[cyphar]

Assange was refused the ability to travel to Ecuador (a country that he became a citizen of) from the UK, which might be a violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Article 44) -- though I'm not a lawyer:

> The receiving State must, even in case of armed conflict, grant facilities in order to enable persons enjoying privileges and immunities, other than nationals of the receiving State, and members of the families of such persons irrespective of their nationality, to leave at the earliest possible moment. It must, in particular, in case of need, place at their disposal the necessary means of transport for themselves and their property.

There is an argument to be made that since he is not embassy personnel he isn't granted any such rights (in fact that's the most likely explanation).

But then again, there is some grey area here -- in the 1984 someone in the Libyan embassy in the UK shot into a crowd killing a police officer[1]. The UK police weren't granted access to investigate whether the individual who did it was embassy personnel (and thus under diplomatic immunity) or not. The UK then cut diplomatic ties with Libya and all the personnel were forced to leave and return to Libya. However, if the UK had the legal right to refuse passage for non-embassy personnel then surely they would've done so and captured all non-embassy personnel for questioning. But they didn't do that.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher

[umanwizard]

The Vienna Convention certainly does not mean that any state can demand that any other state not prosecute any person of their choice, which is what you seem to be implying.

You never define what "persons enjoying privileges and immunities" means. I doubt very much that it is "any random citizen of a country who happens to be inside their embassy".

[cyphar]

> which is what you seem to be implying.

That's not at all what I'm implying.

> You never define what "persons enjoying privileges and immunities" means.

I copied the text directly from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations[1]. From my understanding (as a non-lawyer) it broadly means embassy personnel, which would exclude Julian Assange.

However my point is that there is a case in 1984 where a suspected criminal for a crime committed in the UK (who might not have been embassy personnel) was allowed safe passage with embassy personnel. It's possible they didn't want to deal with additional scandals or didn't think of this avenue, but it is quite strange. However, the fact that the UK threatened to storm the embassy and cut of ties with Ecuador does indicate the political situation is much higher than it was in the 1984 incident.

Ecuador tried to instate Assange as a Ecuadorian Ambassador, but the UK refused their request for diplomatic immunity. So it probably isn't a violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (though the UN did state that the UK's actions are a violation of the Geneva Convention on Human Rights[2]).

[1]: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1964/06/19640624%2002-1... [2]: https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...

[dragonwriter]

> Ecuador tried to instate Assange as a Ecuadorian Ambassador, but the UK refused their request for diplomatic immunity

No, they tried to appoint him to a subordinate (not “Ambassador”) diplomatic position to Russia. Which does not give him diplomatic immunity in the UK by right. The UK declined to extend such status as a courtesy as it might otherwise do.

> However my point is that there is a case in 1984 where a suspected criminal for a crime committed in the UK (who might not have been embassy personnel) was allowed safe passage with embassy personnel.

Everyone leaving the embassy had their diplomatic status verified when they were stopped, questioned, and frisked on the way out, but it's quite possible the perpetrators were one of those who left before the cordon was thrown up, and if not they were embassy personnel. The act was clearly.a state act of reprisal, so there would be no reason to have it done by unprotected persons.

[vintermann]

Ecuador has full right to unilaterally choose their ambassadors, they don't need the approval of the UK. What is true is that the UK can then declare an ambassador persona non grata... But then they must be allowed to leave.

It was a brilliant ploy to get Assange out, if you believed UK would adhere to the Vienna convention. Unfortunately they didn't, and there's no one around who are willing and able hold them to it.

[umanwizard]

Ok, so every time an American is arrested abroad, Trump could declare them a diplomat and the country would have to let them off without charges? This is really what the Vienna Convention requires?

Why doesn’t every country just do this routinely, in that case?

[dragonwriter]

There's no violation; the “privileges and immunities” referenced are those of accredited diplomats to the receiving state, which you only get to be by consent of the receiving state. Assange was never an accredited diplomat to the UK (there was an abandoned effort to get him appointed as a diplomat to Russia, but that provides no mandatory protection under the convention with regard to the UK, and the UK declined to extent diplomatic status as an non-mandated courtesy based on that appointment, so it was abandoned.)

> However, if the UK had the legal right to refuse passage for non-embassy personnel then surely they would've done so and captured all non-embassy personnel for questioning.

Every person exiting the embassy was stopped, frisked, questioned, and photographed by the police; none were held further because they were all diplomatic personnel. (This is not addressing the people who exited before the police through a complete cordon around the embassy, or the material—including certainly he weapons and other evidence—sent out in sealed diplomatic bags thereafter and before the final evacuation of the embassy.