> On 17 August 2012 07:04, Gar Lipow <gar.lipow at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually under the Vienna convention they have to have an unusually good
> > reason.
>
> Which Article are you referring to?
>
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/374286/20120816/julian-assange-ecuador-foreign-office-embassy.htm
"The premises of the mission shall be inviolable," reads the convention. "The agents of the receiving state may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of mission."
If the nation can simply revoke diplomatic status arbitrarily that clause would become meaningless
>
> > Think of the all the cases where other nations have NOT done this
> > in response to more egregious cases.
>
> That's not a legal principle though. And besides, it works both ways.I can
> think of a lot of cases where nations have NOT granted asylum in
> more egregious cases...
All that means is that a nation is not *required* to grant asylum. But the fact other nations don't just arbitrarily revoke diplomatic status of Embassies even when it is in their self-interest to so indicates some sort of fear of setting a long term precedent.
> that has nothing to do with the validity of
> the case at hand.
>
> > Incidentally, the whole "we arre
> > obliged to Sweden to do this" did not seem to apply when Spain wanted
> > Pinochet.
>
> I'm not sure the two are really comparable. Pinochet occurred before
> the European Arrest Warrant came into existence and involved questions
> of the immunity of heads of state. Assange is a fundamentally
> different matter, occurring in a different legal framework.
>
> > 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.
>
> And again, that doesn't make it a rule of international law that they
> are entitled to do so without response from the host country.
>
> No, though I quoted the relevant passage. But it certainly is supporting
evidence. At least one expert on international law quoted in the above link
seems to disagree with you.
> > 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.
>
> I would say it is conceivable, but far from "obvious"
> .
>
> Anyway it seems to be a moot point, as it's just been reported (on my
> radio anyway) that Britain is now saying they won't enter the embassy,
> but just won't give safe passage.
>
Well have not heard that yet, but if so it seems to support that it is not as clear as you seem to think that they have the right to do it. Generally claiming a right that in practice nullifies a treaty is seldom allowed under international treaties. The fact that diplomatic status of an embassy can be revoked in extreme circumntances does not mean in can be revoked lightly on any basis the host nation local law says. If it did, diplomatic status would be meaningless. The principle being violated would not be "Diplomatic Asylum" but extraterritoriality which is pretty fundamental to whole structure the way embassies and consuls work. Because the UK does not recognize diplomatic asylum, Assange will be trapped in the embassy, subject to arrest if he sets foot outside its bounds. But for the UK to revoke diplomatic status of the embassy itself would be another matter.
> ___________________________________
> 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