources". The tribunal is based in Hamburg, Germany. The
- Convention also established the International Seabed Authority, with
President Shunji Yanai responsibility for the regulation of seabed mining beyond the limits
of national jurisdiction, that is beyond the limits of the territorial sea,
the contiguous zone and the continental shelf.
-
Vice President Albert J. Hoffmann
The Tribunal has the power to settle disputes between party states
(there are currently 161: 160 states plus the European Union).
Establishment
Air Defense Identification Zone with Taiwan's ADIZ; the government of Taiwan expressed its
"regret" over Japan's move.[8] Regarding the coast of mainland China,
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Japan's ADIZ has a distance of 130 km at its closest point.[9]
Jump to: navigation, search
China and Russia do not recognize Japan's ADIZ.[10]

South Korea[edit]

Air Defense Identification Zone of Japan (blue) and China (pink)

An Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) is airspace over land or

water in which the identification, location, and control of civil aircraft
is required in the interest of national security.[1] They extend beyond
a country's airspace to give the country more time to respond to
foreign and possibly hostile aircraft.[2] The authority to establish an Expansion of Korea Air Defense Identification Zone (KADIZ)
ADIZ is not given by any international treaty nor prohibited by
international law and is not regulated by any international body.[2][3] South Korea operates a zone that covers most but not all of its
claimed airspace.[11] It does not cover some remote spots.[11] The zone
The first ADIZ was established by the United States soon after World was established in 1951, during the Korean War, by the United States
War II. Following the incident of September 11, 2001 ( September 11 Air Force to block communist forces.[11] In 2013, in response to the
attacks ) when civilian commercial aircraft was abused for mass establishment of a Chinese zone that covers disputed territory, the
destruction, ADIZ became prominent as a method to prepare or South Korean government considered expanding their zone to include
control a foreign aircraft from entering their territory. About 20 islands of Marado and Hongdo, and Ieodo, a submerged rock within
countries and regions now have such zones including Canada, the overlapping exclusive economic zones of South Korea and
India,[4] Japan, Pakistan, Norway and the United Kingdom, People's China.[11] On December 8, 2013, Defense Ministry of Republic of
Republic of China, South Korea, Taiwan, United States, Sweden, Korea announced the expansion of the Korea Air Defense
Iceland and more. Russia and North Korea have unofficial ADIZ for Identification Zone (KADIZ).
themselves as well. [1][2][5] Usually such zones only cover undisputed
territory, do not apply to foreign aircraft not intending to enter When part of or the whole flight route of an aircraft enter the KADIZ
territorial airspace, and do not overlap.[3][6] area, it is required to send a specific flight plan 1 hour prior
departure. Civilian aircraft with regular line should submit a
Air defense zones should not be confused with Flight Information repetitive flight plan to the air traffic control. Since there are no flight
Regions (FIRs), which are used to manage air traffic.[1] FIR is routes going across KADIZ that does not pass the territorial waters of
different by the fact that they are areas established for the facilitation the Republic of Korea, all flights are obligated to send a flight plan
of air traffic and airspace management. [7] no matter what. There are no need for legal actions when an aircraft
enter KADIZ as long as all aircraft follow to their flight plans
reported to the Korean government. If there is a change in the flight
United States and Canada[edit]
passage or an approach without prior notification, the Korean air
force have the right to immediately identify or track down the aircraft
Main articles: Air Defense Identification Zone (North America) and and be prepared for interception. However, military force such as
Air Defense Identification Zone (Washington DC) shooting down the plane cannot be exercised.

The United States maintains four zones: The Contiguous US ADIZ; After both South Korea expanded KADIZ and China established their
Alaska ADIZ; Guam ADIZ; and Hawaii ADIZ.[1] Under U.S. law and ADIZ in 2013, certain areas overlap with each other. The KADIZ
policy, the zone applies only to commercial aircraft intending to enter boundary area at northwest Jeju Island (about 2,300 km²) overlaps
U.S. airspace.[1] An air defense command and control structure was with the East Chinese Sea. Also, South Korea's domestic aircraft
developed in 1950, creating five Air Defense Identification Zones cannot avoid entering China's ADIZ near Ieodo even if the flight's
around North America. If radio interrogation failed to identify an purpose is for rescue or searching distressed/missing aircraft. More
aircraft in the ADIZ, the Air Force launched interceptor aircraft to tension is increasing as the area of South Korea, China and Japan's
identify the intruder visually. The air defense system reached its peak FIR reiterate with each other.[12] These sensitive issues are expected
in 1962, however with the deployment of the SS-6 ICBM in the to bring military or diplomatic conflict between the three countries.
USSR, strategic threats shifted overwhelmingly to ICBM attacks, and
bomber intrusions were considered to be less of a threat. It does apply
China[edit]
to aircraft passing through the zone to other countries. These zones
were established after broad consultations with other countries and
with aviation authorities worldwide. Main article: Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea)

Canada also operates a section of the North American ADIZ. On November 23, 2013 the People's Republic of China (PRC)
established a zone in the East China Sea.
Japan[edit]
The announcement of the zone drew attention and international
criticism, including from most of China's East Asian neighbors such
Japan has an ADIZ that overlaps most of its Exclusive Economic
as Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and Taiwan, and from the E.U.
Zone. Its western border was set up after World War II by the US
and the U.S. These responses focused on two related aspects: while
military at 123° degrees east. This resulted in only the eastern half of
hitherto zones had only covered territory that was undisputed at the
Yonaguni Island being part of Japan's ADIZ and the western half
time of their establishment, China's ADIZ in the East China Sea
being part of Taiwan's ADIZ. On June 25, 2010 Japan extended its
covers the Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Islands in
ADIZ around this island 22 km westwards. This led to an overlapping
the PRC)[2] and also includes Socotra Rock, which is claimed by Defense, while acknowledging there is nothing new or unique in
Korea. Secondly, China's zone overlaps with other countries' ADIZ establishing an ADIZ, criticized the manner in which China had acted
and imposes requirements on both civilian and military aircraft as "unilateral", "immediate" and "without consultation".[15] American
regardless of destination.[3][6] Vice-President Joe Biden made no public mention of the Chinese
ADIZ following his meeting with Chinese President Xi,[16] although
The establishment of the Chinese zone is nonetheless not unique in elsewhere expressed concern that the Chinese move had escalated
some respects. For example, in 2010 Japan extended its ADIZ by tensions in the region.
some two dozen kilometers around its island nearest Taiwan such that
it overlapped that of Taiwan.[13] It has also been claimed that the As of Dec. 4, 2013 some 55 airlines in 19 countries and 3 regions
PRC/Japan dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands predates Japan's have complied with China's ADIZ rules.[17] South Korea's Ministry of
1969 establishment of its ADIZ over the islands, although there is no Transport said South Korean airlines would not recognize the
record of the People's Republic of China announcing a claim to the Chinese ADIZ.[11] Japan said its airlines would also not recognize the
islands in 1969 or before.[14] zone.

