Notes
The Home Secretary made the legal posi- tion in the Libyan siege sound remarkably straightforward: Britain was Powerless to enter the People's Bureau, or arrest the suspected murderer, because under international law diplomatic missions i and agents are inviolable. This is true, but it Is not the whole truth. The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which became binding when it was incorporated Into our domestic law in 1964, does indeed recognise the principle of inviolability. But It omits to say whether there are any limits to this principle. In fact there must be limits, because other principles intrude: inter- national law also recognises, for example, the doctrine of legitimate reprisals, the right of Pursuit over borders, and the right of self-defence. Could an armed policeman never in law return fire coming from an i embassy, and if not, why did the police in St James's bother to train their weapons on the building? More particularly, under the ,1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of !reaties, which has also been incorporated Into our domestic law, provision is made for SilsPending a multilateral treaty (such as the 1961 Convention) when one party has made a Material breach' of it. Since the 1961 Convention requires diplomats to respect the law of the country in which they are ," L'ervIng, there can be no question that Libya has breached it, and little, surely, that ,s, hooting a policeman is a 'material' breach, ' a Way that a traffic offence would not be. At St James's Square we could have sknsPended the treaty and stormed the e.m- uassy: if Libya had brought an action against us in the International Court, we Would have had a robust defence to offer. WA Precedent has now been set which would eaken that defence. The Home Secretary to well have been right in his decision not been storm the building, he may even have 'en right murderer release the suspected -erer but he should not have sheltered s ehind the doctrine of inviolability, He should have said he was avoiding action ee ause of the risk to the 8,000 Britons in ;:rthYa, or the perils of the operation itself, Y whatever the real reason was. In future incidents of this kind it is going to be very difficult to argue that the principle of Inviolability is not after all unlimited. The deed now is not to amend the 1961 Conven- n, but to say that we have, although we or got to say so, the right in certain en-- ':nunistances to suspend it. By over-simplify- le the law Mr Brittan has set himself an Dade dui y to perform, and one Secretary's all the more difficult by the Foreign 2 ultimate supine assumption that 'the `'Mate sanction is of course the complete ,evernnce t,'1!1.e a of diplomatic relations'. Next Would be advisable to have a more mitnate sanction than that available.
Previous page
