> On 16 August 2012 22:42, Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:
> >
> > In the Assange case, the Brits would apparently have to violate
> > the embassy's extraterritoriality, which would be a Big Deal,
>
> Well, what they'd have to do is strip the embassy of its diplomatic
> status, which they're entitled to do as the host country.
Actually under the Vienna convention they have to have an unusually good reason. Think of the all the cases where other nations have NOT done this in response to more egregious cases. Incidentally, the whole "we arre obliged to Sweden to do this" did not seem to apply when Spain wanted Pinochet.
> Doing it for
> something like this would be unusual but not necessarily illegal in
> international law. Since the Brits don't recognise diplomatic asylum,
> and they don't have to, there's an argument that Ecuador itself is
> breaching international law by putting Assange out of reach of the
> British authorities on their own territory (embassies remain under the
> sovereignty of the host state, contrary to common misconception).
>
Again though Embassies put people out of reach on their own territory all the time, as the U.S. did in China as recently as this April.
> Obviously there's a point of principle here, although whether this is
> the best case for either side to make it on is another question.
>
I think Ecuador has a pretty good case. I don't agree with those who sneer away the rape investigation, but it is pretty obvious that it is being used as an excuse to turn Assange over to the U,S. for torture. And more or less by definition any case where an embassy offers refuge will be a case that the host country does not recognize as legitimate. If a host country can strip extraterritoriality as lightly as Britain threatens to do, it becomes pretty meaningless. Quite a number of reactionaries have called this threat over the top, because they don't like the precedent carrying it out would set. For this reason many people are arguing that it is an empty threat - that the UK won't dare do this because of the precedent. I'm not so sure, though I hope those making that argument are right. But it is possible that the UK is operating under another principle of International law, that international law is for little people.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow Solving the Climate Crisis web page: SolvingTheClimateCrisis.com Grist Blog: http://grist.org/author/gar-lipow/ Online technical reference: http://www.nohairshirts.com