The Chinese government has noted that any established international In 2014, China's Foreign Ministry dismissed reports that they were
limits for defining and enforcing an ADIZ are not clearly considering a similar ADIZ over the South China Sea region, as the
defined.[citation needed] Chuck Hagel, the American Secretary of countries of ASEAN were no threat.[18

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

 Two years later, the United Nations adopted a closely related treaty,
the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Signed 18 April 1961
Summary of provisions[edit]

Location Vienna The treaty is an extensive document, containing 53 articles.

Following is a basic overview of its key provisions.[2]

Effective 24 April 1964  Article 9. The host nation at any time and for any reason
declare a particular member of the diplomatic staff to be
persona non grata. The sending state must recall this
Condition Ratification by 22 states person within a reasonable period of time, or otherwise this
person may lose their diplomatic immunity.
 Article 22. The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as
[1]
an embassy, are inviolate and must not be entered by the
Signatories 60 host country except by permission of the head of the
mission. Furthermore, the host country must protect the
mission from intrusion or damage. The host country must
Parties 190[1] (as of April 2014) never search the premises, nor seize its documents or
property. Article 30 extends this provision to the private
residence of the diplomats.
 Article 27. The host country must permit and protect free
Depositary UN Secretary-General communication between the diplomats of the mission and
their home country. A diplomatic bag must never be
opened even on suspicion of abuse. A diplomatic courier
Languages Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish must never be arrested or detained.
 Article 29. Diplomats must not be liable to any form of
arrest or detention. They are immune from civil or criminal
prosecution, though the sending country may waive this
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 is an right under Article 32. Under Article 34, they are exempt
international treaty that defines a framework for diplomatic relations from most taxes, and under Article 36 they are exempt
between independent countries. It specifies the privileges of a from most customs duties.
diplomatic mission that enable diplomats to perform their function
 Article 31.1c Actions not covered by diplomatic immunity:
without fear of coercion or harassment by the host country. This
professional activity outside diplomat's official functions.
forms the legal basis for diplomatic immunity. Its articles are
considered a cornerstone of modern international relations. As of  Article 37. The family members of a diplomat that are
April 2014, it has been ratified by 190 states.[1] living in the host country enjoy most of the same
protections as the diplomats themselves.
Contents
Optional protocols[edit]
[show]
In the same year that the treaty was adopted, two amendment
protocols were added. Countries may ratify the main treaty without
History[edit] necessarily ratifying these optional agreements.

Throughout the history of sovereign nations, diplomats have enjoyed

 Concerning acquisition of nationality. The head of the
a special status. Their function to negotiate agreements between
mission, the staff of the mission, and their families, shall
states demands certain special privileges. An envoy from another
not acquire the nationality of the receiving country.
nation is traditionally treated as a guest, their communications with
their home nation treated as confidential, and their freedom from  Concerning compulsory settlement of disputes. Disputes
coercion and subjugation by the host nation treated as essential. arising from the interpretation of this treaty may be brought
before the International Court of Justice.

The first attempt to codify diplomatic immunity into diplomatic law

occurred with the Congress of Vienna in 1815. This was followed State parties to the convention[edit]
much later by the Convention regarding Diplomatic Officers
(Havana, 1928). States ratified the convention

The present treaty on the treatment of diplomats was the outcome of a As of April 2014, there are 190 state parties to the convention[1]
draft by the International Law Commission. The treaty was adopted including all UN member states except Antigua and Barbuda,
on 18 April 1961, by the United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Republic of Palau, Solomon Islands, South Sudan and Republic of
Intercourse and Immunities held in Vienna, Austria, and first Vanuatu, as well as UN observer states Holy See and State of
implemented on 24 April 1964. The same Conference also adopted Palestine. The Republic of China signed and ratified the Vienna
the Optional Protocol concerning Acquisition of Nationality, the Convention on Diplomatic Relations on April 18, 1961 and
Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of December 19, 1969 respectively prior to the UN granting China's seat
Disputes, the Final Act and four resolutions annexed to that Act. to the People's Republic of China. There are no states that have
signed the treaty but have not ratified it.
Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures retaliation for the execution of their ambassadors, and invaded and
that diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not destroyed the Khwarezmid Empire after their ambassadors had been
susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws, mistreated.
although they can still be expelled. It was agreed as international law
in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), though the In 1538, King Francis I of France threatened Edmund Bonner—
concept and custom have a much longer history. Many principles of Henry VIII's Ambassador to the French court and later Bishop—with
diplomatic immunity are now considered to be customary law. a hundred strokes of the halberd as punishment for Bonner's "insolent
Diplomatic immunity as an institution developed to allow for the behaviour". Though the punishment was not actually carried out, the
maintenance of government relations, including during periods of incident clearly indicates that European monarchs at the time did not
difficulties and even armed conflict. When receiving diplomats—who consider foreign ambassadors to be completely immune from
formally represent the sovereign—the receiving head of state grants punishment.
certain privileges and immunities to ensure they may effectively
carry out their duties, on the understanding that these are provided on
The beginnings of modern immunity[edit]
a reciprocal basis.

Originally, these privileges and immunities were granted on a The British Parliament first guaranteed diplomatic immunity to
bilateral, ad hoc basis, which led to misunderstandings and conflict, foreign ambassadors in 1709, after Count Andrey Matveyev, a
pressure on weaker states, and an inability for other states to judge Russian resident in London, had been subjected to verbal and
which party was at fault. An international agreement known as the physical abuse by British bailiffs.
Vienna Conventions codified the rules and agreements, providing
standards and privileges to all states. Modern diplomatic immunity evolved parallel to the development of
modern diplomacy. In the 17th century, European diplomats realized
It is possible for the official's home country to waive immunity; this that protection from prosecution was essential to doing their jobs and
tends to happen only when the individual has committed a serious a set of rules evolved guaranteeing the rights of diplomats. These
crime, unconnected with their diplomatic role (as opposed to, say, were still confined to Western Europe and were closely tied to the
allegations of spying), or has witnessed such a crime. However, many prerogatives of nobility. Thus, an emissary to the Ottoman Empire
countries refuse to waive immunity as a matter of course; individuals could expect to be arrested and imprisoned upon the outbreak of
have no authority to waive their own immunity (except perhaps in hostilities between their State and the empire. The French Revolution
cases of defection). Alternatively, the home country may prosecute also disrupted this system, as the revolutionary State and Napoleon
the individual. If immunity is waived by a government so that a imprisoned a number of diplomats accused of working against
diplomat (or their family members) can be prosecuted, it must be France. More recently, the Iran hostage crisis is universally
because there is a case to answer and it is in the public interest to considered a violation of diplomatic immunity. Although the hostage-
prosecute them. For instance, in 2002, a Colombian diplomat in takers did not officially represent the state, host countries have an
London was prosecuted for manslaughter, once diplomatic immunity obligation to protect diplomatic property and personnel. On the other
was waived by the Colombian government.[1][2] hand, in World War II, diplomatic immunity was upheld and the
embassies of the belligerents evacuated through neutral countries.

