Although it is obvious and commonly known that foreign diplomats do not enter hosting countries with the intent of committing a crime -and most of them do not commit crimes - diplomatic immunity is still a highly controversial issue. This is understandable, considering the principles and beliefs most countries are sacrificing by letting a foreign government officials get away with petty and sometimes murderous crimes. The Rule of Law, the protection of citizens, and international justice, all very important aspects of government, are all things being put on the line for the sake of dipolmatic immunity. It is not worth sacrificing such foundational things for something so trivial.
In Canada and many other established countries, the Rule of Law is the foundation for all of its decisions, and is often referred to in court cases. It is a fundamental set of priciples that play a very important role in our justice system. The Rule of Law clearly states that "the governement is subject to law"(1) and that "no one is above the law"(2). However, giving a government official diplomatic immunity allows that official to declair him or herself "immune" to being criminally prosecuted in their host country, no matter how severe a crime he or she committs. In other words, the diplomat can declair him or herself above the host countries law. This clearly violates the Rule of Law, underminding a principle on which Canada and any other countries opperate, and robs its people of a promise of equality.
Another promise made to the people by the government is that of justice. When someone is killed in Canada, that persons loved ones expect justice to be served to the person responsible for that death. This is an idea that Canadians are garunteed and expect. If the person who killed the citizen in question was a foreign diplomat, however, the killer could immediately claim diplomatic immunity and free him or herself of prosecution and civil liability. This was the case on January...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document