Limits of Diplomatic Immunity

Topic:
Country: Egypt
Delegate Name: Bethany Narducci

Legal Committee
Limits of Diplomatic Immunity
The Arab Republic of Egypt
Bethany Narducci
Forest Hills Eastern

Diplomatic immunity gives criminal protection to those involved in the government of a foreign nation, whether the individuals actually work for the government or are the family of a governmental employee. Many countries, including Egypt, use this policy when making decisions regarding prosecutions within their country. This immunity limits the degree of prosecution towards those from international organizations or foreign governments living in a host country. Diplomatic immunity specifically applies to criminal courts but is also held in high regard in civil courts. The immunity specifically targets the implementation of diplomatic immunity varies by country, with some host countries still pressing charges against foreigners depending on how bad their actions that resulted in legal trouble were. Diplomatic immunity only applies within a host country, resulting in potential prosecution once the diplomats return to their home country.

Egypt is a proponent of diplomatic immunity and sees this system as beneficial for both the home and host country involved. Egypt believes that by allowing the home country to press charges, the countries retain their power over their own citizens. Egypt also wants to be the only one allowed to prosecute their diplomats, most of whom face few charges when they make their way back to the Egyptian courts. Diplomatic immunity has proved to be extremely beneficial for Egypt when developing relationships with Western allies, such as the United States, as well as Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries.

Egypt believes that diplomatic immunity should remain an institution within the international legal courts, as it assists in the forming of good dynamics between two countries. Egypt acknowledges the differences in proceedings based on country but believes that each country should be allowed to respond to issues within their local courts and under their own jurisdiction. Egypt wants diplomatic immunity to continue to be implemented for all of their officials in foreign countries, without any forced limits upon how far this immunity extends. Egypt will apply this same level of immunity to each country, as they would like each country to have sovereignty over their own rulings.

Country: Israel
Delegate Name: Nina Hall

Israel
Nina Hall
Royal Oak High School

As it stands, the Vienna Convention has solidified diplomatic immunity for the most part. Yet there continue to be issues and abuse of diplomatic immunity and its privileges frequently. With many gaps in the system established by the Vienna Convention it is essential that we address the issues of diplomatic immunity and the unresolve it has caused in many nations.

It is recognized as the “landmark of the highest significance in the codification of international law” that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations was adopted successfully. Since the founding of the United Nations, it was the first significant codification of any international agreement. However, despite the codification, which is largely based on pre-existing international law, there are still some problems with the diplomatic protection’s reach. Unfortunately, there has been an increasing trend among diplomats in recent years of abusing their position to engage in illegal behavior while maintaining their immunity from legal action. Additionally, the States-parties make matters worse by selectively interpreting the rules in their favor, oblivious to the reality that reciprocity is essential to the effective operation of diplomatic protection. Yet in Israel, many embassies and their diplomats are under constant threat from terrorism and threats that are seriously affecting their security and ability to work. The conditions in which they are working are particularly difficult. Therefore, it is critical that we address the gaps in diplomatic immunity and protection with urgency and the utmost attention.

It should be underlined that criminal abuses of diplomatic immunity deserve extra attention among all other violations. Individuals were guilty of a wide variety of offenses, including murder, assault, child abuse, and driving while intoxicated. Considering the comparatively large number of foreign embassies and international organizations in these major international capitals like New York, Geneva, London, and Washington have been vulnerable to the occurrences of “diplomatic crimes.” It is also true that receiving states have frequently refused claims for diplomatic immunity on dubious justifications, such as the notion that such immunity is only granted for “official activities.” It is said that one of the main obstacles to the Vienna Conventions’ continuous success is the misuse of privileges and immunities by diplomats and the states that provide them.

The country of Israel believes that it is critical to address the specific limitations of diplomatic immunity as well as defining what it is and applying its rules in a universal manner. As we have seen, many issues that arose from diplomatic immunity have largely come from the different enforcements of the statutes or diplomatic immunity in different countries. Israel urges that this is of utmost importance as the clarification of diplomatic immunity is likely to prevent further disagreement in the future.

Country: United States of America
Delegate Name: Sarah Dixon

Legal Committee
Limits of Diplomatic Immunity
United States of America
Sarah Dixon
Forest Hills Eastern

Codified into international law by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, diplomatic immunity was created to provide diplomats with safety and protection from unjust prosecution by a host state. High-ranking embassy officials and their families are typically given the greatest degree of immunity, including protection from criminal courts and mostly from civil courts, while less immunity is offered toward other diplomatic personnel. Diplomatic immunity is usually extended to representatives of foreign nations in expectation of reciprocation. While the idea of diplomatic immunity is mutually shared around the world, host states often differ in their execution of its limitations. Under certain circumstances, diplomats may be detained by a host state while a request to waive immunity is considered by the home country. Diplomats may also be expelled back to their home country, where they remain unprotected from prosecution. Limits to diplomatic immunity are poorly defined, which many nations view as a problem requiring immediate rectification.

