An American official in Pakistan triggered more than bullets when he shot two Pakistani citizens in January. The fiery standoff between the U.S. and its Middle Eastern ally will continue through and beyond February.
Pakistani officials charged American Raymond Davis with murder, and continue to hold him despite U.S. claims of diplomatic immunity.
Politicians, journalists and international lawyers throw questions around: Was the official even a diplomat? Did he shoot in self-defense? Does diplomatic immunity cover all crimes?
For lawyers and officials directly involved in the situation, international law demands answers to these objective questions. But there seems to be a surprising lack of departure from rigid realism among the rest of the population.
Davis may or may not have diplomatic immunity. But is this unconditional immunity of diplomats even a good idea?
Academics writing about international law warn repeatedly not to let facts obscure ideals. In “The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939,” international relations theorist E.H. Carr claimed that “healthy human action … must establish a balance between utopia and reality.”
And in 2004, New York University School of Law professor Jeremy Waldron emphasized “values and principles associated with the idea of legality” in international law in “Torture, Terror and Tradeoffs: Philosophy for the White House.”
Scholars continually encourage inquiries that reach beyond current objective conditions.
Customary diplomatic immunity emerged among ancient civilizations, according to an American University International Law Review article by Mitchell S. Ross. It continued as nations recognized the dangers of imprisonment of diplomats on minor charges, especially in times of animosity.
In 1961, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations codified this customary practice. The treaty begins by declaring its intention to facilitate “the development of friendly relations among nations.” Throughout, it makes continual references to friendly diplomatic interaction.
Furthermore, the treaty declares that “diplomatic relations between States … take place by mutual consent.”
In the case of Davis’s actions, this statement serves Pakistani officials well. They claim that Davis’s behavior — and possession of a loaded gun — was not mutually agreed upon, and thus invalidates his claims to diplomatic immunity, according to the New York Times.
But these words illuminate more. Today’s appeals to diplomatic immunity manipulate its purpose.
As indicated by the custom’s founding and by terminology employed in the Vienna Convention, governments grant immunity to foster cooperative relations, to minimize cultural misunderstandings and to prevent political imprisonment.
But in just five years, diplomats in New York City neglected to pay $18 million worth of parking tickets, according to an article in Reader’s Digest.
In 2005, newspapers reported that a United Arab Emirates diplomat used diplomatic immunity to evade prosecution after soliciting sex over the Internet from someone he thought was a seventh-grade girl.
And in 2009, CIA agents tried to appeal to diplomatic immunity after kidnapping a Muslim cleric in Italy, in what was not the first time the CIA attempted to justify questionable acts with diplomatic immunity.
Governments do not grant immunity to allow for reckless behavior.
An international system that permits only minor violations of a nation’s law would more effectively facilitate cooperative diplomatic relations.
Additionally, nations should establish an international effort to specifically issue — and document — this immunity to individual diplomats. Finally, host nations should only issue this immunity to those certified in their basic law.
Absolute immunity allows diplomats to knowingly disregard laws. It allows them to commit offenses entirely unrelated to their work.
And in the worst cases, it allows them to act more like soldiers than diplomats.
Contact Alex at algrego1@asu.edu
