Julian Assange Options

[Simon Kirby]

I think Sweden is a civilised country in which JA will get a fair trial, that he is less likely to be extradited to the US from Sweden than from here, and that he needs to stand trial for his alleged crimes. However, the OP addressed the much narrower question of whether it was ever right for the UK government to force its way into a foreign embassy, and my feeling is that an embassy must always be inviolate. There are circumstances where I believe it is right to invade the soverign territory of a foreign nation, but it's a founding principle of deplomacy upheld by every civilised nation that an embassy is inviolate, and if the UK unilaterally breaks that covenant we'll be an international pariah and our own embassies will rightly be an open door in every unfriendly nation. If Ecuador want to harbour him that's up to them, and we just have to wait until he comes out.

[Darren]

I don't see him coming out any time soon. Even if there is an agreement with the Ecuadorian government for 'safe passage', where will he go? Every country who has signed up to the EAW will be off limits, along with any country that Sweden has an extradition treaty with and lets face it, USA is an no-no regardless. The Embassy is a 3-room office in a building in Kensington and having someone sleeping, eating and who knows what else is not exactly easy for the Ambassador. All it wants is them to have a row over toenails in the bath or leaving the toilet seat up and JA could be out the door soonere than he thinks...

Unless JA fancies a life in South America or countries like Iran or North Korea, he needs to get the allegations settled. While Ecuador may have granted him asylum, that doesn't give him diplomatic immunity and will still be liable to arrest.

[NORTHENDER]

What would happen if he was made an Ecuadorian citizen and then an Ecuadorian diplomat? Would he have safe passage out of the country as the Yvonne Fletcher killers had?

[On the edge]

What would happen if he was made an Ecuadorian citizen and then an Ecuadorian diplomat? Would he have safe passage out of the country as the Yvonne Fletcher killers had?

If he was accredited - then yes he would.

[Darren]

If he was accredited - then yes he would.

Exactly, but as it's down to the host country to issue the accreditation, I cannot see the FCO agreeing to that. The Ecuadorian Embassy have also been reminded about the correct use of the Diplomatic Bag

[On the edge]

Quite so - he stays inside the Embassy. Its now just a waiting game. Given the media histrionics on both Swedish and US issues, his chances of a really fair trial aren't good. Nevertheless, both were self created high risk situations - play with fire, get burnt.

[Simon Kirby]

Exactly, but as it's down to the host country to issue the accreditation, I cannot see the FCO agreeing to that. The Ecuadorian Embassy have also been reminded about the correct use of the Diplomatic Bag

It's my understanding of the Vienna Convention that Ecuadore could appoint JA to its diplomatic technical staff without him needing to take Ecuadorian nationality and without requiring the UK's consent. JA would then have immunity from the UK's criminal jurisdiction from the time the Ecuadorians notify the UK government of his appointment. It's only the head of mission who is required to present credentials.

Article 8 of the convention says that in principle diplomatic staff should be Ecuadorians but it doesn't require it. The UK is entitled to "reserve the right" to approve the appointment of non-Ecuadorians, but I'm guessing that means this is some arrangement it would have to have made with the Embassy when it was first recognized and I haven't heard anything about whether the UK made that arrangement or not.

JA wouldn't get diplomatic immunity if he was permanently resident in the UK at the time of his appointment, but I don't think he is, he doesn't really have a permanant residence. He gave an Australian address when he appeard in court.

If the Ecuadorians appointed him to their diplomatic staff all the UK could do would be to declare him persona non grata and even then they would be bound by international law to give him free passage out of the country.

[Penelope]

It's my understanding of the Vienna Convention that Ecuadore could appoint JA to its diplomatic technical staff without him needing to take Ecuadorian nationality and without requiring the UK's consent. JA would then have immunity from the UK's criminal jurisdiction from the time the Ecuadorians notify the UK government of his appointment. It's only the head of mission who is required to present credentials.

Article 8 of the convention says that in principle diplomatic staff should be Ecuadorians but it doesn't require it. The UK is entitled to "reserve the right" to approve the appointment of non-Ecuadorians, but I'm guessing that means this is some arrangement it would have to have made with the Embassy when it was first recognized and I haven't heard anything about whether the UK made that arrangement or not.

JA wouldn't get diplomatic immunity if he was permanently resident in the UK at the time of his appointment, but I don't think he is, he doesn't really have a permanant residence. He gave an Australian address when he appeard in court.

If the Ecuadorians appointed him to their diplomatic staff all the UK could do would be to declare him persona non grata and even then they would be bound by international law to give him free passage out of the country.

But this would serve to ratchet up the situation and may be something of a step to far for the Equadorians to take. It's a bit of a poser, who breaks first? Who is willing to lose the most face?

[Simon Kirby]

But this would serve to ratchet up the situation and may be something of a step to far for the Equadorians to take. It's a bit of a poser, who breaks first? Who is willing to lose the most face?

It would be an escalation, you're right, but I don't suppose the Ecuadorians are that happy with the UK's threat to invade their embassy, that for my money was a reckless threat and the UK need to apologise for it.