Diplomatic Immunity Position Paper
Diplomatic Immunity Position Paper
By: Julia Powers
Diplomatic immunity is a privilege granted to certain foreign government officials in which they are not subject to laws or taxes in the hosting country. In 2001, a diplomat struck and killed an Ottawa woman with his car as a result of drunk driving. Canada requested that his home country waive his immunity so a trial could take place. Moscow refused but instead promised that Andrei Knyazev would be prosecuted in Russia. I firmly believe that diplomatic immunity is not set in place to benefit individuals personally; but to allow the diplomat to perform their job in an efficient manner. Diplomatic immunity allows for the government official to be excluded from laws in their hosting country, but it does not mean that they cannot be charged for crimes they commit. The diplomat’s country of origin is allowed to waiver their immunity so that a trial can be held. Moreover, their immunity does not exclude them from jurisdiction in their own home country. I believe that this is reasonable due to the fact that the diplomat may still be charged for their crime, just in a different location. In this specific case, Mr. Knyazev was still prosecuted and punished for killing the woman, just not in the country which the crime took place. Diplomatic immunity is not a license to commit a crime, it allows for the diplomat’s and their families to live happily and undisturbed in their hosting countries. If a country where the officials are living has a difference in individual and human rights, the immunity allows for the diplomat to perform their duties without being harassed by unfriendly & foreign authorities. However, this only works if the diplomat and family respect the customs and the citizens in the host country. I think that the majority of all diplomats are not in a country to commit crime and be negligent, but to perform a job that they’re in the country to do. If the diplomat in a hosting country is not being
By: Julia Powers
Diplomatic immunity is a privilege granted to certain foreign government officials in which they are not subject to laws or taxes in the hosting country. In 2001, a diplomat struck and killed an Ottawa woman with his car as a result of drunk driving. Canada requested that his home country waive his immunity so a trial could take place. Moscow refused but instead promised that Andrei Knyazev would be prosecuted in Russia. I firmly believe that diplomatic immunity is not set in place to benefit individuals personally; but to allow the diplomat to perform their job in an efficient manner. Diplomatic immunity allows for the government official to be excluded from laws in their hosting country, but it does not mean that they cannot be charged for crimes they commit. The diplomat’s country of origin is allowed to waiver their immunity so that a trial can be held. Moreover, their immunity does not exclude them from jurisdiction in their own home country. I believe that this is reasonable due to the fact that the diplomat may still be charged for their crime, just in a different location. In this specific case, Mr. Knyazev was still prosecuted and punished for killing the woman, just not in the country which the crime took place. Diplomatic immunity is not a license to commit a crime, it allows for the diplomat’s and their families to live happily and undisturbed in their hosting countries. If a country where the officials are living has a difference in individual and human rights, the immunity allows for the diplomat to perform their duties without being harassed by unfriendly & foreign authorities. However, this only works if the diplomat and family respect the customs and the citizens in the host country. I think that the majority of all diplomats are not in a country to commit crime and be negligent, but to perform a job that they’re in the country to do. If the diplomat in a hosting country is not being