Diplomatic asylum: Issues and controversies

Abstract

The institute of diplomatic asylum is one of the most contentious issues of the diplomatic law, and the international law in general. As a legal institute, it is officially recognized only in the countries of Latin America, while in other parts of the world it is granted occasionally and sporadically, mostly out of humanitarian reasons, i.e. the protection of persons being in an immediate life threatening situation. Diplomatic asylum is specific in that it is granted in a diplomatic mission building, on a war ship, or war aircraft, therefore outside the country's territory. Granting the diplomatic asylum often leads to a conflict between the principle of the country's territorial sovereignty and the principle of inviolability of the diplomatic mission premises. Namely, the receiving country must not interfere with the inviolability of the diplomatic mission premises in any case, regardless of whether a person has sought refuge there. The paper analyzes the grounds of diplomatic asylum, which arise from the principle of extraterritoriality. Also, it quotes the legal regulation of the right of asylum in Latin American countries; explains the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the case of Peruvian politician Haya de la Torre; and discusses the practice of giving the asylum to seekers outside Latin America. It analyzes the issue of diplomatic asylum in terms of diplomatic law (this institute is not provided for in the Convention on Diplomatic Law). Finally, the paper examines the latest example of diplomatic asylum in the case of Julian Assange who took refuge in Ecuador's embassy in London to avoid his extradition to Sweden over the allegations of sexual assault. It concludes that the use of diplomatic asylum outside Latin America is risky and there is no guarantee for it to be successful in practice.