The United States of America adheres to the principles introduced by the Vienna Conventions through the US Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978. Generally, the US extends generous diplomatic immunity to visiting diplomats with the expectation of reciprocation from foreign nations host to US diplomats. Diplomatic immunity allows US diplomats to work more freely in host states less protective of individual rights. Similar to all nations, the US must request a waiver of immunity from diplomats’ home countries in order to advance cases concerning foreign diplomats to the courts. Such waivers are reviewed by these foreign nations, who can, like the US, reject such waivers in order to protect the principle of diplomatic immunity. The US recognizes the importance of achieving justice and maintaining proper relationships with foreign nations; thus, the US is willing to provide cooperation in the international investigation of crimes committed by its diplomats. However, the US is not inclined to consider any endangering extraditions of its citizens to another nation in order to be prosecuted. US diplomats, or related members, within the US who are under criminal investigation by foreign nations are to remain within the US, unless otherwise expressed by such people, throughout the duration of the case.

The United States of America recognizes the importance of diplomatic immunity, urging the Legal Committee to consider the implications of additional limitations. Diplomatic immunity enables states to maintain diplomatic relations and protects diplomats from unjust prosecution by host states with fewer individual rights. Limiting such crucial immunity is dangerous, but the US wishes to consider other opinions in order to reach a mutually beneficial conclusion. Nevertheless, foreign nations must acknowledge that cases concerning US diplomats should be negotiated between the involved states while the diplomat awaits prosecution on US soil. The US urges that these cases are handled first by the home country before seeking further charges.

Country: Romania
Delegate Name: Christian Boyce

Legal Committee
Limits of Diplomatic Immunity
Romania
Christian Boyce
Forest Hills Northern High School

Diplomatic immunity has been a principle in modern international relations since 1961 with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. This treaty codified the limitations on diplomatic immunity, a custom existing for thousands of years previously. Diplomatic immunity is in place to secure favorable relations between states by protecting diplomats from severe punishment when a crime is committed. This ensures that a diplomat can do their job effectively without fear of prosecution or detainment in the host country. While diplomatic immunity has been a success for the international community, reflection on the limitations of diplomatic immunity must be done.

Having signed the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in 1968, Romania supports diplomatic immunity and provides full protection for diplomats and their administrative staff. Neither can be arrested in Romania and have immunity from criminal jurisdiction. Recently,
Russia expelled a Romanian diplomat in retaliation to Romania’s expulsion of 10 Russian diplomats due to involvement in espionage activities. Romania desires to decrease the quantity of espionage activity among signatories of the treaty.

Romania believes that the limitations of diplomatic immunity should be extended to exclude espionage in favor of the sending country. While possibly creating tensions between states, it acts as a deterrent from the act of committing espionage, benefitting the relationship between the states long-term.

Romania believes that creating more regulation as to what lies under diplomatic immunity is necessary to ensure peaceful and friendly relations between states. Romania looks forward to working with all nations to create limitations on diplomatic immunity to ensure further peaceful international relations.

Country: United Kingdom
Delegate Name: Connor Argenzio

United Nations Legal Committee
Limits of Diplomatic Immunity
United Kingdom
Connor Argenzio
Forest Hills Northern High School

Diplomacy is the central pillar of our international community; without it, the world would likely fall into utter chaos. The United Nations recognizes this importance and has implemented protective measures. To that end, diplomats are protected by a concept known as ‘diplomatic immunity’; this principle exempts all foreign officials from culpability in their official and personal activities under local courts. This precept was established by the Vienna convention in 1961. This immunity is broad; under international law, high-level ambassadors, their deputies, and immediate family can commit crimes ranging from petty theft to murder without the fear of prosecution.
The United Kingdom, with 160 active embassies in London, is committed to protecting foreign diplomats and preserving international diplomacy. However, the UK and the world have recognized the evident drawbacks of such broad immunity. For example, this year, the British Supreme Court ruled that the diplomats do not receive diplomatic protection from breaches of modern slavery laws in Basfar v Wong by a majority of three. Moreover, in response to the death of Harry Dunn, caused by the wife of an American diplomat, the UK has revised its diplomatic immunity laws to ensure that the relatives of diplomats cannot kill with impunity. The new legal revision allows for the prosecution of family members. Both of these developments have reduced the unnatural immunity held by unimportant characters.
The UK is well aware of the necessity of diplomatic immunity. However, we in the UK have been made painfully aware of its shortcomings. The current diplomatic immunity laws were made 70 years ago in a drastically different geopolitical atmosphere. We are no longer in the cold war, and therefore, the UK moves that diplomatic immunity be curtailed. There is no reason for lower-level officials and non-government-associated individuals such as family members to have complete impunity of prosecution. Consequences must exist to maintain the integrity of the law. However, we support the diplomatic immunity of high-level diplomats and leaders. The Vienna convention must be amended to represent the current diplomatic realities better. The United Kingdom looks forward to working with all nations to further the ideas of diplomacy.

