Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T16:21:10.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

UK Foreign Affairs Committee Report on the Abuse of Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges: Government Response and Report

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Rosalyn Higgins
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 80 , Issue 1 , January 1986 , pp. 135 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Apr. 17, 1984.

2 May 1, 1984.

3 The Abuse of Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities: Recent United Kingdom Experience, 79 AJIL 641 (1985), by this writer, who was specialist adviser to the Foreign Affairs Committee. For another analysis and commentary, see Cameron, , First Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, 34 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 610 (1985)Google Scholar.

4 Cmd. 9497, Misc. No. 5 (1985) [hereinafter cited as White Paper].

5 H.C. Foreign Affairs Committee, Paper No. 127, First Report, The Abuse of Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges, Report With an Annex; Together with the Proceedings of the Committee; Minutes of Evidence Taken on 20 June and 2 and 18 July in the Last Session of Parliament, and Appendices, at xxxviii-xl (1984) [hereinafter cited as Report].

6 White Paper, supra note 4, at 3.

7 Report, supra note 5, para. 127.

8 Id., para. 127(b), and paras. 65–105.

9 White Paper, supra note 4, para. 82.

10 This case is somewhat puzzling, as it seems that the diplomat concerned had used the English courts earlier to secure a review of his rent; and it is at least arguable that he had thereby waived his immunity.

11 White Paper, supra note 4, para. 10.

12 This is partly circumscribed by the persona non grata provision in Article 9, and the authority to limit the size of a mission provided for in Article 11.

13 White Paper, supra note 4, para. 19.

14 Id., para. 21.

15 Id., para. 22.

16 Which provides for it only “where possible.”

17 White Paper, supra note 4, para. 22.

18 In exceptional circumstances, other relatives, e.g., dependent parents living with the member of the mission, are accepted.

19 White Paper, supra note 4, para. 25.

20 Id., para. 31.

21 Two of the 25 identified spies were working in international organizations in London and were not included in the reduction.

22 White Paper, supra note 4, para. 82(«).

23 And the present writer remains of the view that the events listed in paragraph 81 of the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report were properly to be characterized as of undoubted gravity.

24 White Paper, supra note 4, para. 31(c).

25 Id., paras. 34–38.

26 Id., para. 39.

27 Most other countries have never, in fact, interpreted “premises of a mission” to include tourist offices, and thus have never given them diplomatic status.

28 The White Paper here makes specific references to the powers under the United States Foreign Missions Act of 1982, 22 U.S.C. §§4301–4313 (1982); see Contemporary Practice of the United States, 78 AJIL 430–35 (1984), and 79 AJIL 1050–01 (1985).

29 See White Paper, supra note 4, paras. 41–56, and 57–73.