Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations does not contain any explicit clause on diplomatic asylum. The temporary refuge offered by legations and embassies is however a currently used practice and states and governments can live together with it, even if its lawfulness was always subject to discussion. The article highlights this extended practice with the help of examples from the twentieth century from Europe, Asia, Africa and America.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.
The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
The private residence of a diplomatic agent shall enjoy the same inviolability and protection as the premises of the mission.
His papers, correspondence and, except as provided in paragraph 3 of article 31, his property, shall likewise enjoy inviolability.
Eileen Denza, Diplomatic Law, Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Oxford Commentaries on International Law, 3rd edn, OUP 2008) 141.
Patrick Daillier, Mathias Forteau, Nguyen Quoc Dinh, Alain Pellet, Droit international public (8th edn, LGDJ 2009), s 460, 751.
L’asile en droit international public (à l’exclusion de l’asile neutre), for the full text see: http://www.justitiaetpace.org/idiF/resolutionsF/1950_bath_01_fr.pdf, accessed 22 May 2016.
Ratified by: Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic and Uruguay. (Status as of 2014).
Ratified by: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Dominican Republic. (Status as of 2014).
Ratified by: Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic, Uruguay and Venezuela. (Status as of 2014).
Title II on asylum refers to territorial asylum (articles 15, 16 and 18) and diplomatic asylum (article 17):
Such persons as may be charged with non-political offences and seek refuge in a legation shall be surrendered to the local authorities by the head of the said legation, at the request of the Ministry of Foreign Relations, or of his own motion.
Said asylum shall be respected with regard to political offenders, but the head of the legation shall be bound to give immediate notice to the Government of the State to which he is accredited; and the said Government shall have the power to demand that the offender be sent away from the national territory in the shortest possible time.
The head of the legation shall, in his turn, have the right to require proper guarantees for the exit of the refugee without any injury to the inviolability of his person.The same rule shall be applicable to the refugees on board a man-of-war anchored in the territorial waters of the State.
Article I: “It is not permissible for States to grant asylum in legations, warships, military camps or military aircraft, to persons accused or condemned for common crimes, or to deserters from the army or navy. (….)”
Article II: “Asylum granted to political offenders in legations, warships, military camps or military aircraft, shall be respected to the extent in which allowed, as a right or through humanitarian toleration, by the usages, the conventions or the laws of the country in which granted and in accordance with the following provisions:
First: Asylum may not be granted except in urgent cases and for the period of time strictly indispensable for the person who has sought asylum to ensure in some other way his safety.
Second: Immediately upon granting asylum, the diplomatic agent, commander of a warship, or military camp or aircraft, shall report the fact to the Minister of Foreign Relations of the State of the person who has secured asylum, or to the local administrative authority, if the act occurred outside the capital. (…)”.
Colombia v Peru asylum case, (Judgment)  ICJ Rep 266, 282.
Montevideo Convention, Article 1: “In place of Article 1 of the Convention of Havana on Right of Asylum, of February 20, 1928, the following is substituted: ‘It shall not be lawful for the States to grant asylum in legations, warships, military camps, or airships to those accused of common offenses who may have been duly prosecuted or who may have been sentenced by ordinary courts of justice, nor to deserters of land or sea forces.
The persons referred to in the preceding paragraph who find refuge in some of the above-mentioned places shall be surrendered as soon as requested by the local government.
Montevideo Convention, Article 2: “The judgment of political delinquency concerns the State which offers asylum”.
Caracas Convention, Article I: “Asylum granted in legations, war vessels, and military camps or aircraft, to persons being sought for political reasons or for political offenses shall be respected by the territorial State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention. For the purposes of this Convention, a legation is any seat of a regular diplomatic mission, the residence of chiefs of mission, and the premises provided by them for the dwelling places of asylees when the number of the latter exceeds the normal capacity of the buildings. War vessels or military aircraft that may be temporarily in shipyards, arsenals, or shops for repair may not constitute a place of asylum”.
Caracas Convention, Article II: “Every State has the right to grant asylum; but it is not obligated to do so or to state its reasons for refusing it”.
Caracas Convention, Article V: “Asylum may not be granted except in urgent cases and for the period of time strictly necessary for the asylee to depart from the country with the guarantees granted by the Government of the territorial State, to the end that his life, liberty, or personal integrity may not be endangered, or that the asylee’s safety is ensured in some other way”.
