Protection of foreign missions
THE Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 lays down the protocol of diplomats as well as the protection of diplomatic missions.
Article 22 of the Convention provides that the premises of the mission is inviolable and the receiving state (Bangladesh) is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against "any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity."
Of particular interest in the above Article is the use of the words "special duty," "to protect ... premises of the mission" as the missions represent sovereign states in the host country.
In addition, the principle of the inviolability of diplomatic premises was universally accepted as customary rule of international law long before the 1961 Vienna convention.
The term "inviolability" of the premises of the mission had been used in the 1895 Resolution of the Institute of International Law to denote the duty to protect the premises of diplomatic missions from any attack or intrusion.
One complicating factor in providing protection to foreign missions is the principle of the inviolability of premises, in other words, the premises of foreign missions are treated as if they have territorial integrity and are part of the sending country, and therefore cannot be occupied or entered.
In time, the term came to include the idea of "ex-territoriality," in other words, the diplomatic missions' premises were treated as an integral part of the sending country's territory, with its occupants being subject to the laws of their country of origin. For example, in recent times, ousted President Zelaya of Honduras was living inside the Brazilian Embassy in Honduras and the authorities of Honduras had to respect the inviolability of the premises of the Embassy by not entering it.
Any rights of the authorities of a host country to search and seize on the premises of a diplomatic mission are specifically excluded. If they do so without the permission of the head of the mission, it would be treated as a foreign invasion and a breach of international territoriality
In a few countries, no special protection is provided by the host government, even if requested. It is reported that in Singapore, no special protection measures are undertaken by the authorities, since crime is virtually non-existent and there is thus no need for such protection. Foreign missions are advised in Singapore that, if they feel the need for protection, they should appoint their own security staff. Furthermore, if requested, the Singapore police will "keep an eye" on the official residences of foreign missions.
The Swedish authorities will provide security measures only if specifically requested by a foreign mission, whereas ad hoc safety measures are provided in Hungary for such protection.
It would appear that very few receiving /host countries provide police protection on a permanent basis (stationed at the foreign mission) unless there is evidence of a threat to the safety of the diplomats or diplomatic premises, and then only if requested by the head of the mission.
Protection is also only provided by some governments on the basis of a threat assessment -- the gravity of the threat and the potential danger are first evaluated and only if it is felt that there is sufficient danger will protection be afforded.
The degree of protection is obviously determined by the level of threat or risk to the specific mission as assessed by the authorities. The appropriate security measures would obviously have to take into account an assessment of issues such as threats made, and declared intentions or propensities of some groups against members of a diplomatic mission in the receiving state.
The principle of inviolability implies that the provision of protection by the host country only extends to the perimeter of a diplomatic mission or consular office. In other words, guards or police personnel of the host states cannot patrol or be placed inside the premises or buildings of such missions.
Bangladesh, in general, provides police protection at the entrance of all premises and residences of heads of diplomatic missions in and outside Dhaka. Many heads of mission are also provided police escort for their movement from one place to another.
Article 47 of the Vienna Convention allows reciprocal treatment between states. It is reported that Bangladesh has deployed its own security personnel in missions in India and a few other countries and, therefore, it is argued that there is no breach of diplomatic protocol if India provides its own security forces within its mission in Dhaka. It is also reported that a few missions in Dhaka have also deployed their own security personnel within their premises.
The only condition is that the security personnel of the sending state must not patrol or be placed outside the premises of diplomatic missions. This means that security personnel, either in plain clothes or in uniform, must remain inside the premises of diplomatic missions.
The diplomatic privileges and immunities, including the inviolability of a diplomatic mission, are provided solely for the purpose for efficient performance of functions of diplomatic missions in peace and with dignity.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments