The contentious issue of diplomatic immunity has been debated for centuries, more formally since the establishment of a diplomat’s rights in the Vienna Convention, with some calling for reforms in their privileges.
It is argued that diplomatic immunity is essential to protect the lives and functions of diplomatic agents in hostile countries- to maintain amicable international relations and prevent potential conflicts. However, it can be used as an instrumental tool in getting away with murder.
Recently, a fatal car crash fanned the flames of controversy when Harry Dunn (19) was killed by Anne Sacoolas, wife of an American diplomat. Anne was driving on the wrong side of the road when it happened, causing death by dangerous driving. She quickly fled home to America, claiming immunity.
Despite the recent development in this case with the Crown Prosecution Service stating immunity did not apply to dependents of consular officials outside of London, Trump’s refusal to waive her immunity, even after pleas from Boris Johnson further highlights the injustice of these privileges. However, without them, would peace be able to be maintained? Suppose consular officials are allowed to be bullied and discriminated against in their post abroad, without diplomatic immunity being formalised in 1961. What guidelines are there to prevent fierce patriotism from flaring up and light a fire in the belly of war?
Written by Coco Clelland
Artwork by Izzy Johns
Comments