On 2018-10-26 03:26, Allan Mustard wrote:
> Under the legal doctrine of extraterritoriality, the embassy or consulate is
> considered to be located in the sending country for purposes of legal
> jurisdiction. Extraterritoriality is virtually unlimited in the case of an
> embassy; it is more limited in the case of a consulate but still exists
Allan,
That doesn't sound quite right. As I read the UN conventions, the
diplomatic staff have some immunities which are linked to their personal
status and not linked to their being in the embassy buildings. The
premises themselves are inviolable by the host state, which means local
laws sometimes cannot actually be enforced without invitation from the
Ambassador. However, the embassy as a premises is still part of the
receiving country. Delivering pizza to them is not an export. The lease
contract is under the laws of the host country. Employment contracts for
support staff can be under the law of the host country. Their radio
transmitters need to be licensed by the host country. Diplomatic cars
have to pay speeding fines and parking tickets. But in the case of
violations, the only sanction available to the host country is basically
withdrawal of recognition of diplomatic staff.
Have I misunderstood your interpretation of "extraterritoriality"?
.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