Country: Jordan
Delegate Name: Haiden Korhorn

Diplomatic immunity is the immunity of diplomats against civil laws. This gives immunity to diplomats meaning they will be protected from prosecution while under the title of a diplomat. Jordan’s views on Diplomatic Immunity are in relation to its allies such as the Unties States. Back in 1949, Jordan and the U.S. decided to share diplomatic relations meaning they were both aiming for peace. The U.S. helped take care of Jordan during this time from 1949-1967 by helping keep its economy stable and protect it from enemies.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Jordan had a hard time with their diplomacy. Since Jordan has good ties with Europe, they couldn’t intervene in the war which made them have to make decisions for themselves. They evacuated thousands of Jordanians from Ukraine while Russia invaded. Jordan later had to fight the urge to harm its diplomacy by not voting against Russia in the U.N. Jordan has had a hard time since the beginning of that to picking a side and chose who to stay loyal to. While they didn’t want to speak out and say whose side they were on, they were forced to stay quiet and stay neutral for their own safety since they have allies with the United States, Russia, and a lot of other European countries.
Another one of Jordan’s allies is Isreal. They had a small war a few decades back but since then their relations have gotten better. A shooting in Isreal in 2017 that led to two dead Jordanians made them question each other’s relations. Isreal invoked diplomatic immunity so that the shooter had immunity and couldn’t be questioned nor sent over to Jordan because of this incident.
Right now Jordan is sitting in a neutral position to not upset any of their really close allies to start anything they cannot finish. Jordan is relying on the United States to help make decisions and assist when needed. When it comes to diplomatic immunity, Jordan has had problems with it because of the Isreal situation but Jordan has refused to break any laws and has decided to keep it peaceful to not cause any tension with anyone.

Country: Germany
Delegate Name: Thien Truong-Phan

Country: Germany
Committee: LEGAL
Topic: Limits of Diplomatic Immunity
Delegate: Thien Truong-Phan
School: Williamston High School

Diplomatic immunity is when diplomats from foreign countries are exempted from certain laws when they are working in a country. It is meant to protect diplomats and allow them to carry out their work swiftly and securely. Diplomatic immunity can vary from person to person, mostly based on the power they hold, such as high ranking officials or ambassadors. Corruption in governments can lead to abuse in power, and diplomatic immunity in some cases allows for crimes to go unwarranted. Diplomatic immunity has caused some issues recently. Though diplomatic immunity is very important for the safety and job of the diplomat, we as a committee must look into this deeply and see if some things need to be changed.

Germany has protection for its diplomats, their families, and their personal servants. Section 18 and 19 of the German Courts Constitution Act state that diplomats, family members, and private workers have complete diplomatic immunity. This means that they are completely exempt from German Jurisdiction. If a diplomat were to commit a minor crime within the country, not much would be done other than informing the country that the diplomat is from, and let them decide what happens to the diplomat. In more severe cases and crimes, Germany will notify the country the diplomat is from and try to make them either reprimand them or take them out of the country.

Germany wants to move forward and cut down on problems that may occur if this problem is not solved. Though there has not been any severe cases of diplomatic immunity being abused in Germany, Germany will not wait until it does. Germany looks forward to working with its allies and any other countries that can find agreeable stances with Germany. Germany especially looks forward to working with the US and other NATO countries such as France and the UK.

Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo
Delegate Name: Adam Goudreau

Delegate:Adam Goudreau
Country:DR Congo
Committee: Legal
Topic: Limmits of Diplomatic Immunity
DR Congo believes it is important to examine and resolve the real problem of diplomatic immunity, preferably in a fashion that increases judicial equality. The legal treatment that favors diplomats and renders them “immune” to most criminal punishment is known as diplomatic immunity. This is a risk because it gives diplomats a pass to break the law. Most nations in the world—if not all—have diplomatic immunity.
Why should a diplomat be allowed to commit mass murder/crimes and get away with it? We need strict limmits to our diplomatic immunity. In the UK, an American Diplomat’s wife Anne Sacoolas was drunk driving when she hit and killed a teenager riding a motorcycle named Harry Dunn. Why should a Diplomat get away with murder but a Diplomat’s wife can’t get away with murder? DR Congo would like to work with the UN to greatly limmit the Diplomatic Immunity.
Some way the DR Congo would like to limmit the Diplomatic immunity is theft in DR congo the GDP per capity is around 550 US dollars a person. Diplomats who have well paying jobs should not be stealing from people in DR Congo or anywhere. DR Congo also believes that Diplomats should not have immunity from murder charges if a diplomat was going on a killing spree should the government be able to arrest them or not? The answer is clear limmitations are resonable and neccessary and they benefit all countries.

