Editing Diplomatic immunity (section)

==History==

===Prior to modern period===

[[File:Krshna mediating between pandavas and duryodhana.jpg|thumb|[[Krishna]], an avatar of [[Vishnu]], [[Kurukshetra War#Krishna's peace mission|mediating for peace]] to avert the [[Kurukshetra War]] of [[Mahabharata]]]]

The concept of diplomatic immunity can be found in ancient Indian epics like ''[[Ramayana]]'' and ''[[Mahabharata]]'', where messengers and diplomats were given immunity from capital punishment. In ''Ramayana'', when the demon king [[Ravana]] ordered the killing of [[Hanuman]], Ravana's younger brother [[Vibhishana]] pointed out that messengers or diplomats should not be killed, as per ancient practices.<ref>{{cite book|last=Aravamudan|first=Krishnan|title=Pure Gems of Ramayanam|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CJe9BAAAQBAJ|year=2014|publisher=PartridgeIndia|isbn=978-1-4828-3720-9|pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=CJe9BAAAQBAJ&dq=%22ambassadors+are+not+sentenced+to+death%22&pg=PA773 773–774]}}</ref>

During the evolution of international justice, many wars were considered rebellions or unlawful by one or more combatant sides. In such cases, the servants of the "criminal" sovereign were often considered accomplices and their persons violated. In other circumstances, harbingers of inconsiderable demands were killed as a declaration of war. [[Herodotus]] records that when heralds of the [[Achaemenid Empire|Persian king]] [[Xerxes I of Persia|Xerxes]] demanded "earth and water" (i.e., symbols of submission) of Greek cities, the [[Athens|Athenians]] threw them into a pit and the [[Sparta]]ns threw them down a well for the purpose of suggesting they would find both earth and water at the bottom, these often being mentioned by the messenger as a threat of siege. However, even for Herodotus, this maltreatment of envoys is a crime.{{citation needed|date=September 2018}} He recounts a story of divine vengeance befalling Sparta for this deed.<ref>Herodotos. ''Histories''. Book VII, Ch. 133-134. (pp. 558–559 in the cited version.) Transl. Rawlinson, G. Wordsworth. Ware, Herefordshire. 1996. {{ISBN|1-85326-466-0}}.</ref>

A [[Ancient Rome|Roman]] envoy was urinated on as he was leaving the city of [[Taranto|Tarentum]]. The oath of the envoy, "This stain will be washed away with blood!", was fulfilled during the [[Pyrrhic War]].

[[Gregory of Tours]] recorded that [[Franks|Frankish]] envoys sent from King [[Childebert II]] to the [[Byzantine]] emperor [[Maurice (emperor)|Maurice]] were killed in [[Carthage]] by the prefect of the city, after one of the Franks had murdered a merchant. After Emperor Maurice heard about this, he ordered for several Carthaginians to be arrested and sent to Childebert for judgment on account of what happened to his envoys.<ref>Gregory of Tours. ''A History of the Franks''. Pantianos Classics, 1916</ref>

The arrest and ill-treatment of the envoy of [[Raja Raja Chola]] by the king of [[Kulasekhara dynasty (Second Cheras)]], which is now part of [[modern India]], led to the naval [[Kandalur War]] in AD 994.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Churchman|first1=David|title=Why we fight: the origins, nature, and management of human conflict|date=2013|publisher=University Press of America|location=Lanham|isbn=9780761861386|page=239|edition=2nd}}</ref>

The Islamic prophet [[Muhammad]] sent and received envoys and strictly forbade harming them. This practice was continued by the [[Rashidun caliphs]] who exchanged diplomats with the Ethiopians and the Byzantines. This diplomatic exchange continued during the [[Arab–Byzantine wars]].<ref name="FadlAbou2009">{{cite book|last1=Fadl|first1=El |last2=Abou |first2=Khaled|last3=Hopley|first3=Russell |editor=John L. Esposito|title=The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World: Creeds-Intercession|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KLiEAQAACAAJ|year=2009|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-530513-5|chapter=Diplomatic Immunity}}</ref>

Classical [[Sharia]] called for hospitality to be shown towards anyone who has been granted ''[[Aman (Islam)|amān]]'' (or right of safe passage). ''Amān'' was readily granted to any emissary bearing a letter or another sealed document. The duration of the ''amān'' was typically a year. Envoys with this right of passage were given immunity of person and property. They were exempt from [[taxation]], as long as they did not engage in trade.<ref name="FadlAbou2009"/>

As diplomats by definition enter the country under safe conduct, violating them is normally viewed as a great breach of honor. [[Genghis Khan]] and the [[Mongols]] were well known for insisting on the rights of diplomats, and would often take terrifying vengeance against any state that violated these rights; at times razing entire cities in retaliation for the execution of their ambassadors. The Mongols [[Mongol invasion of Khwarezmia|invaded and destroyed the Khwarezmid Empire]] after their ambassadors were mistreated.<ref name=Prawdin>[[Michael Prawdin|Prawdin, Michael]]. ''The Mongol Empire''.</ref>

===16th–19th century===

{{Unreferenced section|date=January 2021}}

The [[Parliament of Great Britain|British Parliament]] first guaranteed diplomatic immunity to foreign ambassadors under the [[Diplomatic Privileges Act 1708|Diplomatic Privileges Act]] in 1709, after Count [[Andrey Matveyev]], a Russian resident in London, was subjected to verbal and physical abuse by [[Bailiff#British Isles|British bailiffs]].