Article VI: “Urgent cases are understood to be those, among others, in which the individual is being sought by persons or mobs over whom the authorities have lost control, or by the authorities themselves, and is in danger of being deprived of his life or liberty because of political persecution and cannot, without risk, ensure his safety in any other way”.
Article VII: “If a case of urgency is involved, it shall rest with the State granting asylum to determine the degree of urgency of the case”.
Article IX: “The official furnishing asylum shall take into account the information furnished to him by the territorial government in forming his judgment as to the nature of the offense or the existence of related common crimes; but this decision to continue the asylum or to demand a safe-conduct for the asylee shall be respected”.
Caracas Convention, Article I: “(…) For the purposes of this Convention, a legation is any seat of a regular diplomatic mission, the residence of chiefs of mission, and the premises provided by them for the dwelling places of asylees when the number of the latter exceeds the normal capacity of the buildings. (…)”
ICJ Colombia v Peru asylum case, 282-83.
ICJ Colombia v Peru asylum case, 272.
“In the absence of precise data, it is difficult to assess the value of such cases as precedents tending to establish the existence of a legal obligation upon a territorial State to recognize the validity of asylum which has been granted against proceedings instituted by local judicial authorities. The facts which have been laid before the Court show that in a number of cases the persons who have enjoyed asylum were not, at the moment at which asylum was granted, the object of any accusation on the part of the judicial authorities. In a more general way, considerations of convenience or simple political expediency seem to have led the territorial State to recognize asylum without that decision being dictated by any feeling of legal obligation.
If these remarks tend to reduce considerably If these remarks tend to reduce considerably the value as precedents of the cases of asylum cited by the Government of Colombia, they show, none the less, that asylum as practised in Latin America is an institution which, to a very great extent, owes its development to extra-legal factors. The good-neighbour relations between the republics, the different political interests of the governments, have favoured the mutual recognition of asylum apart from any clearly defined juridical system. Even if the Havana Convention, in particular, represents an indisputable reaction against certain abuses in practice, it in no way tends to limit the practice of asylum as it may arise from agreements between interested governments inspired by mutual feelings of toleration and goodwill”. ICJ Colombia v Peru asylum case, 286.
“In principle, it is inconceivable that the Havana Convention could have intended the term “urgent cases” to include the danger of regular prosecution to which the citizens of any country lay themselves open by attacking the institutions of that country; nor can it be admitted that in referring to “the period of time strictly indispensable for the person who has sought asylum to ensure in some other way his safety”, the Convention envisaged protection from the operation of regular legal proceedings”. ICJ Colombia v Peru asylum case, 284.
“The foregoing considerations lead us to reject the argument that the Havana Convention was intended to afford a quite general protection of asylum to any person prosecuted for political offences, either in the course of revolutionary events, or in the more or less troubled times that follow, for the sole reason that it must be assumed that such events interfere with the administration of justice. It is clear that the adoption of such a criterion would lead to foreign interference of a particularly offensive nature in the domestic affairs of States; besides which, no confirmation of this criterion can be found in Latin-American practice, as this practice has been explained to the Court”. ICJ Colombia v Peru asylum case, 286.
“In principle, therefore, asylum cannot be opposed to the operation of justice. An exception to this rule can occur only if, in the guise of justice, arbitrary action is substituted for the rule of law. Such would be the case if the administration of justice were corrupted by measures clearly prompted by political aims. Asylum protects the political offender against any measures of a manifestly extra-legal character which a government might take or attempt to take against its political opponents”. ICJ Colombia v Peru asylum case, 284.
ICJ Colombia v Peru asylum case, 288.
ibid, p 287.
Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the Colombia v Peru asylum case, (Judgment)  ICJ Rep 395.
The Fall and Rise of Chilean Democracy: 1973-1989, 153. http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs13/Diplomats_Handbook-red.pdf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nifty_Package, accessed 22 May 2016.
“Meanwhile, Monsignor Laboa petitioned both Panama and the Vatican to agree to extend the embassy property to include another building; where he had Noriega’s four companions moved to prevent them from encouraging Noriega to stay under Vatican sanctuary - allowing him to convince Noriega to leave”, ibid.
See also Andrew Rosenthal, ‘NORIEGA’S SURRENDER: CHRONOLOGY; Vatican Issues an Ultimatum and a General Takes a Walk’ (New York Times, 5 January 1990).
