Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

How does the UK deny a sovereign nation’s determination?

Well, I guess nations do that all the time. Certainly I've heard of it in the last year or so.

  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/turkey-erdogan-president-us-ambassador-visa-latest-a7993116.html
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/11527987/Pope-Francis-refuses-gay-French-ambassador.html
  https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/254049/israel-won%27t-recognise-nz-ambassador

In a legal manner (and not because I'm a UK citizen) I presume the host nation can decline and then the proposing nation can find another one or send them anyway but risk that he falls foul of the law and the host country does not recognise any diplomatic immunity. In this case though, if the UK declines then he is still stuck in there with no way out.

I think its kind of strange really that we have spent all this money pursuing this guy for what was a minor warrant (that they wanted to speak to him) which has since been cancelled and think that we (the UK) should just say enough already and turn a blind eye to him leaving on a jet plane. Oh yeah, but the strange part is that it really seems as if its important to somebody that that doesn't happen.

the warrant was revoked, but prior to that he skipped bail, which is contempt of court

at worst it's a year in prison

Normally a country can reject a diplomat's entry into the country. Which makes sense, given the extent of diplomatic immunity. Therefore it does make sense that one cannot willy nilly change a person's diplomatic status while in country.

Edit: delete repeated words

Technically he is in Ecuador.

Not really, embassy’s are not the sovereign territory of the foreign country, the land still belongs to the host county, so officially he’s still in Britain, but is protected under the Vienna treaty

This sounds like you know more about the situation than I do. I just assumed it was considered foreign territory for all intents and purposes. (Maybe due to that treaty).

The other nation doesn’t get to decide what happens in the UK because the UK is also a sovereign nation.

Although it would be unusual, impolite and probably unwise, if the UK decides to enter the embassy by force and just take Assange, there isn’t a whole lot Ecuador could do about it, apart from making a big fuss. Ultimately it is the UK who decides to allow Ecuador the right to have an embassy on their soil in the first place and they can come back on that decision whenever they want.

Then of course you could argue Ecuador could abduct people from, for example, the British Embassy if they saw fit. It would set an incredibly unwise precedent.

I mean... Ecuador could, it's mutually assured abduction that keeps nations from doing this, but it's hardly unprecedented.

The host country has the right to accept or deny a diplomat's credentials. Here's the US Ambassador presenting his credentials to Queen Elizabeth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4E9LMK46oo

According to former ambassador Craig Murray, this applies only to head of mission (ambassador) : https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/01/ecuador-and-...

A host state may expel a diplomat, but may not remove/ignore their diplomatic immunity.

So.. problem solved? Make Julian a diplomat, let the UK Persona-Non-Grata him, requiring him to "return" to Ecuador?

Of course, there'd also be the problem of other countries denying the plane access to their airspace. They're probably upset with him over his role in the Snowden event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident

think that's the norm, really. Usually it is more a rubber stamping formality (Russia / Trump's US-to-Russia diplomat pick), but I imagine a country could reject a diplomat, especially if said the host country has a previous issue with the diplomat in question.

I'm a bit shocked at how brazen it is, honestly. Perhaps, if anything, it implies that Britain doesn't view Assange as a big issue anymore as doing what Ecuador did last month would almost certainly be viewed as a diplomatic slap in the face otherwise. It almost reads like their response was "haha--no"

I think the UK tried to pretend Assange isn’t a big issue anymore and Ecuador called their bluff. It’s an easily dismissed abuse of diplomatic process though.

Might makes right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com