Country: Brazil
Delegate Name: Jake Brody

Country: Federative Republic of Brazil
Committee: Legal Committee (Legal)

Diplomatic immunity is meant to protect foreign officers from prosecutions and lawsuits of the country they are visiting, but in some cases this immunity is misused and taken advantage of. The issue at hand is how much immunity a diplomat should have and whether the limits on their immunity are enough. During the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the Model United Nations made diplomatic immunity into an international law. Diplomats are now free to do their jobs with independence and security.
In Brazil, diplomatic immunity is absolute under the legal system. Brazil believes in the independence and freedom of a foreign officer to conduct their work. Brazil’s position is to grant diplomatic immunity, within reason. Brazil grants sovereign immunity to its foreign officers. Sovereign immunity is broken up into two parts: judicial and enforcement immunity. Judicial immunity protects people employed by the judiciary from liability. Enforcement immunity protects someone absolutely, unless a constitutional law is broken. Judicial immunity is granted when acts of a diplomat are for the government or acts of the state, more specifically acts related to the sovereignty of a country. Acts committed relating to sovereignty will be granted judicial immunity. Acts that are private or commercial, that do not involve the government, will not be granted judicial immunity. Enforcement immunity is absolute and will always be followed by Brazil, unless sovereignty is broken or misused. Brazil believes that the immunity of a diplomat should be granted within reason. Immunity should only be granted if the intention of the diplomat is to better their country as a whole, and not for selfish gain. Brazil agrees with the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, which discusses functional and diplomatic immunity. Domestically, Brazil follows sovereign immunity and wants to promote this internationally as well.
A potential solution to the limits of diplomatic immunity is enacting accountability and granting sovereign immunity to diplomats and other foreign officers. Diplomats would be granted freedom and independence to conduct their jobs and would have to sign a contract. If they commit a crime in the country that they are stationed in they must be accountable for that crime. If the crime was not sovereign in origin and the contract is broken, the diplomat should not be given that immunity. They should neither be granted judicial immunity or enforcement immunity if their actions are for selfish gain, such as laundering money or bribing governments; they should be tried by the country they are in as well as their home country. Both countries affected should join together in prosecuting the diplomat, that way a fair and just trial can be achieved. Brazil affirms its ideal of sovereign immunity and hopes the United Nations adopts it.

Country: Spain
Delegate Name: Meredith McDonough

Diplomatic Immunity is the ruling that determines and limits an individual’s severity of prosecution or punishment who is positioned with foreign and international government organizations. This law primarily is in regard to high-ranking officials and ambassadors, who possess the highest level of immunity. While this is beneficial to those in possession of immunity, as well as their families, however raising the question of whether or not this system is sufficient or effective for victims. Within the UN, the organization simultaneously recognizes the privileges and responsibilities of its officials and staff members. However, the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies, states that members are granted immunity only within matters of legal responsibility, not for personal gain or accomplishment.

The Country of Spain recognizes the crucial role of diplomatic immunity as seen through their signature of the Vienna Convention treaty in 1967. After Spain’s transition into democracy after the death of dictator Fransico Franco, Spain adhered to expanding international peace-building and reconciliation. Likewise, Spain believes that this practice should be used justly towards diplomats and for ethical and moral reasons. continue to be implemented fairly within international law.

Spain believes that diplomatic immunity should be regulated and properly limited in order to ensure international peace. This would include establishing clear regulations on the qualifying factors of immunity and to what extent it should be regarded within states and host states. Establishing these changes would help ensure the diplomatic positions and responsibilities of diplomats and high-ranked officials, as well as ensure international peace and compromise.

Country: Guatemala
Delegate Name: Alessandra Alkema

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic relations has written diplomatic immunity into international law. This enables diplomats to do their jobs with security, independence, and freedom. Diplomatic immunity limits the degree to which diplomats from foreign nations can either be sued or prosecuted under the laws of the foreign nation where they commit a crime. This immunity can vary greatly among different nations. Incidents in recent years have brought questions about whether limits on this immunity are sufficient enough to bring justice and equality to hosting nations worldwide. High-ranking officials may experience a greater amount of immunity than another group of individuals, ultimately striking the discussion of the limits of diplomatic immunity. Tensions have arisen between different states over the justice of certain victims. This issue is relatively important to the country of Guatemala because of the growing corruption in its government that leads to the withdrawal of diplomatic immunities for some groups.

