The Paradox of Diplomatic Immunity: A Comparative Approach with Practices from Sri Lanka, South Africa and India

Abstract

There is a sharp distinction between the rationale for granting diplomatic immunity and the practices of abuse. These practices are not even remotely connected with the uplifting of the undermining rationale of granting diplomatic immunities. Immunities should be granted based on a functional necessity instead of the personal advantageous sought and gained through the process. While many countries have both signed and ratified the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, which is seen as an incorporation of the, then existed customary laws on the subject, there are some grey areas which have been continuously abused. The immunity granted for the diplomatic mission and for the diplomatic bag has been the most abused immunity found in the contemporary practices. While there has been suggested reforms that range from isolating abusive countries to creating a fund to compensate victims, at the practical level none of these solutions have worked and some have not even been tried out. While there are instances of abuse, no country has ever doubted the importance of the Vienna Convention on the subject and many are trying to lessen the abuse of diplomatic immunities. This article explores the historical development of the diplomatic immunity, the chronological order of the history of the Vienna Convention and its key provisions, the actual state practices, the instance of abuse, and possible reforms suggested in mitigating the abuse.