Ancient times[edit]
For the upper class of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, diplomatic
immunity was an easy concept to understand. The first embassies
were not permanent establishments but actual visits by high-ranking
Krishna, an avatar of Vishnu, mediating for peace to avert the representatives, often close relatives, of the sovereign or even the
Kurukshetra War of Mahabharata sovereign in person. As permanent representations evolved, usually
on a treaty basis between two powers, they were frequently staffed by
relatives of the sovereign or high-ranking nobles.
The concept of diplomatic immunity can be found in ancient Indian
epics like Ramayana (between 3000 and 2000 BC) and Mahabharata
(around 4th century BC) where messengers and diplomats were given Warfare was not between individuals but between their sovereigns,
immunity from capital punishment. In Ramayana, when the demon and the officers and officials of European governments and armies
king Ravana ordered the killing of Hanuman, Ravana's younger often changed employers. Truces and ceasefires were commonplace,
brother Vibhishana pointed out that messengers or diplomats should along with fraternization between officers of enemy armies during
not be killed or arrested, as per ancient practices. them. When prisoners, the officers usually gave their parole and were
only restricted to a city away from the theatre of war. Almost always,
they were given leave to carry their personal sidearms. Even during
During the evolution of international justice, many wars were
French revolutionary wars, British scientists visited the French
considered rebellions or unlawful by one or more combatant sides. In
Academy. In such an atmosphere, it was easy to accept that some
such cases, the servants of the "criminal" sovereign were often
persons were immune to the laws. After all, they were still bound by
considered accomplices and their persons violated. In other
strict requirements of honour and customs.
circumstances, harbingers of inconsiderable demands were killed as a
declaration of war. Herodotus records that when heralds of the
Persian king Darius the Great demanded "earth and water" (i.e., In the 19th century, the Congress of Vienna reasserted the rights of
symbols of submission) of Greek cities, the Athenians threw them diplomats; and they have been largely respected since then, as the
into a pit and the Spartans threw them down a well for the purpose of European model has spread throughout the world. Currently,
suggesting they would find both earth and water at the bottom, these diplomatic relations, including diplomatic immunity, are governed
often being mentioned by the messenger as a threat of siege. internationally by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,
which has been ratified by almost every country in the world.
A Roman envoy was urinated on as he was leaving the city of
Tarentum. The oath of the envoy: "This stain will be washed away In modern times, diplomatic immunity continues to provide a means,
with blood!" was fulfilled during the Second Punic War. The arrest albeit imperfect, to safeguard diplomatic personnel from any
and ill-treatment of the envoy of Raja Raja Chola by the king of animosity that might arise between nations. As one article put it: "So
Kulasekhara dynasty (Second Cheras), which is now part of modern why do we agree to a system in which we're dependent on a foreign
India, led to a naval war called Kandalur War in AD 994. country's whim before we can prosecute a criminal inside our own
borders? The practical answer is: because we depend on other
countries to honor our own diplomats' immunity just as scrupulously
Pope Gelasius I was the first pope recorded as enjoying diplomatic
as we honor theirs."[3]
immunity, as it is noted in his letter Duo sunt to emperor Anastasius.

The Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978 (22 U.S.C. § 254a et seq.)

