WesWorld

BERLINGSKE TIDENDE 07.07.1921: ARRESTED ARGENTINE DIPLOMAT ARRIVES IN STOCKHOLM
Today the Danish passenger-vessel Kronprinds Frederik, escorted by two of the Royal Danish Navy's armourclads, and several smaller vessels, arrived at Karlskrona Naval Base. The reason for this strange dispatch became clear when it was apparent that the ship carried only twenty passengers - Mr Guillermo Gonzalez, Charge d'Affairs of the former Argentine embassy in Copenhagen, and a detachment of guards from the Danish police-force. Authorities have not been forthcoming with information about the cause for this arrest, which surely is the reason behind the breakdown of relations between Denmark and Argentina, but this publication has been given reason to believe that he has conducted activites on Danish soil not in keeping with his standing as a diplomat.

That means Nordmark and Denmakr are breaking international law by arresting ambassadors? Ouch. Yes I know the Argies done it first but that is no excuse I would assume. I think Nordmark just lost a certain amount of legitimacy on the world stage there ...

Bernhard

Not an ambassador - a Charge d'Affairs. A Charge d'Affairs is a highlevel official at an embassy, handling mroe day-to-day issues, as I understand it. Reasons for the arrest (which was amde by Denmark independently) will be made clear in the July 10 newsitem (which I hope to have out soon - it is the detailing of evidence, but I don't plan on making it a narrative, rather just summing things up, so I can finish it faster); there is something of a reason behind the arrrest.

doesn't change the fact that it is a breach of diplomatic immunity - all Nordmark (or Denmark in this case) can do under international law is declare him "persona non grata" and give him 24 h to leave the country.

Bernhard

Well if he's commited a serious crime like murder or spying wouldn't that make it legal?

no, that is exactly the point. you extradite spies when you catch them and they have diplomatic cover you don't arrest them. Diplomatic cover is sacrosanct. Most nations will remove diplomatic cover from thiefs murderers etc though or try them themselves. mind you murder by a diplomat does constitue a casus belli IIRC but the person himself is still sacrosanct.

Bernhard

OK, here is the curent agreement:

http://www.ediplomat.com/main/immunity.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity
http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/diplomat.htm

sadly the sorry thing is from 1963 and I haven't found the predecessor.

Bernhard

Quoted

"Only with the threat of violence removed could communication between leaders become effective. This unwritten code was made into law in 1780, when England adopted the Diplomatic Privileges Act. This act granted total immunity from both criminal prosecution as well as civil suits, so that ambassadors and their families could exercise the native country’s diplomatic mail, without fear of repercussions from the host country."

taken from http://www.immigration-world.com/interes…matic-eng.shtml

So while it wasn't until the 60s that this was made international law with the Vienna Convention, before that it was an unwritten code. I'm not sure who (besides the ambassador and his family) exactly would fall under this unwritten code, but I wouldn't be surprised if a Charge d'Affairs (who is, as Pengolodh said, a highlevel official) would also fall under that.
So while they are not breaking an international law, Nordmark and Denmark would be violating this unwritten code, that has been around since the ancient times.

Walter