So what if seizing Assange breaks international law???
Where is the police force that's going to police the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations?
There are a lot of stories about what will happen to Julian Assange and some commentators are suggesting that the UK government could find itself hauled before an international court if it moves in on the Ecuadorian embassy where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been granted political asylum.
There have been a number of options/scenarios speculated upon as ways out of Assange. Assange could just stay put in the hope that the situation he is facing will eventually get resolved, either politically or through Sweden dropping the case. Provided British authorities choose not to storm the Ecuador embassy, waiting it out could be an option for Assange, says Prof Don Rothwell of the ANU.
The rules governing the rights of foreign embassies were set out in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations international treaty, of which US is a signatory. This particular situation is complicated by a domestic law, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987. It was enacted after shots were fired from the Libyan People's Bureau in Central London in the 1980s. This law could allow Assange to be arrested within the embassy premises, according to CBC News.
Don Rothwell thinks otherwise. The legislation refers to considerations of national security but the other grounds wouldn't seem to have any relevance. So national security is clearly a fairly high threat, it would clearly be associated with terrorist related type incidents. But, Mr Assange's situation does not seem to have reached that level.
This situation raises many questions, like - what is the status of the obligations/rules under the Treaty vs the obligations/rules under the domestic law, for one? This is where the rubber hits the road.
The way this issue is resolved will have an impact on diplomacy and the rights/protections afforded to diplomats in foreign countries. It could have wider repercussions in setting a precedent about domestic law status in relation to international law. Sometimes Australia looks to UK court decisions in actions, so these events are not only of relevance to that country, but could have wider implications.
Should the UK take the action it seems intent on, it could breach the major rule in international law - the inviolability of embassies. In response Ecuador could take matter to the International Court of Justice.
Individuals can't bring an action to the International Court of Justice, so those reports about Julian Assange having the option of going to the ICJ, are ill-informed. The other country that could go to the ICJ is Australia, if it wanted to. This seems unlikely, as the Government has shown no interest. Sweden, of course could also bring this matter to an end very quickly, if it wanted to.