As diplomats by definition enter the country under safe-conduct,
follows the principles introduced by the Vienna Conventions. The
violating them is normally viewed as a great breach of honour,
United States has had a tendency to be generous when granting
although there have been a number of cases where diplomats have
diplomatic immunity to visiting diplomats, because a large number of
been killed. Genghis Khan and the Mongols were well known for
U.S. diplomats work in host countries less protective of individual
strongly insisting on the rights of diplomats, and they would often
rights. If the United States were to punish a visiting diplomat without
take terrifying vengeance against any state that violated these rights.
sufficient grounds, U.S. representatives in other countries could
The Mongols would often raze entire cities to the ground in
receive harsher treatment.
In the United States, if a person with immunity is alleged to have policewoman Yvonne Fletcher was killed on the street by a person
committed a crime or faces a civil lawsuit, the State Department asks shooting from inside the Libyan embassy. The incident caused a
the home country to waive immunity of the alleged offender so that breakdown in diplomatic relations until Libya admitted "general
the complaint can be moved to the courts. If immunity is not waived, responsibility" in 1999.[6]
prosecution cannot be undertaken. However, the State Department
still has the discretion to ask the diplomat to withdraw from her or his Employer abuse[edit]
duties. Often, the diplomat's visas are canceled; and the diplomat and
her or his family may be barred from returning to the United States.
Crimes committed by members of a diplomat's family can also result Diplomatic immunity from local employment and labor law when
in dismissal.[4] employing staff from the host country has precipitated abuse. The
local staff are employed where local knowledge is needed (such as an
administrative assistant, press/PR officer), or as menial staff like a
Exceptions to the Vienna Convention[edit]
cleaner, maid or mechanic. When the employer is a diplomat, the
employees are in a legal limbo where the laws of neither the host
Some countries have made reservations to the Vienna Convention on country nor the diplomat's country are enforceable, so that an abusive
Diplomatic Relations, but they are minor. A number of countries diplomat employer can act with virtual impunity. Diplomats have
limit the diplomatic immunity of persons who are citizens of the ignored local laws concerning minimum wages, maximum working
receiving country. As nations keep faith to their treaties with hours, vacation and holidays. The worst abusers have imprisoned the
differing zeal, other rules may also apply, though in most cases this employees in their homes, deprived them of their earned wages,
summary is a reasonably accurate approximation.[5] The Convention passports, and communication with the outside world, abused them
does not cover the personnel of international organizations, whose physically and emotionally, deprived them of food and invaded their
privileges are decided upon on a case-by-case basis, usually in the privacy.[7][8] In the case of corrupt countries and abusive diplomats, it
treaties founding such organizations. The United Nations system has been virtually impossible to enforce payment of wages or any
(including its agencies, which comprise the most recognizable standards whatsoever. South Africa, for example, was criticised for
international bodies such as the World Bank and many others) has a claiming immunity from labor laws relating to a Ukrainian domestic
relatively standardized form of limited immunities for staff traveling worker at the residence of the South African ambassador to Ireland in
on U.N. laissez-passer; diplomatic immunity is often granted to the Ireland.[9] In Finland, a Philippine maid escaped from an embassy of
highest-ranking officials of these agencies. Consular officials (that do an unidentified Asian country, reported being held in conditions
not have concurrent diplomatic accreditation) formally have a more approaching slavery: she was forced to work from 7 am. to 10 pm., 7
limited form of immunity, generally limited to their official duties. days a week, and the ambassador's children were permitted to hit her.
Diplomatic technical and administrative staff also have more limited On grounds of diplomatic immunity, no charges could be filed.[10]
immunity under the Vienna Convention; for this reason, some
countries may accredit technical and administrative staff as attaché.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief in Swarna
v. Al-Awadi to argue that human trafficking is a commercial activity
Other categories of government officials that may travel frequently to engaged in for personal profit, which falls outside the scope of a
other countries may not have diplomatic passports or diplomatic diplomat’s official functions, and therefore diplomatic immunity does
immunity, such as members of the military, high-ranking government not apply.[11]
officials, ministers, and others. Many countries provide non-
diplomatic official passports to such personnel, and there may be
different classes of such travel documents such as official passports, Vehicular[edit]
service passports, and others. De facto recognition of some form of
immunity may be conveyed by states accepting officials traveling on A particular problem is the difficulty in enforcing ordinary traffic
such documents, or there may exist bilateral agreements to govern regulations such as prohibitions on double parking. For example, the
such cases (as in, for example, the case of military personnel Autobahn 555 in Cologne, Germany was nicknamed the
conducting or observing exercises on the territory of the receiving "Diplomatenrennbahn" (Diplomatic Raceway), back when Bonn was
country). the capital of West Germany, because of the numerous diplomats that
used to speed through the highway under diplomatic immunity.
Formally, diplomatic immunity may be limited to officials accredited Certain cities, e.g., The Hague, have taken to impounding such cars
to a host country, or traveling to or from their host country. In rather than fining their owners. Diplomats' status does not guarantee
practice, many countries may effectively recognize diplomatic the release of impounded cars.
immunity for those traveling on diplomatic passports, with
admittance to the country constituting acceptance of the diplomatic This also includes parking violations. In New York City, the home of
status. the United Nations Headquarters (and hence thousands of diplomats),
the city regularly protests to the Department of State about non-
Abuse[edit] payment of parking tickets because of diplomatic status. Diplomatic
missions have their own regulations but many require their staff to
pay any fines due for parking violations. A 2006 study by two
In reality, most diplomats are representatives of nations with a economists found that there was a significant correlation between
tradition of professional civil service, and are expected to obey home-country corruption (as measured by Transparency
regulations governing their behaviour and they suffer strict internal International) and unpaid parking fines; nonetheless, approximately
consequences (disciplinary action) if they flout local laws. In many 30 countries (or 20%) had fewer than one unpaid fine per diplomat
nations a professional diplomat's career may be compromised if they over a five-year period, and 20 had none at all. Six countries had in
(or even members of their family) disobey the local authorities or excess of 100 violations per diplomat: Kuwait, Egypt, Chad, Sudan,
cause serious embarrassment, and such cases are, at any rate, a Bulgaria and Mozambique.[12]
violation of the spirit of the Vienna Conventions.
In cities that impose a congestion charge, the decision of some
The Vienna Convention is explicit that "without prejudice to their diplomatic missions not to furnish payment has proved controversial.
privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such In London, embassies have amassed approximately £58 million in
privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the unpaid charges as of 2012, with the American embassy comprising
receiving State." Nevertheless, on some occasions, diplomatic approximately £6 million and the Russian, German and Japanese
immunity leads to some unfortunate results; protected diplomats have missions around £2 million each.[13][14]
violated laws (including those that would be violations at home as
well) of the host country and that country has been essentially limited
to informing the diplomat's nation that the diplomat is no longer Financial[edit]
welcome (persona non grata). Diplomatic agents are not, however,
exempt from the jurisdiction of their home state, and hence Historically, the problem of large debts run up by diplomats has also
prosecution may be undertaken by the sending state; for minor caused many problems. Some financial institutions do not extend
violations of the law, the sending state may impose administrative credit to diplomats because they have no legal means of ensuring the
procedures specific to the foreign service or diplomatic mission. money is repaid. Local citizens and businesses are often at a
disadvantage when filing civil claims against a diplomat, especially
Violation of the law by diplomats has included espionage, smuggling, in cases of unpaid rent, alimony, and child support.
child custody law violations, and even murder: In London in 1984,
Rents[edit] application for her domestic worker. India registered a
strong protest and initiated a review of privileges afforded
[21]
The bulk of diplomatic debt lies in the rental of office space and to American consular officials in India.
living quarters. Individual debts can range from a few thousand
dollars to $1 million in back rent. A group of diplomats and the office Disputes and incidents concerning diplomatic immunity[edit]
space in which they work are referred to as a diplomatic mission.
Creditors cannot sue missions individually to collect money they
owe. Landlords and creditors have found that the only thing they can
 In his memoirs, Gerald Hensley, a former New Zealand
do is contact a city agency to see if they can try to get some money diplomat, told the story of how, in 1979, in Sri Lanka, the
back. They cannot enter the offices or apartments of diplomats to Burmese Ambassador to Sri Lanka shot his wife as she got
evict them because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act says that out of the car after seeing a player in a night-club band of
"the property in the United States of a foreign state shall be immune whom she was enamoured. The next morning, his
from attachment, arrest and execution" (28 U.S.C. § 1609). This has neighbours were surprised to see the Ambassador building
led creditors who are owed money by diplomats to become more a pyre on the back lawn. When the police were called, the
cautious about their renters and to change their rental or payment Ambassador opened the metal front gates just enough to
policies. say that there was no trouble and to remind them that his
house was Burmese territory. Then he went back to work.
Alimony and child support[edit] The houses around his long back garden were now alive
with fascinated spectators as he emerged with the body of
his wife, placed it on the pyre and set it alight. He was well
The issue of abusing diplomatic immunity in family relations,
connected at home but after an awkward interval he was
especially alimony and child support, has become so widespread that
recalled. He also recalled a Sudanese delegate to the UN
it prompted discussion at the 1995 U.N. Fourth World Conference on
Women, in Beijing. Historically, the United Nations has not become who had been sued for paternity by a night club singer in
involved with family disputes and has refused to garnish the wages of New York and had had to invoke diplomatic immunity
[22]
diplomats who owe money for child support, citing Sovereign where the reproductive kind had failed.
Immunity. However, in September 1995, the incumbent head of  In 1984, Libyan dissidents protested outside the Libyan
Legal Affairs for the United Nations acknowledged there was a moral embassy in London. British policewoman Yvonne Fletcher
and legal obligation to take at least a partial responsibility in family was killed by gunshots originating from the embassy. To
disputes. Fathers working as diplomats who refused to fulfil their date, the identity of the gunman has not been confirmed
family-related financial duties were increasing in numbers in the and the Libyan authorities made no effort to identify the
United Nations: several men who had left their wives and children culprit nor reveal whether the culprit was ever punished,
were still claiming U.N. dependency, travel, and education although two years later it became a major factor in Prime
allowances for their families even though they are no longer Minister Margaret Thatcher's decision to allow U.S.
supporting those families.[15] President Ronald Reagan to launch the U.S. bombing of
Libya in 1986 from American bases in the United
Taxes and fees[edit] Kingdom.
[23]

