North Macedonia (Brussels Morning Newspaper), Israel bombed a structure that served the Iranian consulate in Damascus. Though not strictly within the compound of the Embassy, it was widely known as an outpost of Iranian diplomacy in Syria. Iran threatened to retaliate against an Israeli representation.
Ecuador’s police stormed the Mexican Embassy in order to arrest a former vice-president accused of corruption who was granted asylum by Mexico only hours before.
The cherished – almost sacred – principle of the protection of diplomatic and consular premises and personnel seems to be going the way of the dodo. This impression has partly to do with the myths that surround diplomatic immunity and inviolability.
Articles 21-25 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), state:
Article 21
1. The receiving State shall either facilitate the acquisition on its territory, in accordance with its laws, by the sending State of premises necessary for its mission or assist the latter in obtaining accommodation in some other way.
2. It shall also, where necessary, assist missions in obtaining suitable accommodation for their members.
Article 22
1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.
3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
Article 23
1. The sending State and the head of the mission shall be exempt from all national, regional or municipal dues and taxes in respect of the premises of the mission, whether owned or leased, other than such as represent payment for specific services rendered.
2. The exemption from taxation referred to in this article shall not apply to such dues and taxes payable under the law of the receiving State by persons contracting with the sending State or the head of the mission.
Article 24
The archives and documents of the mission shall be inviolable at any time and wherever they may be.
Article 25
The receiving State shall accord full facilities for the performance of the functions of the mission.
The language is clear: the Embassy is not sovereign territory and not extraterritorial. It just enjoys certain legal exemptions, that’s all.
Are these concessions revocable if the Mission gets involved in espionage or criminal activities? Probably so. But granting political asylum to a refugee is not the same as harboring a fugitive from justice. Mexico is right to have severed its diplomatic relations with Ecuador.
What about holding meetings on the premises to discuss and plan future acts of terrorism? Here the legal picture gets murkier.
At issue is the right of self-defense of the violating country as well as the principle that spaces immune to military action such as hospitals and consulates lose their special protections when they are being abused by terrorists and criminals. In short: Israel may have had a right to blow up the building and the conspirators within it.
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. As always, we remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.Sincerely, The Brussels Morning Team
