Need for addressing diplomatic immunity

Diplomatic immunity is a well-recognised concept of international law that provides the safe exit and legal protection of diplomats wherever they represent their own country and aims to ensure their freedom and safety.  

Granting diplomatic immunity has been a common practice for thousands of years. Even though the limelight is on the euro-centric approach to diplomats' immunity, it is indeed clear that similar practices existed in ancient Greece, the Ottoman empire, and the Chinese empire. With the introduction of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) of 1961, the custom was finally given a legal framework.  

The VCDR grants protection to individuals based on their rank in a diplomatic mission and the necessity for immunity in the performance of their responsibilities. It protects diplomats, their families, and diplomatic property in several ways. The primary objective of the VCDR is to let diplomats carry out their duties without interference from the receiving state. For example, the receiving state cannot punish diplomats and must protect them and their families and property. However, of all the protections provided by the VCDR, none has raised as much controversy as article 31 has done, according to which, diplomats should not be subject to the local laws and regulations of the host country. Article 37 provides that this immunity also applies to both administrative and technical staff members of diplomatic missions, who also enjoy a degree of immunity. Nonetheless, the Convention makes it clear in the preamble that 'the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing States'. 

Diplomatic immunity is a widely accepted principle throughout the international community but is not always respected. This often occurs only when the diplomat has committed an offence that breaches fundamental human rights unrelated to their diplomatic function or has witnessed such a heinous act.

It is indeed true that diplomats are shielded from the host country's judicial, civil, and administrative jurisdiction. However, article 32 empowers the host nation to request that the diplomat's immunity be revoked. If the exemption is granted, the diplomat will be held accountable for his or her offences, like any other citizen. Under article 9, the host nation has the right to declare any member of the diplomatic mission persona non grata. This may be done at any moment, and there is no obligation to explain such a decision. Governments often abuse this authority when there are no specified reasons for declaring a diplomat persona non grata. This shortcoming has prompted nations to engage in reciprocity. In such instances, the host nation would often return the individual or terminate his diplomatic activities. 

Diplomatic immunity regulations have evolved throughout the years, with no universally practiced codified law in force. While the VCDR has acknowledged and brought to attention the significance of diplomatic privileges and immunities to a significant extent, there is still room for advancement as it does not permit the receiving state to punish crimes committed by diplomats from the host nation. The receiving state's hands are tied, and in most cases, it cannot take any action that violates fundamental human rights or constitutes grave abuse of power. To secure both human rights and the intent of the law, it is required to make some changes. Therefore, the VCDR should be reformed in a way that limits diplomatic immunity. Diplomats should not enjoy immunity from committing grave offences. It should only apply in specific circumstances to criminal cases. 

To sum up, it can be stated that the legislation on diplomatic ties is highly dependent on several external circumstances, such as the political situation in particular nations and the stability of relations between states, yet diplomatic crime is a global problem that must be addressed to ensure offenders face punishment for their crimes.

The writers are Law Graduates, Bangladesh University of Professionals (BUP).