“Harry was bubbly and outgoing and from the age of 7, he shared a passion for riding motorbikes with his Gramps and step-dad… He loved to get out on the road and explore the countryside”
In August 2019, 19 year old Harry Dunn was riding his motorbike outside of Royal Air Force Croughton air station in Northamptonshire, England when he was fatally hit, in full collision, by a woman driving on the wrong side of the road. Local officials investigated the situation, found the woman, and were about to press charges when — they were barred from doing so. The culprit, Anne Sacoolas, is the wife of high-ranking American diplomat Jonathan Sacoolas. She would have likely been charged with involuntary manslaughter, but diplomatic immunity prevented any such charges from being pursued. A few days later, the woman flew back to the states, leaving Harry’s family speechless and suffering.
This is no standalone case. Diplomatic immunity has allowed international diplomats to take part in serious crimes without ramifications all over the world. But what exactly is diplomatic immunity? How does it work? Why is it so powerful? And, of course, should it be in place.
From a historical perspective, recordings of the idea were first found in the Ramayana and Mahabharata epics, where diplomats and messengers were free from capital punishment. The prophet Muhammad was also known to be a proponent of protecting envoys and allowing no harm to come to them — a practice that was even followed by certain caliphs after his death. Even Genghis Khan insisted on peaceful conduct towards representatives from different empires, though if a government did not respect the rights of his own diplomats, he was known to respond with terrifying and violent conquest. In 1709, the British Parliament enacted the Diplomatic Privileges Act which granted full immunity to foreign ambassadors, though it should be noted that this act was known to be selectively relevant. Diplomatic immunity was granted to ambassadors from allied governments like Russia, but less so to non-allied representatives from The Ottoman Empire.
In 1961, The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made Diplomatic Immunity a worldwide custom. As of today, the only UN recognized nations who have not signed on have been Palau and South Sudan. The convention also expanded immunity rights to family members and staff in the case of high-ranking officials.
Regardless of its ever-present international standing, misinformation (or mere lack of information) on the concept has led to overenforcement and underenforcement of domestic laws, as well as general confusion. I’m going to provide a brief but content-dense overview of diplomatic immunity so that you’ll feel like an expert on the matter — or at least enough information to get through this article.
At a very basic level, having diplomatic immunity means not being under the jurisdiction of local courts or authorities in an official (and sometimes personal) context. There are different levels of immunity. For example, those with the title of “diplomatic agent” enjoy complete immunity from criminal jurisdiction, while members of administrative and technical staff only enjoy criminal immunity in connection with official duties. In the latter’s case, personal offenses are not protected. Diplomats are not known to flout their international lawbreaking, but those with full immunity can use protection to their advantage themselves and those with partial immunity can stretch the limits on what is ‘official’ business. After all, no nation wants to start a hostile international incident over a minor offense. It’s for these reasons exactly that the City of New York is currently owed over $20 million in parking tickets by international diplomats. Interestingly enough, the National Bureau of Economic Research found that diplomats from nations who either 1. have a higher corruption index, 2. have a less amicable relationship with the United States, or both, have higher amounts of unpaid parking tickets. In 2017, Canadian journalists found in their nation alone cases of armed robbery, assault, potential human trafficking, theft, domestic violence, and tax evasion that all went without consequence. Saudi businessman Sheikh Walid Juffali separated from his wife in 2013, and in 2014 was named St. Lucia’s representative to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in order to avoid her separation claims to part of his wealth. This caught the attention of diplomatic immunity critics as before the decision, Juffali had no connection to St. Lucia.
Of course, there are limitations to these protections. At any point, a host nation can declare a diplomat persona non grata, basically expelling the diplomat from the state — though this might strain relationships between nations. Similarly, a state can deny their diplomat immunity, as in the case of Dwight Sagaray. Sagaray was found guilty of killing Olga Fonseca — both Venezuelans stationed in Kenya — after she was set to take over the embassy from him in 2012. Committing a crime as a diplomat with immunity is technically a roll of the dice, but usually one’s country is on their side.
These are all unintended consequences. Obviously, The Vienna Convention did not strive for corruption, evasion, and murder. The idea of diplomatic immunity was spread around the world so that representatives of foreign nations (and their families) could not be threatened, harassed, or hurt as a way of influencing policy, decisions, or diplomatic actions. It is a protective measure that allows an ambassador of South Korea to, as an example, tour North Korea without fearing for their life.
Some believe that diplomatic immunity is an outdated cold-war era policy that needs to be altered given the numerous abuses it has allowed without punishment. Dr. James Hoare rejects these ideas, arguing that it is an absolute necessity to diplomats in order to complete the tasks they are assigned in a foreign nation without interference, He specifically mentions private communications and “diplomatic bags” — bags which cannot be searched by police — which are protected under diplomatic immunity. The security of meetings, business, and exchange that diplomats encounter on a daily basis are all reliant on immunity. The detainment of foreign officials by a nation to use as political leverage is also prohibited under the principle. Proponents of keeping the international law, especially those who worked in the foreign service, stress that specific cases of abusing the system should not undermine nor compromise diplomatic immunity given the necessary freedoms it provides.
We are a new and young generation of aspiring change-makers. We’re high school and college students — learning about history, contemporary social and political geography, international economics status quos, and other taken-at-face-value institutions — who are disillusioned with the way of things. Diplomatic immunity has been in the ‘hot seat’ in recent years, but there are substantial arguments both for and against the international law. It protects representatives in the ways the Vienna Convention intended, but with some unintended side-effects. It is on us now to rely on it, revoke it, or reform it.
