Thomson Reuters News & Insight
Featured Content from WESTLAW

Legal

  •  
  •  

Shuttered FrontPoint hedge funds sue Libor banks for $250 mln fraud  read more »

UBS, powerful amici urge 2nd Circuit not to meddle with Morrison  read more »

Ruling for AIG, Triaxx could delay May 30 trial in BofA put-back deal  read more »

Marketing Popup

Assange, Britain have few legal options in embassy standoff

8/22/2012 COMMENTS (0)

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, currently holed up at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London under so-called "diplomatic asylum," had better get used to embassy meals, according to international law expert Timothy Nelson of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Nelson made a study of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations as well as international jurisprudence on diplomatic immunity in his representation of a former Sri Lankan general who was sued for war crimes in U.S. district court while serving as a diplomat in Manhattan. Nelson's take on the Assange situation: International law and diplomatic convention do not compel Britain to guarantee Assange safe passage out of the embassy and onto a plane bound for Ecuador, but nor does Britain have a legal right to violate the Ecuadorean Embassy and forcibly remove Assange. Assange, in other words, is pinned at the embassy for the foreseeable future, unless one side or the other decides to take an enormous risk.

Assange, of course, isn't the first notorious character to seek refuge at a foreign embassy. In his case, the goal was to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces possible sex crime charges; Assange and his supporters also assert that he fears Sweden will, in turn, hand him over to the United States to answer for his alleged disclosure of state secrets. But he faces no more uncertain a future than, say, former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, who hid at the Vatican Embassy in Panama City in 1989; or Erich Honecker, the last leader of East Germany, who took refuge in the Chilean Embassy in Moscow after the Berlin Wall came down; or Cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty, who fled to the U.S. Embassy in Budapest during the Hungar i an uprising of 1956.

According to Nelson, the outcome for these three should be instructive for Assange. None was immediately granted a safe passage out of the country where his embassy haven was located. Noriega was flushed out by U.S. Marines blaring rock and roll music. Honeker was stuck in Moscow as the Soviet Union collapsed and his sponsor, Mikhail Gorbachev, lost power, but after 17 months at the Chilean Embassy was finally permitted to depart for Chile (by way of Germany, which dropped charges against him). Mindszenty ended up living out his life at the U.S. Embassy in Hungary, spending almost 15 years inside its walls while police waited outside to arrest him.

Host nations, Nelson said, have no obligation to provide safe passage to recipients of diplomatic asylum as a result of the International Court of Justice's consideration of the case of Viktor Haya de la Torre, a Peruvian activist who was granted asylum by Colombia's embassy in Lima after a failed coup attempt in 1949. The Peruvian government refused to permit Haya de la Torre to leave Peru, so Colombia submitted the dispute to the world court. In a series of rulings in 1950, the ICJ ruled that Peru did not have to grant Haya de la Torre safe conduct and that diplomatic immunity should be granted only under urgent conditions.

The law of international diplomacy, codified in the Vienna Convention a decade after the Haya de la Torre rulings, puts severe restrictions on Assange's options. "He doesn't hold too many cards," Nelson said. "If he steps outside, he's likely to be arrested."

But Britain's options are also limited, in Nelson's view. The most prominent case involving a host nation's invasion of an embassy stemmed from the Iranian government's seizure of U.S. hostages in 1979. In 1980, the International Court of Justice ruled that Iran had violated its diplomatic obligations. That didn't do the United States government much good in its attempts to rescue the hostages in Iran, but Britain is more mindful of its standing in the international community than Iran was.

Nelson said that outside of negotiations with Ecuador, the British government could exercise the extreme option of declaring Ecuadorean Embassy officials to be persona non grata and forcing them to leave the country. (Unlike Assange, they'd be granted safe passage.) Britain could conceivably empty the Ecuadorean Embassy, leaving only Assange behind, along with his microwave and treadmill.

But Britain's best alternative, Nelson said, could be simply to wait things out. Ultimately, he noted, diplomatic negotiations are always the preferred course in situations like these.

(Reporting by Alison Frankel)

Follow us on Twitter @AlisonFrankel@ReutersLegal  | Like us on Facebook


Register or log in to comment.

© 2013 Thomson Reuters