 In 1987, in New York City, 9-year-old Terrence Karamba

Diplomats are exempt from most taxes, but not from "charges levied was placed by the Human Resources Administration in a
for specific services rendered". In certain cases, whether a payment is foster home after his elementary school teachers noticed
or is not considered a tax may be disputed, such as central London's suspicious scars and injuries. He and his 7-year-old sister,
congestion charge. In August 2009, it was reported that the who was also placed in City custody but later released to
Government of the UK believed the United States owed the family, told officials the wounds had been inflicted by
£3,500,000[16] in unpaid congestion charge fees.[17] It was reported in their father, Floyd Karamba, an Administrative Attache at
2006 that the UAE embassy had agreed to pay their own accumulated the Zimbabwean Mission to the U.N. No charges were
charges of nearly £100,000.[18] filed, as Mr. Karamba had diplomatic immunity.
[24]

 In January 1997, in the U.S., the Deputy Ambassador of the

There is an obligation for the receiving State not to "discriminate as Republic of Georgia, Gueorgui Makharadze, caused an
between states"; in other words, any such fees should be payable by accident that injured four people and killed a 16-year-old
all accredited diplomats equally. This may allow the diplomatic corps girl. He was found to have a blood-alcohol level of 0.15%,
to negotiate as a group with the authorities of the receiving country.
but was released from custody because he was a diplomat.
The Georgian government waived his immunity upon
Diplomats are exempt from import duty and tariffs for items for their request from the U.S., and Makharadze was tried and
personal use. In some countries, this has led to charges that convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 7-to-21 years
diplomatic agents are profiting personally from resale of "tax free" in prison. After serving three years of his sentence, he was
goods. The receiving state may choose to impose restrictions on what returned to his home country, where he spent two more
may reasonably constitute personal use (for example, only a certain
years in jail before being paroled.
quantity of cigarettes per day). When enacted, such restrictions are
generally quite generous so as to avoid tit-for-tat responses.  On 27 October 1998, in Vladivostok, Russia, Douglas Kent,
the American Consul General to Russia, was involved in a
car accident that left a young man, Alexander Kashin,
Other[edit]
disabled. Kent was not prosecuted in a U.S. court. Under
the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963,
 The United States Department of State prohibits its foreign diplomatic immunity does not apply to civil actions relating
service officers from being injected with a needle by a to vehicular accidents. However, on 10 August 2006, a U.S.
[19]
foreign official. Diplomats may refuse a test for blood Court of Appeals ruled that, since he was using his own
alcohol content but can submit to a breathalyzer test. vehicle for consular purposes, Kent may not be sued
[25][26]
 During the Second World War, Carl Lutz, the Swiss Vice- civilly.
Consul in Budapest, extended extraterritoriality to 72  On February 1999 in Vancouver, Canada, Mrs. Kazuko
buildings of Budapest in order to save people wanted by Shimokoji, wife of the Japanese Consul-General, showed
[20]
the Nazis. According to the historian Xavier Cornut, this up at the ER of a city hospital with two black eyes and a
is the most extended application of diplomatic immunity bruised neck. Asked about the origin of her injuries, she
[20]
ever observed. told doctors that her husband had beaten her up. Hospital
 In December 2013, in the United States, Indian consular staff notified the local police, who went to her home to
official Devyani Khobragade was detained, hand-cuffed, question her husband. Vancouver Police Inspector Ken
strip searched, DNA swabbed and held in a federal holding Davies quoted Mr. Shimokoji as saying, "Yes, I punched her
cell in New York. The diplomat was arrested on charges out and she deserved it", adding that Mr. Shimokoji
relating to allegations of non-payment of described the incident as "a cultural thing and not a big
minimum/prevailing wage (as per US laws) and for deal." Although an arrest warrant was issued, Mr.
fraudulently lying about the wages to be paid on a visa Shimokoji could not be arrested due to his diplomatic
 immunity. However his statement to the police found wide  On 27 January 2011, in Lahore, Pakistan, an American
echo not only in the local press, but in the Japanese press embassy employee, Raymond Allen Davis, shot and killed
as well. The subsequent uproar by the public opinion two Pakistani civilians. According to Davis, they were
prompted the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to about to rob him and he acted in self-defense. When
waive Mr. Shimokoji's immunity, so he had to stand trial detained by police, Davis claimed to be a consultant at the
where he entered a guilty plea, but was given an absolute U.S. consulate in Lahore. He was formally arrested and
discharge. Nonetheless, he was recalled to Japan where he remanded into custody. Further investigations revealed
[27]
was reassigned to office duty and had his pay cut. that he was working with the CIA as a contractor in
 In January 2001, in Canada, Andrei Knyazev, a Russian Pakistan. U.S. State Department declared him a diplomat
diplomat drove his car into two pedestrians on a quiet and repeatedly requested immunity under the Vienna
residential street, killing one and seriously injuring the Convention on Diplomatic Relations, to which Pakistan is a
[49][50]
other. Knyazev had previously been stopped by Ottawa signatory. Police officials identified the dead men as
police on two separate occasions on suspicion of impaired Faheem Shamshad, 26, and Faizan Haider, 22. A third
driving. Russia refused the Canadian government's request person, Muhammad Abad ur Rehman, was struck and
to waive his immunity. Knyazev was subsequently killed by a U.S. consulate car responding to the
[51]
prosecuted in Russia for involuntary manslaughter and shooting. In their investigation, police retrieved
sentenced to four years in prison. His appeal of the photographs, from Davis’ camera, of some sensitive areas
sentence was denied, and he served time in a penal and Pakistani defense installations; and it is possible that
[28][29][30] [52]
colony. he may be charged with Espionage as well. The wife of
 On 3 December 2004, in Bucharest, Romania, Christopher one of the slain men subsequently committed suicide,
Van Goethem, an American Marine serving his embassy, reportedly out of fear that Davis will not be prosecuted in
[53]
disregarded a traffic signal to stop, collided with a taxi, and the Pakistani judicial system.
killed the popular Romanian musician Teo Peter. Van
[31]
 In the late evening of 10 April 2011, in Islamabad, Pakistan,
Goethem's blood alcohol content was estimated at 0.09% Patrick Kibuta, an electrical engineer in the United Nations
from a breathalyser test, but he refused to give a blood Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan caused a
sample for further testing and left for Germany before serious collision with another vehicle, while under the
[32]
charges could be filed in Romania. The Romanian influence of alcohol. According to the police report, Mr.
government requested the American government to lift Kibuta, who was driving in the opposing lane, collided with
his immunity, which it has refused to do. In a court- a vehicle driven by a Canadian citizen residing in
martial, he was acquitted of manslaughter and adultery Islamabad. The victim suffered multiple fractures and
(which is still a court martial offence) but was convicted of required urgent surgery for her injuries. The accident
[33]
obstruction of justice and making false statements. occurred in the F6/1 section of Islamabad, and the Kohsar
 On 13 November 2006, in New York City, Fred Matwanga, police impounded Mr. Kibuta's U.N. vehicle on the scene.
Kenyan diplomat to the U.N., was taken into police A lab draw at a nearby hospital confirmed that he had an
custody by officers responding to reports that he had elevated blood alcohol level. Currently, charges for
assaulted his son; but he was released after police reckless and drunken driving have been filed against Mr.
discovered he had a United States Department of State- Kibuta; and an official investigation is pending to
[34][35]
issued credential identifying him as a diplomat. determine what, if any, legal recourse may be taken
[54][55]
 On 24 April 2008, in New Orleans, Mexican press attaché against Mr. Kibuta, who enjoys diplomatic immunity.
Rafael Quintero Curiel was seen stealing BlackBerry PDA  In April 2012, in Manila, Panamanian diplomat Erick
units from a White House press meeting room. Quintero Bairnals Shcks was accused of raping a 19-year old Filipino
made it all the way to the airport before members of the woman, but was later released from detention because
United States Secret Service caught up with him. He Shcks "enjoys protection under the 1961 Vienna
[56]
initially denied taking the devices, but after agents showed Convention".
him the security DVD, Quintero said it was purely  On 16 August 2012, it was alleged by the Ecuadorian
accidental, gave them back, claimed diplomatic immunity embassy that the Government of the United Kingdom
and left New Orleans with the Mexican delegation; but he threatened to revoke the diplomatic status of the embassy
[36] [57]
was eventually fired for the incident. of Ecuador in London in order to arrest Julian Assange.