Guatemala recognizes the importance of discussing the limits of diplomatic immunity, as it is used within the Guatemalan justice system. The CICIG agrees to recognize how leaving and visiting diplomats enjoy privileges and diplomatic immunity from Guatemala. Despite this, corruption within high officials is still a growing issue, with cases arising each day involving criminal prosecutions. In 2018, Guatemalan authorities withdrew diplomatic immunity from 11 workers that were visiting diplomats with a U.N.-sponsored anti-graft commission, which has investigated alleged corruption cases. This has been one of the few instances where diplomatic immunity has been slightly discussed in Guatemala. Guatemala does not recognize this issue to be extremely important, as minimal efforts have been made to change the limits of diplomatic immunity. The CICIG mainly focuses on the growing impunity and inequality within the Guatemala justice system: the limits of diplomatic immunity are merely of small importance to the Guatemalan courts.

Guatemala has experienced some events and issues dealing with the question of diplomatic immunity, mainly on the authority of Guatemalan officials that have been allegedly or truly corrupt. Guatemala will not make any further or large action towards this relevant issue as it is not of huge importance in the nation. The main focus of the CICIG is not the limits of diplomatic immunity within Guatemala, noting the small instances of criminal prosecutions involving the topic. Diplomatic Immunity will remain for most high-ranking officials unless a question is raised about whether those groups have corruption or are deemed to spread inequality.

Country: Japan
Delegate Name: Julia Joo

Diplomatic immunity is a fundamental of international relations, dating back thousands of years. Diplomats operating in another country besides their own will receive amnesty for crimes committed by them or their immediate family members. This allows said diplomats to travel and work freely, even in times of armed conflict or civil unrest. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations dictates much of modern diplomatic immunity.

Japan signed the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in 1962. Diplomats operating in Japan are granted immunity from arrest or prosecution. However, recent events concerning the actions of diplomats and nations around the world are causing tension. In February of the current year, a Japanese diplomat was unlawfully detained and interrogated in the People’s Republic of China. China did not fulfill Japan’s request for a public apology. Also this year, a Japanese diplomat accused of espionage was declared persona non grata by Russia but not before being arrested and interrogated; This is a clear violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. In response, Japan called for the removal of Russian diplomats in northern Japan. This series of events has soured already tense relations between Japan and Russia. Japanese embassies around the world have also amassed two million dollars of foreign diplomats’ unpaid parking violations.

Japan believes the modern concept of diplomatic immunity requires clearer limits and regulations. Japan is of the opinion that while diplomatic immunity is no doubt necessary and reasonable, it is far too vague to prevent disputes between nations. Firstly, it should be established when and why it is reasonable for a country to waive diplomatic immunity. For example, crimes such as domestic abuse and manslaughter may require intervention of the diplomats’ nation. Additionally, there should be harsher consequences for nations such as China and Russia that routinely violate diplomatic immunity.

If these changes are enacted, no doubt will all the nations of the world be better off for it. Diplomatic immunity is mutualistic, and it should stay that way. International tensions caused by differences in diplomatic immunity would significantly decrease, and nations faulted would be compensated. Therefore, diplomatic immunity requires a stricter set of regulations.

Country: Turkey
Delegate Name: Ellie Thorburn

Diplomats have immunity to international law-making them able to do their jobs with their freedom, independence, and security. This limits individuals from other countries or organizations to be sued or prosecuted under the laws where they are being posted. This also immunes families from courts or civil courts. Host countries or states can limit the number of immunity diplomats can get every different from each country. However, the number of immunity diplomats can get can fuse tensions from other countries and can create problems.
Turkey is striving to avoid hierarchical relations with other countries. Political authorities in Turkey have been hard at work and have made high political and economic costs to maintain the country’s government. Ten countries tried to direct or subdue Turkey and degrade its political authority. The ambassadors of the ten countries (US, France, Germany, Canada, New Zealand, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands). They violated their mandate and abused their diplomatic immunity. Western countries want to continue efforts to pursue a hierarchical diplomatic relationship with Turkey and Turkey made a team of skilled diplomats with intense efforts and hard background to prevent another escalation of tensions. Turkey serves the interest of respecting the rules of diplomacy of both the country and the diplomatic counterparts.
Turkey feels that there should be limits on diplomats on their immunity. Diplomats still have their immunity but have an extent on their limits when they are in hosted countries. This way diplomats can not get away with serious crimes they have committed but can be let go if in situations that are not as great a concern. Countries that Turkey might consider allying with are the US, Iran, etc.