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/05/world/noriega-s-surrender-chronology-vatican-issues-ultimatum-general-takes-walk.html, accessed 22 May 2016. For a short analysis, see: Sir Ivor Roberts, Satow’s Diplomatic Practice (6th edn, OUP 2009), s 8.12.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2009907.stm, accessed 22 May 2016.
Press Release No. 2009/30, 29 October 2009, “Filing in the Registry of the Court of an ‘Application instituting proceedings by the Republic of Honduras against the Federative Republic of Brazil’”.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/147/15585.pdf, accessed 22 May 2016.
Press Release No. 2010/15, 19 May 2010, “Certain Questions concerning Diplomatic Relations (Honduras v. Brazil), Case removed from the Court’s List at the request of Honduras”. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/147/15937.pdf, accessed 22 May 2016.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/235430, accessed 22 May 2016.
The heading is the following:
Wednesday, 18 November 2009, 17:29 S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 11 STATE 119085 SECRET//NOFORN EO 12958 DECL: 11/17/2034 TAGS ASEC, CVIS, PINR, PREF SUBJECT: WALK-IN GUIDANCE FOR 2009: HANDLING FOREIGN NATIONAL WALK-INS, DEFECTORS, AND ASYLUM SEEKERS REF: (A) 08 STATE 061194 (B) 7 FAM 180 (C) 09 STATE 030541 (D) 04 STATE 061816 (E) 2 FAM 227 (F) 08 STATE 110175 (G) 09 STATE 110904 (H) 9 FAM 42.1 N4, PN2-5, and PN7.
It helps us in the assessment of the authenticity if we compare the similarity of this text with the diplomatic records that we cite infra from the FRUS documentation in the Cardinal Mindszenty case.
Alison Duxbury, ‘Assange and the Law of Diplomatic Relations’ ( 2012) 16 ASIL Insights 32, 1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_Guangcheng, accessed 22 May 2016.
Denza (n 3) 142.
Francisco J Romero Salvadó, Historical Dictionary of the Spanish Civil War (Scarecrow Press 2013) 266.
The expression is taken from the title of the following book: John Flournoy Montgomery, Hungary the Unwilling Satellite (Devin-Adair Co 1947).
Nicholas Kállay, Hungarian Premier: A Personal Account of a Nation’s Struggle in the Second World War, foreward by CA Macartney, (Columbia University Press 1954). (Page reference from the Hungarian version: Kállay Miklós, Magyarország miniszterelnöke voltam 1942-1944 (Europa Historia, Budapest 1991) 197-212, 209. [At this point, Kállay’s memoirs should be slightly corrected. In fact, Filov asked for refuge not in the legation but at the envoy’s villa-residence in the famous resort Chamkoria (today: Borovec) in the Rila Mountain on 8 September 1944. The envoy informed the new Bulgarian, coalitional Government led by General Georgiev of the grant of refuge and the Government accordingly ordered Filov’s arrest on 12 September 1944. The Government arrested him and handed him, along with other arrested politicians, to the Soviet Army to be sentenced in Bulgaria by the so-called people’s court (extraordinary tribunal for liquidating political enemies) and executed in February 1945- The authors of this article are grateful for the valuable help of Assistant Professor Dobromir Mihajlov for clarifying the events in Bulgaria, on the basis of the following book: Maria Zlatkova, Bogdan Filov. Zhivot mezshdu naukata I politikata (Life between Science and Politics) (Alteia 2007), 294-295
Edelsheim Gyulai Ilona, Becsület és kötelesség (Honour and Obligation) (Europa 2000), 330-331
(The author’s name covers the Governor’s daughter-in-law whose memoirs were published some years before her death).
‘The Auschwitz Protocol: The Vrba-Wetzler Report’ (transcribed from the original OSI report of the United States Department of Justice & the War Refugee Board Archives, Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team) http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/othercamps/auschproto.html, accessed 22 May 2016.
This was the case of El Salvador. Its consul in Bern, Jose Arturo Castellanos with his deputy George Mantello were in close contacts with Carl Lutz, the Swiss consul in Budapest charged also with delivery of El Salvadorian “citizenship certificates” ( http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/saviors/others/el-salvador-rescuing-country/, accessed 22 May 2016). In the same manner, the Portuguese legation worked also for Brazil.