 On 9 December 2009, in Tanzania, Canadian Junior Envoy  On 14 February 2013, a vehicle bearing diplomatic plates
Jean Touchette was arrested after it was reported that he registered to the US Embassy got into an accident in
spat at a traffic police officer on duty in the middle of a Islamabad, Pakistan involving two residents out of which
traffic jam in the Banana district on the outskirts of Dar es one was killed and the other survived. Murder charges
Salaam. Canada's High Commissioner, Robert Orr, was were laid under Section 320 of Pakistan Penal Code against
summoned by the Tanzanian Foreign Ministry over the the driver of the vehicle who is a diplomat according to
[37][38][39] [58]
incident, and the junior envoy was later recalled. Pakistani official.
 On 15 December 2009, in Singapore, the Romanian chargé  On 18 March 2013, the Supreme Court of India restricted
d'affaires, Silviu Ionescu, was allegedly behind a drunk- Italian ambassador, Daniele Mancini, from leaving India for
[59]
driving hit-and-run accident that killed a 30-year-old man breaching an undertaking given to the apex court.
and seriously injured two others. He left Singapore for Despite Italian and European Union protests regarding the
[40][41]
Romania three days after the accident. The restrictions as contrary to the Vienna Convention on
Romanian foreign ministry suspended Ionescu from his Diplomatic Relations, the Supreme Court of India said it
[42]
post. A coroner's inquiry in Singapore, which included would be unacceptable to argue diplomatic immunity after
testimony by the Romanian embassy driver, concluded voluntarily subjecting to court's jurisdiction. The Italian
[43]
that Ionescu was solely responsible for the accident. An envoy had invoked Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Interpol Red Notice was subsequently issued for his arrest when filing an affidavit to the Supreme Court taking
[44]
and possible extradition notwithstanding the fact that responsibility for the return of the two Italian marines to
Romania had not waived his diplomatic immunity and had India after casting their votes in the March 2012 general
commenced criminal proceedings against him in elections in Italy. The Indian Supreme Court opined that
[45]
Romania. The Singapore government argued that by the Italian ambassador had waived his diplomatic
reason of Article 39(2) of the Vienna Convention, Ionescu immunity and could be charged for contempt. The two
[46][47]
was no longer protected by diplomatic immunity. marines are being tried in India for the murder of two
 In April 2010, a Qatari diplomat was arrested for having Indian fishermen off the coast of Kerala. (See 2012 Italian
smoked in the toilet on a US-bound flight and having joked Navy Marines shooting incident in the Laccadive Sea) The
(upon questioning on flight) that he was trying to light his Supreme Court’s order restraining a serving ambassador
shoe, a reference to the shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Two F- from leaving the country has already created a major
16 fighter jets had been scrambled to follow this precedent. It cannot be excluded that Indian courts will,
[48]
airplane.
 under similar circumstances in future, interpret the First, courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its face the
principle of diplomatic immunity circumstantially. communication from the DFA that petitioner is covered by any
 In July 2013, Joshua Walde, an American diplomat in immunity. The DFA’s determination that a certain person is covered
Nairobi, Kenya, crashed into a mini-bus killing a father of by immunity is only preliminary which has no binding effect in
[60]
three, and seriously injuring eight others. United States courts. In receiving ex-parte the DFA’s advice and in motu proprio
dismissing the two criminal cases without notice to the prosecution,
embassy officials took the diplomat and his family out of
[60] the latter’s right to due process was violated. It should be noted that
Kenya the following day. The other crash victims were
due process is a right of the accused as much as it is of the
left with no financial assistance to pay for hospital bills. prosecution. The needed inquiry in what capacity petitioner was
The widow of the victim has not been contacted by the acting at the time of the alleged utterances requires for its resolution
driver or embassy officials. The United States government evidentiary basis that has yet to be presented at the proper time. 1 At
is concerned about the impact the accident could have on any rate, it has been ruled that the mere invocation of the immunity
[60]
bilateral relations with Kenya. Walde was an clause does not ipso facto result in the dropping of the charges.2
information management officer at the United States
[60]
embassy in Nairobi at the time of the crash. Walde gave Second, under Section 45 of the Agreement which
a statement to police, but was not detained due to his provides:
[60]
diplomatic immunity. Kenyan police say the case
[60]
remains under investigation.
"Officers and staff of the Bank including for the
 In October 2013, Russian diplomat Dmitri Borodin was purpose of this Article experts and consultants
arrested in The Hague, Netherlands after neighbours performing missions for the Bank shall enjoy the
alerted the police. Police claim Borodin was taken to the following privileges and immunities:
police station to protect his children (aged 2 and 4), as he
was alleged to have been drunk and violent towards them.
a.).......immunity from legal process
Police were in the area because Borodin's wife had lost with respect to acts performed by them
control over her car while also under influence, and had in their official capacity except when
[61]
rammed four parked cars near the diplomats' house. the Bank waives the immunity."
Russia immediately demanded an apology from the Dutch
government for violating Borodin's diplomatic immunity.
the immunity mentioned therein is not absolute, but subject to the
The row came at a time of tension between Russia and the exception that the act was done in "official capacity." It is therefore
Netherlands, after the Russian security services captured a necessary to determine if petitioner’s case falls within the ambit of
Greenpeace vessel sailing under the Dutch flag, Arctic Section 45(a). Thus, the prosecution should have been given the
Sunrise, that was protesting against oil drilling in the chance to rebut the DFA protocol and it must be accorded the
[62]
Prirazlomnoye field. On the 16th of October a Dutch opportunity to present its controverting evidence, should it so desire.
diplomat was beaten up in his house in Russia.
Third, slandering a person could not possibly be covered by the
immunity agreement because our laws do not allow the commission
of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of official duty. 3 The
imputation of theft is ultra vires and cannot be part of official
functions. It is well-settled principle of law that a public official may
be liable in his personal private capacity for whatever damage he may
FIRST DIVISION have caused by his act done with malice or in bad faith or beyond the
scope of his authority or jurisdiction.4 It appears that even the
[G.R. No. 125865. January 28, 2000] government’s chief legal counsel, the Solicitor General, does not
support the stand taken by petitioner and that of the DFA.
JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. Fourth, under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a
diplomatic agent, assuming petitioner is such, enjoys immunity from
DECISION criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state except in the case of an
action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised
by the diplomatic agent in the receiving state outside his official
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: functions.5 As already mentioned above, the commission of a crime is
not part of official duty.
Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian Development
Bank (ADB). Sometime in 1994, for allegedly uttering defamatory Finally, on the contention that there was no preliminary investigation
words against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal, he was charged conducted, suffice it to say that preliminary investigation is not a
before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Mandaluyong City
with two counts of grave oral defamation docketed as Criminal Cases
Nos. 53170 and 53171. Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant
issued by the MeTC. After fixing petitioner’s bail at P2,400.00 per
criminal charge, the MeTC released him to the custody of the
Security Officer of ADB. The next day, the MeTC judge received an
"office of protocol" from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA)
stating that petitioner is covered by immunity from legal process
under Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the
Philippine Government regarding the Headquarters of the ADB
(hereinafter Agreement) in the country. Based on the said protocol
communication that petitioner is immune from suit, the MeTC judge
without notice to the prosecution dismissed the two criminal cases.
The latter filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by
the DFA. When its motion was denied, the prosecution filed a
petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Pasig City which set aside the MeTC rulings and ordered
the latter court to enforce the warrant of arrest it earlier issued. After
the motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioner elevated the
case to this Court via a petition for review arguing that he is covered
by immunity under the Agreement and that no preliminary
investigation was held before the criminal cases were filed in court.

