╌>

Does diplomatic immunity apply for American diplomat's wife in fatal crash?

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  perrie-halpern  •  5 years ago  •  34 comments

Does diplomatic immunity apply for American diplomat's wife in fatal crash?
Analysis: Now that American Anne Sacoolas has left the U.K. following the deadly crash, she either has residual immunity — or none at all.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



By   Danny Cevallos


The family of a British teenager killed in a crash involving a spouse of a U.S. diplomat, who has since left the United Kingdom,   believes she should return to that country   to face justice.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has joined the victim's family in publicly expressing hope that Anne Sacoolas, the American diplomat's wife, would return to the U.K., and indicated he might appeal the issue to the White House.

But whether she will be subject to possible charges depends on her protection under diplomatic immunity, a centuries-old principle of international law dating back to Roman times. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, or VCDR, universally codified this patchwork legal tradition beginning in 1961.

The VCDR has   since been ratified   by almost every country in the world, including the U.K. and the United States. It provides diplomats with absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, and protection from most civil and administrative actions brought in the "receiving State," or where they are stationed. A diplomat is not even required to give evidence in court as a witness under the VCDR.

There are three exceptions to a diplomat's civil immunity, none of which are likely to apply to a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by a diplomat.

But it was not a diplomat who is alleged to have caused this   fatal crash Aug. 27 . It was his wife. No matter: the VCDR extends immunity to family members who form part of the diplomat's household. While every country may define "family" differently, diplomats' spouses enjoy co-extensive immunity.

If the wife is entitled to full diplomatic immunity, the U.K. plaintiffs wouldn't fare much better bringing a lawsuit in the U.S. judicial system.

Under   U.S. federal law , a district court must dismiss any case against someone entitled to immunity under the Vienna Convention.

That's if diplomatic immunity still applies.

It may no longer apply to a wife of a diplomat who has left the receiving country and returned to her "sending," or home, country.

Diplomats   lose much of their immunity   following the termination of their diplomatic status under Article 39 of the VCDR, which provides that the "immunities shall normally cease at the moment when he leaves the country … but shall subsist until that time … However, with respect to acts performed by such a person in the exercise of his functions as a member of the mission, immunity shall continue to subsist."

Article 39 provides something less than full diplomatic immunity: " residual " immunity. Once a diplomat becomes a "former" diplomat, he or she is not immune from suit for prior acts, unless those acts were performed "in the exercise of [the former diplomat's] functions as a member of the mission."

Sometimes, a spouse of a diplomat may not even be entitled to residual immunity because it applies only to a person who was "a member of the mission." Just being a diplomat's wife is not enough; she must have conducted acts as a member of the mission.

Sacoolas' liability turns on what she did as the wife of a diplomat because residual immunity is exclusively reserved for "member[s] of the mission" only.

So now that she's left the country, either Sacoolas, 42, has residual immunity, which only protects her from liability for official diplomatic acts, or she has no immunity at all.

Either way, she is now potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts — if they can get her back from the U.S. That becomes an issue of extradition, and yet another tricky issue of international law, which itself is often reduced to a tricky issue of diplomatic relations.



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.    5 years ago

Personally, I am against diplomatic immunity. When in Rome...

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
1.1  zuksam  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    5 years ago

It's a very complicated issue and we only ever hear about the most egregious uses of diplomatic immunity. Without diplomatic immunity Diplomats and their families could be held hostage on minor charges or even trumped up charges. Many countries don't have free speech protections and it's kind of a diplomats job to say and write things that these countries might jail their own citizens for saying. Also there are a lot of crazy laws on the books even in this country. I think the main problem with diplomatic immunity is the spirit of the law is often violated because although you're immune to the host countries laws you are still supposed to be under your own countries laws and subject to criminal and civil penalties in their courts. The problem is these diplomats are usually well connected in their own countries so they are protected not by diplomatic immunity but by corruption. Whatever this woman did to cause the crash is probably illegal here so she could and should be charged in the USA.

 
 
 
warmall
Freshman Silent
1.1.1  warmall  replied to  zuksam @1.1    5 years ago
Many countries don't have free speech protections and it's kind of a diplomats job to say and write things that these countries might jail their own citizens for saying.