For those who know Budapest, the international ghetto or small ghetto could be located to the north, from the Margit bridge at the Pest side of the capital.
According to László Karsai, the leading expert on the Hungarian Holocaust, 76 buildings were protected by the Swiss legation and 36 by the Swedish. (Source: László Karsai, Az ismeretlen Wallenberg (The Unknown Wallenberg), (Népszabadság 2007) p 13. The ICRC had more than 30 orphanages.
Janos Kadar was also a high ranking communist party member of Nagy’s Government who accepted to lead a Moscow oriented policy. He stayed in power until 1988/1989 as General Secretary of the Communist Party.
In a secret meeting on 2-3 November at the Adriatic Brioni Island, the Yugoslav leader Tito convinced the Soviet Khrushchev to trust Kadar and apparently also offered cooperation to isolate Nagy during the changing of the regime. On 8 November, the Yugoslav Foreign Minister Ranković made a formal proposal to Nagy to step down, thus contributing to the normalization of the situation. For more details, see e.g.: Johanna Cushing Granville, The First Domino: International Decision Making During the Hungarian Crisis of 1956 (Texas A&M University Press 2004). See the Chapter on the “Agreement” at Brioni, 105-110, and in particular 109. (The original source is work of the Yugoslav Ambassador to Moscow: Veljko Micunovic, Moscow Diary (with Introduction by George Kennan) (Doubleday 1980)).
Mindszenty József, Emlékirataim (Apostoli Szentszék Kiadója 1989). English version: Memoirs by Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty (Widenfeld and Nicholson 1974).
John P. Glennon (ed), FRUS 1955-1957, Volume XXV, Eastern Europe (United States Government Printing Office 1990).
Turchányi left the building several times but he could not escape the arrest and he was condemned to life imprisonment.
Mindszenty, (n 63) 443-444. (The word “asylum” was used by Mindszenty.)
ibid 444, Wailes, the chargé d’affaires telegraphed as follows: “Kovacs apparently left but may come back and I will let him in vestibule with his lieutenants with firm understanding it is tentative and no asylum is granted”. FRUS XXV, 384.
FRUS XXV, 386.
FRUS XXV, 386-387.
FRUS XXV, 387.
5 November 1956. Participants: Eisenhower, Nixon, Phleger, Hagerty, Goodpaster. Phleger’s assessment. FRUS XXV, 394.
“Washington, January 24, 1957: Since Cardinal Mindszenty was granted refuge in our Legation in Budapest our position, which has been repeatedly made known to him, has been that he could not be allowed to use our Legation as a base of operation. (…) A possible solution would be to accept occasional oral messages of a brief and personal nature for transmission”. FRUS XXV, 555-556.
Mindszenty, (n 63) 479.
Mindszenty, (n 63) 473, 479.
Simona Leonavičiüte, ‘Diplomatic Asylum in the Context of Public International Law’ (Masters thesis, Mikolas Romeris University 2012), 47. http://vddb.library.lt/fedora/get/LT-eLABa-0001:E.02~2012~D_20120703_133030-41044/DS.005.1.01.ETD.
Cole Charles V, ‘Is There Safe Refuge in Canadian Missions Abroad?’ ( 1997) 9 (4) International Journal of Refugee Law 659, cited by Leonavičiüte, ibid 47.
Leonavičiüte, (n 75 ) 46.
John Benjamin Roberts, ‘Diplomatic Asylum: An Inappropriate Solution for East Germans Desiring to Move to the West’ ( 1987) Temple International and Comparative Law Journal, 236 and 237.
ibid, 231 and 234.
Denza (n 3) 142.
Leonavičiüte, (n 75 ) 48.
Alison Duxbury, ‘Assange and the Law of Diplomatic Relations’ ( 2012) 16 ASIL Insights 32 1.