Modern diplomatic immunity evolved parallel to the development of modern diplomacy. In the 17th century, European diplomats realized that protection from prosecution was essential to doing their jobs, and a set of rules evolved guaranteeing the rights of diplomats. These were still confined to Western Europe and were closely tied to the prerogatives of nobility. Thus, an emissary to the Ottoman Empire could expect to be arrested and imprisoned upon the outbreak of hostilities between his state and the empire. The French Revolution also disrupted this system, as the revolutionary state and Napoleon imprisoned numerous diplomats who were accused of working against France. More recently, the [[Iran hostage crisis]] is universally considered a violation of diplomatic immunity. Although the hostage takers did not officially represent the state, host countries are obligated to protect diplomatic property and personnel. On the other hand, during [[World War II]], diplomatic immunity was upheld and the embassies of the belligerents were evacuated through neutral countries.

For the upper class of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, diplomatic immunity was an easy concept to understand. The first embassies were not permanent establishments but actual visits by high-ranking representatives, often close relatives of the [[Sovereignty|sovereign]], or by the sovereign in person. As permanent representations evolved, usually on a treaty basis between two powers, they were frequently staffed by relatives of the sovereign or high-ranking nobles.

[[War]]fare was a status of hostilities not between individual states but between their sovereigns, as well as the officers and officials of European governments, and armies often changed employers. Truces and ceasefires were commonplace, as was the fraternization between officers of opposing armies. If officers were taken prisoner, they usually gave their [[wikt:parole|parole]] and were only restricted to a city away from the theatre of war. Almost always, they were given leave to carry their personal sidearms. Even during the French Revolutionary Wars, British scientists visited the French Academy. In such an atmosphere, it was easy to accept that some persons were immune to the laws. After all, they were still bound by strict requirements of honour and customs.

===Modern era and Vienna convention===

In the 19th century, the [[Congress of Vienna]] reasserted the rights of diplomats; they have been largely respected since then, as the European model has spread throughout the world. Currently, diplomatic relations, including diplomatic immunity, are governed internationally by the 1961 [[Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations]], which has been ratified by almost every country in the world.

In modern times, diplomatic immunity continues to provide a means, albeit imperfect, to safeguard diplomatic personnel from any animosity that might arise between nations. As one article put it: "So why do we agree to a system in which we're dependent on a foreign country's whim before we can prosecute a criminal inside our own borders? The practical answer is: because we depend on other countries to honor our own diplomats' immunity just as scrupulously as we honor theirs."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.jinnah-institute.org/issues/252-raymond-davis-and-the-vienna-convention- |title=Raymond Davis and the Vienna Convention |publisher=Jinnah Institute |access-date=19 December 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110726203911/http://www.jinnah-institute.org/issues/252-raymond-davis-and-the-vienna-convention- |archive-date=26 July 2011 }}</ref>

During the 18 April 1961 Vienna Convention, the [[Holy See]] was granted diplomatic immunity to its [[nuncio|foreign ambassadors]] as well.<ref name="CNA2019">{{Cite web |title=Holy See waives diplomatic immunity for accused nuncio to France |work=Catholic News Agency |date=8 July 2019 |access-date=7 October 2019 |url= https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/41727/holy-see-waives-diplomatic-immunity-for-accused-nuncio-to-france }}</ref>

In the United States, the Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978 ({{UnitedStatesCode|22|254a}} et seq.) follows the principles introduced by the Vienna Conventions. The United States tends to be generous when granting diplomatic immunity to visiting diplomats, because a large number of US diplomats work in host countries less protective of individual rights. If the United States were to punish a visiting diplomat without sufficient grounds, [[United States House of Representatives|US representatives]] in other countries could receive harsher treatment. If a person with immunity is alleged to have committed a crime or faces a civil lawsuit, the [[United States Department of State|State Department]] asks the home country to waive immunity of the alleged offender so that the complaint can be moved to the courts. If immunity is not waived, prosecution cannot be undertaken. However, the State Department still has the right to [[Persona non grata|expel the diplomat]]. In many such cases, the diplomat's visas are revoked, and they and their family may be barred from returning to the United States. Crimes committed by members of a diplomat's family can also result in dismissal.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.answers.com/topic/diplomatic-immunity |title=diplomatic immunity: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from |publisher=Answers.com |access-date=19 December 2011}}</ref>