Country: Nigeria
Delegate Name: Brayden Hart

Delegate: Brayden Hart
Country: Nigeria
Committee: Legal
Topic: Limits of Diplomatic Immunity

Nigeria has open restrictions on diplomatic immunity and is very supportive of diplomatic immunity. The topic of diplomatic immunity needs to be very thorough in its rules so there are no opportunities for loopholes. There can be many different situations and rules that must be applied to certain countries in order to keep diplomats in order. Different rules of jurisdiction that certain countries have over diplomats or rules that apply to all diplomats. Overall, there needs to be a good set of rules that still allows some freedom to diplomats, but also not enough were they can get away with murder, and finally, good enough jurisdiction for countries to have power over the diplomats.
One way that diplomatic immunity can be solidified is by allowing governments to have jurisdiction over other countries’ diplomats as long as they are not corrupt and are allowed to have jurisdiction by vote of other countries. This is a great way to keep watch over corrupt diplomats since governments that are trusted and respected by other countries can be the ones to advise any diplomats. Certain countries like Nigeria should not have jurisdiction over diplomats if they are not worthy of the job. In this case, Other countries’ governments will have to take responsibility for their diplomats and any illegal actions they take.
Another topic that needs to be covered is the actual limitations that diplomats have to bypass any in various countries. Diplomats and their family can commit murder and basically go “over everyones heads” and not face any consequences. This is a problem that needs to be brought to the highest attention and fixed. This has a simple solution which would be to give diplomats limitations similar to the average human due to the lack of responsibility that they cannot handle. By this I mean diplomats cannot handle the immunity they are granted therefore cannot have full immunity and need to have a bit of a reduction of immunity.

Country: Russian Federation
Delegate Name: Micaela Story

Since the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the limitations on diplomatic immunity have remained relatively the same. The overall intent of the agreement reached by the convention was to efficiently ensure peaceful and friendly relations between states while respecting the rights and wishes of individual states. However, in recent years tensions between countries over the limitations of diplomatic immunity have arisen and it is becoming increasingly clear that the terms agreed upon at the Vienna Convention are no longer satisfactory for this day and age. Although most countries present at the convention have ratified the agreement, many states had declarations and reservations about doing so. Maintaining diplomatic relations and understanding the motivations of countries is more important than ever, especially in today’s political climate.

Russia was among the many countries that held objections to the treaty concerning the principality of equal rights of states in Article 11 paragraph 1. The Russian Federation believes any disagreement regarding the size of a diplomatic mission should be settled between the sending and receiving countries and not a third party. Russia also objects to the discriminatory implications of Articles 48 and 50 which preclude several states from acceding. The Russian Federation also believes these articles go against the principle of equal sovereignty in that they unlawfully bar other states from acceding to a convention that affects all states. The Russian Federation takes the treatment of its diplomats very seriously and strives to maintain consulates and embassies across the globe. Keeping in mind current events, the Russian Federation is outraged at the dismissive treatment of its diplomats by several European nations. The intention of diplomacy is to encourage channels of peaceful communication between states, and it is simply not possible to do that if states refuse to communicate with each other. As to the limitations of immunity, Russia believes that diplomats need to be protected now more than ever and that includes their immunity. Anything that makes it easier for diplomats to progress their missions needs to be pushed and any future limitations of immunity should be up to individual countries and not the UN.

Russia hopes that all of our nations will be able to work together to create a modernized agreement that upholds the values and principles of diplomacy, while still respecting the right of states to manage their own diplomatic affairs. The Russian Federation would also like to ensure that states have the freedom to make the decision of whether or not to waive the immunity of its diplomats at their own discretion and that the UN does not overstep its boundaries. Russia will continue to advance its diplomatic missions across the globe, and looks forward to working with the many nations it has diplomatic relations with across Africa and Asia.

Country: Indonesia
Delegate Name: Claire Williams

Legal Committee
Limits of Diplomatic Immunity
Republic of Indonesia
Claire Williams
Forest Hills Eastern

Diplomatic immunity was formally created in 1961 during the Vienna Convention, which defined the limits and degree to which individuals from foreign governments and international organizations can be sued or prosecuted under the state’s laws and is given to every country. Certain individuals may vary in the degree, for example, ambassadors or high-ranking embassy officials have the highest degree of immunity, including their family members. The officials and their family members are immune from criminal courts, and civil courts. Diplomatic Immunity describes how host states can enforce the limits of diplomatic immunity differently. They can disregard diplomatic immunity to ensure public safety, and they can also request the diplomat to be removed from the host state. Diplomatics is the negotiation between nations and can protect diplomats to a high extent, but they are not immune to prosecution within their home country.