News Release No. 042 Statement of the Government of the Republic of Ecuador on the asylum request of Julian Assange, 10 May 2013: “(…) The Government of Ecuador, faithful to the asylum procedure, and attributing the greatest seriousness to this case, has examined and assessed all the aspects implied, particularly the arguments presented by Mr. Assange backing up the fear he feels before a situation that this person considers as a threat to his life, personal safety and freedom. It is important to point out that Mr. Assange has made the decision to request asylum and protection from Ecuador because of the accusations that, according to him, have been formulated for supposed “espionage and betrayal” with which the citizen exposes the fear he feels about the possibility of being surrendered to the United States authorities by the British, Swedish or Australian authorities, thus it is a country, says Mr. Assange, that persecutes him because of the disclosure of compromising information for the United States Government. He equally manifests, being “victim of a persecution in different countries, which derives not only from his ideas and actions, but from his work by publishing information compromising the powerful ones, by publishing the truth and, with that, unveiling the corruption and serious human rights abuses of citizens around the world”. (…) That, according to several public statements and diplomatic communications made by officials from Great Britain, Sweden and the United States, it is deduced that those governments would not respect the international conventions and treaties and would give priority to internal laws of secondary hierarchy, contravening explicit norms of universal application; (…) Accordingly, the Ecuadorian Government considers that these arguments back up Julian Assange’s fears, thus he can be a victim of political persecution, as a consequence of his determined defense to freedom of expression and freedom of press, as well as his position of condemn to the abuses that the power infers in different countries, aspects that make Mr. Assange think that, in any given moment, a situation may come where his life, safety or personal integrity will be in danger. This fear has leaded him to exercise his human right of seeking and receiving asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in the United Kingdom. (…) Julian Assange’s lawyers requested the Swedish justice to take statements of Julian Assange in the premises of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Ecuador translated officially to the Swedish authorities its will to facilitate this interview with the purpose of not intervening or obstacle the judicial process that is carried out in Sweden. This is a perfectly legal and possible measure. Sweden did not accept it. On the other hand, Ecuador searched the possibility that the Swedish Government would establish guarantees to avoid the onward extradition of Assange to the United States. Again, the Swedish Government rejected any commitment on that sense. (…) With these antecedents, the Government of Ecuador, faithful to its tradition to protect those who seek shelter in its territory or in the premises of its diplomatic missions, has decided to grant diplomatic asylum to the citizen Julian Assange, on the basis of the request presented to the President of the Republic, through a written communication dated in London on June 19, 2012, and complemented by a communication dated in London on June 25, 2012, for which the Ecuadorian Government, after carrying out a fair and objective assessment of the situation exposed by Mr. Assange, attending his own sayings and argumentations, intakes the requester’s fears, and assumes that there are indications that allow to assume that there may be a political persecution, or that such persecution may be produced if the opportune and necessary measures are not taken to avoid it. (…)”
‘Profile: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’ (BBC News) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-1104781122, accessed 22 May 2016.
Sir Ivor Roberts, (n 38) s 8.26.
Denza, (n 3) 142.
Leonavičiüte (n 75) 46.
See also http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1985-11-05/news/0340230089_1_sukhanov-soviet-soldier-soviet-union, accessed 22 May 2016.
‘IV. Getting beyond China: The International Community and its Obligations’ in The Invisible Exodus (Human Rights Watch, 2002) http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/northkorea/norkor1102-03.htm, accessed 22 May 2016. See also: Suh Dong-man, DPRK Briefing Book: North Korean Defectors and Inter-Korean Reconciliation and Cooperation, (Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security, South Korea, 7 May 2002).
http://nautilus.org/publications/books/dprkbb/refugees/dprk-briefing-book-north-korean-defectors-and-inter-korean-reconciliation-and-cooperation/#axzz36EX8F9Sp, accessed 22 May 2016.
Leonavičiüte, (n 75) 48.
‘APPENDIX B: LETTER FROM CHINESE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO FOREIGN EMBASSIES, MAY 31, 2002’ in The Invisible Exodus (Human Rights Watch, 2002) http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/northkorea/norkor1102-03.htm, accessed 22 May 2016.
‘Saudi Embassy in Lebanon shelters insurgents fleeing Syria’ (Press TV, 20 April 2014) http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1pwr4a_saudi-embassy-in-lebanon-shelters-insurgents-fleeing-syria_news, accessed 22 May 2016.
Susanne Riveles, ‘Diplomatic Asylum as a Human Right: the Case of the Durban Six’ ( 1989) 11 Human Rights Quarterly, 139-140.
On the general position see eg.: Neale Ronning, Law and Politics in Inter-American Diplomacy (John Wiley & Sons, Inc 1963) 95; John Benjamin Roberts (n 78) 244. On the differences within Latin America see e.g. Angela M. Rossitt, ‘Diplomatic Asylum in the United States and Latin America: A Comparative Analysis’ ( 1987) 13 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 131.