The petition is not impressed with merit.

 10
matter of right in cases cognizable by the MeTC such as the one at expiry.
bar.6 Being purely a statutory right, preliminary investigation may be
invoked only when specifically granted by law. 7 The rule on criminal Petitioners claim that sometime prior to the date of
procedure is clear that no preliminary investigation is required in expiration of the said agreement, or before August 1999, they
cases falling within the jurisdiction of the MeTC.8 Besides, the informed respondent that the renewal of the agreement shall
absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the court’s be at the discretion of the incoming Chief of Administration,
jurisdiction nor does it impair the validity of the information or Minister Counsellor Azhari Kasim, who was expected to arrive
otherwise render it defective.9 in February 2000. When Minister Counsellor Kasim assumed
the position of Chief of Administration in March 2000, he
allegedly found respondent’s work and services unsatisfactory
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. and not in compliance with the standards set in the
Maintenance Agreement. Hence, the Indonesian Embassy
11
SO ORDERED. terminated the agreement in a letter dated August 31, 2000.
Petitioners claim, moreover, that they had earlier verbally
informed respondent of their decision to terminate the
agreement.
On the other hand, respondent claims that the aforesaid
termination was arbitrary and unlawful. Respondent cites
EN BANC various circumstances which purportedly negated petitioners’
alleged dissatisfaction over respondent’s services: (a) in July
2000, Minister Counsellor Kasim still requested respondent to
assign to the embassy an additional full-time worker to assist
one of his other workers; (b) in August 2000, Minister
[G.R. No. 154705. June 26, 2003] Counsellor Kasim asked respondent to donate a prize, which
the latter did, on the occasion of the Indonesian Independence
Day golf tournament; and (c) in a letter dated August 22, 2000,
petitioner Ambassador Soeratmin thanked respondent for
THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, HIS EXCELLENCY sponsoring a prize and expressed his hope that the cordial
AMBASSADOR SOERATMIN, and MINISTER relations happily existing between them will continue to prosper
COUNSELLOR AZHARI KASIM, petitioners, vs. and be strengthened in the coming years.
JAMES VINZON, doing business under the name Hence, on December 15, 2000, respondent filed a
and style of VINZON TRADE AND SERVICES, 12
complaint against petitioners docketed as Civil Case No.
respondent. 18203 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 145.
On February 20, 2001, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss,
DECISION alleging that the Republic of Indonesia, as a foreign sovereign
State, has sovereign immunity from suit and cannot be sued as
AZCUNA, J: a party-defendant in the Philippines. The said motion further
alleged that Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor
This is a petition for review on certiorari to set aside the Kasim are diplomatic agents as defined under the Vienna
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 30, 2002 and its Convention on Diplomatic Relations and therefore enjoy
13
Resolution dated August 16, 2002, in CA-G.R. SP No. 66894 diplomatic immunity. In turn, respondent filed on March 20,
entitled “The Republic of Indonesia, His Excellency 2001, an Opposition to the said motion alleging that the
Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counselor Azhari Kasim Republic of Indonesia has expressly waived its immunity from
v. Hon. Cesar Santamaria, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 145, suit. He based this claim upon the following provision in the
Makati City, and James Vinzon, doing business under the Maintenance Agreement:
name and style of Vinzon Trade and Services.”
“Any legal action arising out of this
Petitioner, Republic of Indonesia, represented by its Maintenance Agreement shall be settled according
Counsellor, Siti Partinah, entered into a Maintenance to the laws of the Philippines and by the proper
Agreement in August 1995 with respondent James Vinzon, court of Makati City, Philippines.”
sole proprietor of Vinzon Trade and Services. The
Maintenance Agreement stated that respondent shall, for a Respondent’s Opposition likewise alleged that Ambassador
consideration, maintain specified equipment at the Embassy Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim can be sued and
Main Building, Embassy Annex Building and the Wisma Duta, held liable in their private capacities for tortious acts done with
14
the official residence of petitioner Ambassador Soeratmin. The malice and bad faith.
equipment covered by the Maintenance Agreement are air On May 17, 2001, the trial court denied herein petitioners’
conditioning units, generator sets, electrical facilities, water
heaters, and water motor pumps. It is likewise stated therein
that the agreement shall be effective for a period of four years
and will renew itself automatically unless cancelled by either
party by giving thirty days prior written notice from the date of
Motion to Dismiss. It likewise denied the Motion for This concept, the restrictive theory, holds that the immunity of
Reconsideration subsequently filed. the sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts or
acts jure imperii, but not with regard to private acts or acts jure
The trial court’s denial of the Motion to Dismiss was gestionis.
22
brought up to the Court of Appeals by herein petitioners in a
23
petition for certiorari and prohibition. Said petition, docketed as In United States v. Ruiz, for instance, we held that the
CA-G.R. SP No. 66894, alleged that the trial court gravely conduct of public bidding for the repair of a wharf at a United
abused its discretion in ruling that the Republic of Indonesia States Naval Station is an act jure imperii. On the other hand,
gave its consent to be sued and voluntarily submitted itself to we considered as an act jure gestionis the hiring of a cook in
the laws and jurisdiction of Philippine courts and that the recreation center catering to American servicemen and the
24
petitioners Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor general public at the John Hay Air Station in Baguio City, as
Kasim waived their immunity from suit. well as the bidding for the operation of barber shops in Clark
25
Air Base in Angeles City.
On May 30, 2002, the Court of Appeals rendered its
15
assailed decision denying the petition for lack of merit. On Apropos the present case, the mere entering into a
August 16, 2002, it denied herein petitioners’ motion for contract by a foreign State with a private party cannot be
16