Agree...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1.4  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  zuksam @1.1    5 years ago

I have to say that I hadn't thought of some of those issues. Well done. I still think that many of these diplomats (I live in NY where we have thousands of them) do take it upon themselves to break the law.. like parking wherever they want to and not paying their tickets. Obviously, killing someone needs to be investigated in my opinion.. but you do make good points about the potential of abuses by the host countries. 

 
 
 
warmall
Freshman Silent
1.1.5  warmall  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.4    5 years ago
I have to say that I hadn't thought of some of those issues. Well done. I still think that many of these diplomats (I live in NY where we have thousands of them) do take it upon themselves to break the law.. like parking wherever they want to and not paying their tickets. Obviously, killing someone needs to be investigated in my opinion.. but you do make good points about the potential of abuses by the host countries. 

The UN headquarters is located in NY. This makes the situation more complicated. In any case, diplomats should be more responsible. It looks bad. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
1.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    5 years ago

If someone breaks a minor law only because they were unaware of it, that is one thing, but not in this case.  I say extradite the bitch, get her a lawyer, and try her like the criminal she is.   Many years ago, a close friend of mine was sexually assaulted by the son of a diplomat.  Because they played the DI card, he got off scott free.  My friend later committed suicide over this.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
1.2.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2.2    5 years ago

You make a good point and maybe I am a little jaded when it comes to DI due to what happened to my friend.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3  devangelical    5 years ago

extradite that bitch, take her passport, liquidate her assets, and reward the proceeds to the victims family

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
4  Nerm_L    5 years ago

Yes, diplomatic immunity applies.  And there are good reasons why diplomatic immunity applies.  What everyone is overlooking is that the United States government is responsible for the death of Harry Dunn.

Anne Sacoolas is (or was) an agent of the United States government and, as such, receives diplomatic immunity.  The United States government assumes the full responsibility and liability for the actions of its agents.  By focusing attention on Sacoolas, the United States government is being let off the hook.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
4.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Nerm_L @4    5 years ago

The US government was not driving the car.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
4.2.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  XDm9mm @4.2.1    5 years ago

What are black and red passports?  I am unfamiliar with them and their meanings.  When I had one, it was green.

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
4.2.4  zuksam  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.2    5 years ago
The US government was not driving the car.

But they are Liable for the actions of their employees the same as Walmart is liable for the actions of their employees. If a Walmart truck hits you and is at fault you sue Walmart. Even though this woman is not an employee of the Government by giving her diplomatic immunity they are assuming liability for her.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
4.2.5  Nerm_L  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.2    5 years ago
The US government was not driving the car.

That is incorrect. An agent representing the US government means the US government really was driving the car.

While considerably more complex, it's really not very much different than an airline being responsible and liable for the actions of the airline's pilots and staff.  The big difference is that an airline cannot enact and enforce laws while the US government can and does.  The US government can prosecute Anne Sacoolas for a crime committed while acting as the government's agent.

People don't seem to understand that the employee handbook for government employees are Federal laws and regulations.  Getting a speeding ticket while operating a government vehicle is a Federal crime.  Anne Sacoolas driving on the wrong side of the road was a Federal crime, by itself, and Sacoolas could be prosecuted for that alone (although such a prosecution is unlikely).

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
4.2.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  XDm9mm @4.2.3    5 years ago

Thank you.  I always manage to find out something new every day here.  

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4.2.7  Kavika   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.2.6    5 years ago

There is another color, it's brown. It also has quite a history.

07-14-14-haudenosaunee-1.jpg?itok=vIINp0gm

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
4.2.8  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Kavika @4.2.7    5 years ago

It is very unusual looking.  I like it.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5  Kavika     5 years ago

This seems to be a critical part of the ''immunity'' defense. 

Sometimes, a spouse of a diplomat may not even be entitled to residual immunity because it applies only to a person who was "a member of the mission." Just being a diplomat's wife is not enough; she must have conducted acts as a member of the mission.
 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.2  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kavika @5    5 years ago

Good point Kavika!

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
7  bbl-1    5 years ago

Diplomatic Immunity?  Depends on who you are.

Besides, the statement of, "When you're a star you can do anything," has changed the playing field.  We are in a new game.

Is the Sacoolas family in the UK because of campaign contributions or because of merit and experience?

None the less, this is another incident which will solidify the tatters in US foreign relations.  To abuse the privilege of Diplomatic Immunity is very wrong.  Diplomatic Immunity in itself is a safeguard against the whims of nations seeking revenge or political blackmail.

 
 

Who is online



61 visitors