See e.g.: Sir Ivor Roberts, (n 38, s 8.25; Duxbury (n 83); Neale Ronning, ibid, 95; John Benjamin Roberts (n 78) 241.
See e.g.: Sir Ivor Roberts, (n 38) s 8.25, Neale Ronning, ibid.
See e.g. John Benjamin Roberts (n 78) 237.
Convention on Diplomatic Asylum (Caracas Convention), 28 March 1954, art 3; See also e.g.: Suzanne Riveles, ‘Diplomatic Asylum as a Human Right: The Case of the Durban Six’ ( 1989) Human Rights Quarterly 142, 158.
See e.g.: Peter Malanczuk, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law (7th edn Routledge 1997), 126, Neale Ronning (n 97) 90 and 96.
See: Neale Ronning, ibid 90.
See e.g.: Robert Kogod Goldman and Scott M Martin, ‘International Legal Standards Relating to the Rights of Aliens and Refugees and United States Immigration Law’ ( 1983) 5 Human Rights Quarterly 3, 302, 309; M Heijer, Europe and Extraterritorial Asylum (Hart Publishing 2002) (Chapter 4, Extraterritorial Asylum under International Law, https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/16699/000-Heijer-07-03-2011.pdf,)145; John Benjamin Roberts, (n 78) 239 and note 141 at 251; Suzanne Riveles (n 101), 142; Anthea J Jeffery, ‘Diplomatic Asylum: Its Problems and Potential as a Means of Protecting Human Rights’ ( 1985) 1 South African Journal of Human Rights 10, 23; Arturo E Balbastro, ‘The Right of Diplomatic Asylum’, ( 1959) 34 Philippine Law Journal 343, 344,350, 367.
See e.g.: M. Heijer , ibid 130; Suzanne Riveles, (n 104) 152.
See e.g.: John Benjamin Roberts (n 78) for the actual application in the Saulo case see Arturo E Balbastro (n 104) 352.
See e.g.: Neale Ronning (n 97) 92.
Kein Dank aus der Schweiz für Carl Lutz, http://www.raoul-wallenberg.de/Retter/Carl_Lutz/carl_lutz.html, accessed 22 May.
Arturo E Balbastro, (n 104 ) 352; Neale Ronning (n 97) 91.
See e.g.: Angela M. Rossitto (n 97) 135. For a rare position on the contrary see Peter Porcino, ‘Toward Codification of Diplomatic Asylum’ ( 1975 - 1976) 8 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 435.
Balbastro A (1959) The right of diplomatic asylum. Philippine Law J 34:343
Certain Questions concerning Diplomatic Relations (Honduras v. Brazil), Case removed from the Court’s List at the request of Honduras (Press Release 2010/15, 19 May 2010). http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/147/15937.pdf
Charles C (1997) Is there safe refuge in Canadian missions abroad? Int J Refug Law 9:4
Cushing Granville J (2004) The first domino: international decision making during the Hungarian crisis of 1956. Texas A&M University Press, College Station
Daillier P, Forteau M, Nguyen QD, Pellet A (2009) Droit international public, 8th edn. LGDJ, Paris
Denza E 2008) Diplomatic law, commentary on the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations Oxford commentaries on international law, 3rd edn, OUP, Oxford
Dong-man S (2002) DPRK briefing book: north Korean defectors and inter-Korean reconciliation and cooperation. Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security, Seoul
Duxbury A (2012) Assange and the law of diplomatic relations. ASIL Insights 16:32
Filing in the Registry of the Court of an “Application instituting proceedings by the Republic of Honduras against the Federative Republic of Brazil” (Press Release No. 2009/30, 29 October 2009). http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/147/15585.pdf
Glennon JP (ed) (1990) FRUS 1955–1957, Volume XXV, Eastern Europe. United States Government Printing Office, Washington
Goldman RK, Martin SM (1983) International legal standards relating to the rights of aliens and refugees and United States immigration law. Hum Rights Q 5:3
Gyulai Ilona E (2000) Becsület és kötelesség (Honour and Obligation). Europa, Budapest
Heijer M (2002) Europe and extraterritorial asylum. Hart, Oxford
http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/235430. Accessed 22 May 2016
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/northkorea/norkor1102-03.htm. Accessed 22 May 2016
http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/saviors/others/el-salvador-rescuing-country/. Accessed 22 May 2016
http://www.raoul-wallenberg.de/Retter/Carl_Lutz/carl_lutz.html. Accessed 22 May 2016
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_Guangcheng. Accessed 22 May 2016