reconsideration. construed as the ultimate test of whether or not it is an act jure
imperii or jure gestionis. Such act is only the start of the
Hence, this petition. inquiry. Is the foreign State engaged in the regular conduct of
In the case at bar, petitioners raise the sole issue of a business? If the foreign State is not engaged regularly in a
whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial business or commercial activity, and in this case it has not
court’s decision that petitioners have waived their immunity been shown to be so engaged, the particular act or transaction
from suit by using as its basis the abovementioned provision in must then be tested by its nature. If the act is in pursuit of a
the Maintenance Agreement. sovereign activity, or an incident thereof, then it is an act jure
26
imperii.
The petition is impressed with merit.
Hence, the existence alone of a paragraph in a contract
International law is founded largely upon the principles of stating that any legal action arising out of the agreement shall
reciprocity, comity, independence, and equality of States which be settled according to the laws of the Philippines and by a
were adopted as part of the law of our land under Article II, specified court of the Philippines is not necessarily a waiver of
17
Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. The rule that a State may sovereign immunity from suit. The aforesaid provision contains
not be sued without its consent is a necessary consequence of language not necessarily inconsistent with sovereign immunity.
18
the principles of independence and equality of States. As On the other hand, such provision may also be meant to apply
19
enunciated in Sanders v. Veridiano II, the practical where the sovereign party elects to sue in the local courts, or
justification for the doctrine of sovereign immunity is that there otherwise waives its immunity by any subsequent act. The
can be no legal right against the authority that makes the law applicability of Philippine laws must be deemed to include
on which the right depends. In the case of foreign States, the Philippine laws in its totality, including the principle recognizing
rule is derived from the principle of the sovereign equality of sovereign immunity. Hence, the proper court may have no
States, as expressed in the maxim par in parem non habet proper action, by way of settling the case, except to dismiss it.
imperium. All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert
20
jurisdiction over one another. A contrary attitude would Submission by a foreign state to local jurisdiction must be
“unduly vex the peace of nations.”
21 clear and unequivocal. It must be given explicitly or by
necessary implication. We find no such waiver in this case.
The rules of International Law, however, are neither
unyielding nor impervious to change. The increasing need of Respondent concedes that the establishment of a
sovereign States to enter into purely commercial activities diplomatic mission is a sovereign function. On the other hand,
remotely connected with the discharge of their governmental he argues that the actual physical maintenance of the
functions brought about a new concept of sovereign immunity. premises of the diplomatic mission, such as the upkeep of its
furnishings and equipment, is no longer a sovereign function of
27
the State.
We disagree. There is no dispute that the establishment
of a diplomatic mission is an act jure imperii. A sovereign
State does not merely establish a diplomatic mission and leave
it at that; the establishment of a diplomatic mission Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban,
encompasses its maintenance and upkeep. Hence, the State Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
may enter into contracts with private entities to maintain the Corona, Carpio-Morales, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
premises, furnishings and equipment of the embassy and the Austria-Martinez, J., on leave.
living quarters of its agents and officials. It is therefore clear
that petitioner Republic of Indonesia was acting in pursuit of a
sovereign activity when it entered into a contract with
respondent for the upkeep or maintenance of the air
conditioning units, generator sets, electrical facilities, water
heaters, and water motor pumps of the Indonesian Embassy
and the official residence of the Indonesian ambassador.
The Solicitor General, in his Comment, submits the view
that, “the Maintenance Agreement was entered into by the
Republic of Indonesia in the discharge of its governmental
functions. In such a case, it cannot be deemed to have waived
its immunity from suit.” As to the paragraph in the agreement
relied upon by respondent, the Solicitor General states that it
“was not a waiver of their immunity from suit but a mere
stipulation that in the event they do waive their immunity,
Philippine laws shall govern the resolution of any legal action
arising out of the agreement and the proper court in Makati
28
City shall be the agreed venue thereof.
On the matter of whether or not petitioners Ambassador
Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim may be sued herein
in their private capacities, Article 31 of the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations provides:
xxx
1. A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity
from the criminal jurisidiction of the receiving State.
He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and
administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of:
(a) a real action relating to private
immovable property situated in the
territory of the receiving State, unless he
holds it on behalf of the sending State for
the purposes of the mission;
(b) an action relating to succession
in which the diplomatic agent is involved
as executor, administrator, heir or
legatee as a private person and not on
behalf of the sending State;
(c) an action relating to any
professional or commercial activity
exercised by the diplomatic agent in the
receiving State outside his official
functions.
xxx
The act of petitioners Ambassador Soeratmin and
Minister Counsellor Kasim in terminating the Maintenance
Agreement is not covered by the exceptions provided in the
abovementioned provision.
The Solicitor General believes that said act may fall under
29
subparagraph (c) thereof, but said provision clearly applies
only to a situation where the diplomatic agent engages in any
professional or commercial activity outside official functions,
which is not the case herein.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The
decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP
No. 66894 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the
complaint in Civil Case No. 18203 against petitioners is
DISMISSED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.