The Republic of Indonesia ratified the Diplomatic Immunity of the Vienna Convention in 1982. Indonesia has had some incidents with foreign delegates in the past as well even with the limits to diplomatic immunity and caused a loss of sovereignty. Before the treaty maintained their international relationships by customary laws. Customary laws were the original laws of Indonesia. Customary laws use the Indonesian people to maintain, grow, and develop legal awareness. Since customary laws are an unwritten source, but since they are unwritten the laws can change and have the ability to adjust. Creating more of a self relent country and putting obvious barriers up to other countries. In the 1945 constitution, customary laws were added and required all states to abide by these rules. Even though the customary laws are based on sovereignty, Indonesia when finally signing the Limits diplomatic immunity was ordered to protect delegates, The Indonesian Supreme Court ordered a Circular Letter that defines how foreigners can enter Indonesia. The Supreme Court allowed disputing of employment relations with the representatives of foreign countries. Indonesia ensures delegates from other countries pay very close attention to applicable legal provisions in Indonesia relating to employment. One example is Indonesia’s legal foundations created Employment Agreements, Internal Regulations, and Termination of Employment in order to minimize disputes between local workers and foreign delegates. Indonesia has always been sovereign from other countries and has not played an active role in limiting diplomatic immunity. Only signing the treaty since it benefits Indonesia in a way that doesn’t create harm to the country and no interferences.

The Republic of Indonesia has not taken any stance on the limits of diplomatic immunity. Indonesia strongly believes in its sovereignty and does not want to address limits of diplomatic immunity nor see Indoniesa making any significant notions. Indonesia is self-reliant and uses diplomatic limits to keep control over Indonesia’s sovereignty and to protect the delegates of Indonesia from afar.

Country: China
Delegate Name: Isabella Frederick

Recently, the topic of diplomatic immunity and its limits has become a relatively controversial topic. Diplomatic immunity has always sparked disagreements but in light of recent events it has become highly debated. Although recent events have brought up controversy, China believes that the diplomatic immunity limits that are currently in place are fairly sufficient, only needing slight modifications like a more clear set of guidelines.

China strongly believes that diplomatic immunity is a right. China has both signed and ratified the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Along with signing and ratifying this convention they set up their own set of regulations called the Regulations of The People’s Republic of China on Diplomatic Privileges. China would like to continue with these regulations that allow diplomats to enjoy their sovereignty and would like the same treatment in return. The UN has only loosely regulated diplomatic immunity which is why the topic is continuing to cause issues. China, however, has not had many problems regarding the issue and believes it is their right to continue with the policies they currently have in place.

China suggests that a clear set of regulations is made regarding the topic of limits of diplomatic immunity. This would allow for less conflict due to the increased understanding of what diplomatic immunity is. China recommends that these regulations consist of reasonable limits to diplomatic immunity. They would like to protect the sovereignty of the diplomats while creating regulations that protect and maintain international peace.

Country: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Delegate Name: Jaelyn Andrick

Diplomatic immunity is when a diplomat of a country is protected against prosecution of a crime for however long they are a diplomat. Diplomatic immunity is applied to diplomats/leaders in almost every country around the world. Diplomatic immunity is becoming an issue, due to the diplomats being able to avoid many laws when in court. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea does allow diplomats to have diplomatic immunity. North Korea feels as though there should be no limits to diplomatic immunity, and that diplomats should be protected.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has not taken any actions on limiting the immunity that diplomats get. Diplomats deserve to have diplomatic immunity due to what they do for their country. Many other countries have tried to accuse many of North Korea’s diplomats of crimes, but due to diplomatic immunity, our diplomats are safe.

As the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, we believe that there should be no limits to diplomatic immunity. As The Vienna Convention states, a diplomat can enjoy their immunity, unless their immunity is waived by the diplomats’ own government. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea believes that the best way to solve this issue is to leave it up to the government of each country around the world. If a country wants to limit the amount of diplomatic immunity given to their diplomats, then they should be able to, but it shouldn’t affect every other country.

Country: South Africa
Delegate Name: Emerson Abbo

Legal
Limits of Diplomatic Immunity
The Republic of South Africa
Emerson Abbo
Forest Hills Eastern High School

Diplomatic immunity is the protection diplomats receive from foreign laws. Important government officials receive the most diplomatic immunity, with their families and those working under them slightly less. Those with diplomatic immunity are safe from criminal prosecution and most civil suits but must respect the laws of the country receiving them. More specifically, a host country has the power to send diplomats back and prosecute them with the consent of the diplomat’s home country. Diplomatic immunity serves as an important tool for limiting conflicts in diplomatic relations. However, diplomats are rarely held accountable for crimes committed in foreign states, as their home countries seldom repeal immunity. This leads to countless violations that undermine the United Nation’s ideals of fairness and accountability.

The Republic of South Africa strongly believes in the importance of diplomatic immunity, as it encourages peaceful negotiations between countries. There are around 330 foreign missions in South Africa, and over 10,000diplomats and their families are overseen by The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO). DIRCO is very diligent in its mission of encouraging peaceful international relations and even exempts the personal packages of important diplomats, using X-rays and detection dogs. Despite South Africa’s commitment to strengthen international relations, they recognize grossly inappropriate use of immunity and commit to maintaining justice in international relations. For example, in an assault case by Grace Mugabe, the former First Lady of Zimbabwe, South Africa issued an arrest warrant. South Africa disregards diplomatic immunity only in malevolent crimes and encourages other countries to reflect on its ample issuing of diplomatic immunity.

South Africa believes in exempting only deliberately violent crimes from diplomatic immunity and disregarding most else. While various injustices may occur, South Africa believes that not convicting diplomats for their crimes supports more justice and peace long term. Immunity encourages productive relations between states–an essential staple for the progress of peace and justice between countries.

Country: Poland
Delegate Name: Lucy Claire White

Poland believes that limits on diplomatic immunity are very important. Diplomatic immunity is crucial to Poland in order to help them keep peace with their neighboring countries especially Russia. Diplomatic immunity is a “free pass” given to foreign ambassadors making them exempt from the law under most circumstances. While limits on diplomatic immunity should be regulated in order to stop the abuse of power they are also necessary in order to keep peace between all countries.

Poland began using diplomatic immunity in 1919, as a result, these Polish officials are exempt from the law. Poland’s diplomats have used this system to their advantage including an incident involving a Polish diplomat attempting to smuggle Alcohol illegally back to Poland. Poland also has had to expel diplomats from their country the delegates diplomatic immunity has helped to keep peace and avoid unnecessary tensions between Poland and other countries, or at least helped to lesser the tensions. As Russia and Poland are consistently walking on shaky ground diplomatic immunity is necessary but does need to have firmer guidelines.

The UN has not established many firm guidelines on what people with diplomatic immunity can and cannot do and Poland believes that we should be improving and creating firmer guidelines. In order to do this we must establish what laws diplomats can and can not be exempt from. For example, would smuggling drugs go unpunished or would only small things be exempt like illegally parking or speeding. These are all things that need to be discussed in order to update the previous laws and regulations and to stop people from abusing their power. Obviously we cannot eliminate diplomatic immunity but we can clarify and regulate diplomatic immunity. Poland is prepared to do whatever it takes in order to maintain peace.

Country: France
Delegate Name: Luci Perez-Simons

Diplomatic immunity is a real issue that needs to be addressed and solved, preferably in a way that makes everyone more equal in a courtroom. Diplomatic immunity is the favoring of diplomats in a legal situation, making them “immune” to most punishment for crimes. This can be harmful as it allows diplomats to be less consistent with the law. Diplomatic immunity happens in most, if not all, countries in the world.
In France, diplomatic immunity fluctuates but has been more positive in recent years. Before 1929, diplomatic immunity was much more common, but after this year, it became less frequent, and France has adopted jurisdictional immunity, meaning that the state is more protected, but there are several loopholes to this law. Now, diplomats are not as hidden for crimes, but this constantly fluctuates.
So, how can this committee solve the issue? The best way to do so is by letting some immunity be possible. While equality is the best solution, previous resolutions, and issues passed in former sessions grants countries the right to have immunity in certain situations. While this is still valid reasoning, we can still make this a bit more specific. How can we do so? There should be requirements or something similar for diplomatic immunity. Though there are not a bunch of ways to particularly regulate this, there are ways that the committee can work this. It’s hard to completely ban diplomatic immunity, especially when there are many ways to hide it, but there can be an updated term to previous resolutions.
So, France believes that the best way to overcome this issue is by updating the terms to which diplomatic immunity plays. It cannot be completely banned/abolished, but there can most certainly be more rules that countries must follow when participating in this. Equality must be somewhat followed through in court, especially over simple cases when it does not at all deal with the country’s policies. If there were just a few more applied rules, this issue could be much easier to figure out. So, countries that believe in the same opinion should rise and join with France to solve this issue as best as we possibly can.

Position Papers for GLIMUN 2022 will appear above this line, with the newest being at the top.