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange. Accessed 22 May 2016
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Zelaya. Accessed 22 May 2016
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nifty_Package. Accessed 22 May 2016
IV. Getting beyond China: The International Community and its Obligations in The Invisible Exodus (Human Rights Watch, 2002)
Jeffery A (1985) Diplomatic asylum: its problems and potential as a means of protecting human rights. South African J Hum Rights 1:10
Kállay N (1954) Hungarian premier: a personal account of a Nation’s struggle in the second world war. Columbia University Press, New York
Karsai L (2007) Az ismeretlen Wallenberg (The Unknown Wallenberg). Népszabadság, Budapest
‘L’asile en droit international public (à l'exclusion de l'asile neutre)’ (L’Institut de Droit international, 1950). http://www.justitiaetpace.org/idiF/resolutionsF/1950_bath_01_fr.pdf
Leonavičiüte S (2012) Diplomatic asylum in the context of public international law. Masters thesis, Mikolas Romeris University, p 47. http://vddb.library.lt/fedora/get/LT-eLABa-0001:E.02~2012~D_20120703_133030-41044/DS.005.1.01.ETD
Malanczuk P, Akehurst MB (1997) Akehurst’s modern introduction to international law, 7th edn. Routledge, Abingdon
‘Meriam Ibrahim Freed Again in Sudan, Flees to US Embassy’ (NBC News, 27 June 2014) http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/meriam-ibrahim-freed-again-sudan-flees-u-s-embassy-n142316
Micunovic V (1980) Moscow Diary (with introduction by George Kennan). Doubleday, New York
Mindszenty J (1974) Emlékirataim (Apostoli Szentszék Kiadója 1989); Memoirs by Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty. Widenfeld and Nicholson, London
Montgomery JF (1947) Hungary the unwilling satellite. Devin-Adair Co, Fairfield
Moral Roncal AM (2013) An analysis of foreign diplomatic aid to the Catholic clergy during the Spanish civil war (1936–1939). Religions 4:96. www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/4/1/96/pdf
‘Noriega’s Surrender: Chronology; Vatican Issues an Ultimatum and a General Takes a Walk’ (New York Times, 5 January 1990)
Porcino P (1975–1976) Toward codification of diplomatic asylum. New York Univ J Int Law Polit 8:435
‘Profile: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’ (BBC News, 4 January 2017) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-11047811
Riveles S (1989) Diplomatic asylum as a human right: the case of the Durban six. Hum Rights Q:142
Roberts I (2009) Satow’s diplomatic practice, 6th edn. OUP, Oxford
Roberts JB (1987) Diplomatic asylum: an inappropriate solution for East Germans desiring to move to the West. Temple Int Comp Law J
Romero Salvadó FJ (2013) Historical dictionary of the Spanish civil war. Scarecrow Press, Lanham
Ronning N (1963) Law and politics in inter-American diplomacy. Wiley, Hoboken
Rossitt AM (1987) Diplomatic asylum in the United States and Latin America: a comparative analysis. Brooklyn J Int Law 13:111
‘Saudi Embassy in Lebanon shelters insurgents fleeing Syria’ (Press TV, 20 April 2014) http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1pwr4a_saudi-embassy-in-lebanon-shelters-insurgents-fleeing-syria_news
‘Statement of the Government of the Republic of Ecuador on the asylum request of Julian Assange’ (Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Movilidad Humana, News Release No 042, 10 May 2013) http://cancilleria.gob.ec/statement-of-the-government-of-the-republic-of-ecuador-on-the-asylum-request-of-julian-assange/?lang=en
‘The Auschwitz Protocol: The Vrba-Wetzler Report’ (transcribed from the original O.S.I report of the United States Department of Justice & the War Refugee Board Archives, Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team)
‘The Fall and Rise of Chilean Democracy: 1973-1989’ in A Diplomat’s Handbook for Democracy Development Support (2 nd edn). http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs13/Diplomats_Handbook-red.pdf
Zlatkova M (2007) Bogdan Filov. Zhivot mezshdu naukata I politikata (Life between Science and Politics), Alteia
- Admission into Diplomatic Buildings As an Alternative or Substitute to Diplomatic Asylum?
Tamás Vince Ádány
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta