undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmartinflack10y ago0 comments

I am not a lawyer, but I find this little area of law interesting so I looked it up. Here's what I found... That statement is commonly believed, but it's sort of functionality true, not literally true.

Embassies are still part of the host country, but generally (a) police/military of the host country cannot enter without permission of the Ambassador and (b) most employees who came from the mission country hold a diplomatic passport or have (some) diplomatic immunity by treaty, making them immune to prosecution, and (c) some laws of the host country apply to the embassy employees or operate on the embassy functions, but this would be moreso about procedure and secrecy than mundane daily life laws.

There may be exceptions to the above in treaties. In the UK there are exceptions to getting permission to entering an embassy (legal exceptions -- obviously the political fallout would be up for debate).

If two people making a visa application got into a fight in line, resulting in major injury, the Ambassador would probably just call the local police and have them dealt with locally, because the host country's laws still apply. However if one of the guards shot a local troublemaker who appeared to be a security threat, the Ambassador might simply do nothing, resulting in the guard not being able to be arrested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission#Extraterrit...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity

US Marine Security Guards carry a certain level of diplomatic immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Security_Guard#Responsi...

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

phaus10y ago· 1 in thread

So, is this incorrect or am I just misunderstanding it? I intended my original statement in the context of functional truth, because the ownership of the actual landmass doesn't seem to matter when we are discussing a legal/political issue.

"While diplomatic spaces remain the territory of the host state, an embassy or consulate represents a sovereign state. International rules do not allow representatives of the host country to enter an embassy without permission --even to put out a fire -- and designate an attack on an embassy as an attack on the country it represents."

http://diplomacy.state.gov/discoverdiplomacy/diplomacy101/pl...

Edit: I think it should have been pretty obvious that I wasn't claiming that it actually is one of the United States, only that it represents a sovereign state.

Tomte10y ago

You mean the United States consist of 200 states? ;-)

No, the embassy is no sovereign state. As your source clearly says it represents a sovereign state.

Just as Marissa Mayer is not Yahoo, but certainly represents Yahoo from time to time. And if she were ever invited back to Google for a nice cup of tea, Yahoo still wouldn't be owner of the Google's cafeteria, just because she represents Yahoo and happens to occupy a chair there.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse