- 18 Mar 2013 12:59
#14195693
The article isn't able to provide a definitive answer to its own question, but how it concludes is interesting:
Political pressure in democratic states makes it much harder for there to be a trade-off in terms of justice and international trade. Opposition MPs can easily unite a population against 'Johnny foreigner' to hurt the government if it doesn't take the domestic moralist position of trial for the accused before good relations.
The question that leaves me with is to what extent should states demand their own way on 'small issues' like this at the expense of trade? On aggregate could it for example be possible that India will end up worse off in terms of people dyeing from poverty related aliments than the 'price' of these murders? Similarly, should Italy put the benefit to itself of trade before the principle of correct jurisdiction? They don't seem to be saying that they shouldn't stand trial at all. In allowing wider relations to worsen are they both right, both wrong or one right?
[ Forum Rules ][ Newbie Guide ][ Mission Statement ][ FAQ ]
Andrew North, BBC wrote:Is India in breach of Vienna convention over Italian envoy?
"Habemus argumentum." It is not just because of the new Pope that Rome is making news in India today.
A spiralling row has broken out between Delhi and Rome, taking diplomatic rules into uncharted waters and possibly even risking Indian relations with the rest of the European Union.
Accusing Italy of "unacceptable" behaviour, India has taken the unusual step of barring its ambassador to Delhi from leaving, after Rome changed its mind on returning two Italian marines charged with murdering two fishermen off the Indian coast last year.
The Indian foreign ministry has also called in the EU envoy to Delhi.
Diplomatic expulsions are commonplace when relations break down between states. Not so diplomatic detentions - which conjure memories of hostage crises.
No-one is going that far yet. But others watching the row says India's action leaves it open to the charge of breaching the Vienna convention which governs global diplomatic ties - potentially creating a dangerous precedent for its own envoys.
The Vienna text states that diplomats "shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention".
According to one foreign embassy official in Delhi: "It is for diplomats themselves or their country to invoke or revoke their diplomatic protection, not the host country."
[More ...]
The article isn't able to provide a definitive answer to its own question, but how it concludes is interesting:
Andrew North, BBC wrote:"What is going to happen if the Italian ambassador now tries to fly out of Indira Gandhi International (Delhi's main) airport?" asks one Western diplomat. "Are they going to stop him? And what happens then?"
The row could affect ongoing negotiations between India and the EU over a free-trade agreement.
Italy is already briefing fellow EU governments in Brussels about the case, clearly keen to press its side of the story.
But warns Mr Sibal: "If Italy cares about its long-term interests here, it will discover this was a huge error."
Political pressure in democratic states makes it much harder for there to be a trade-off in terms of justice and international trade. Opposition MPs can easily unite a population against 'Johnny foreigner' to hurt the government if it doesn't take the domestic moralist position of trial for the accused before good relations.
The question that leaves me with is to what extent should states demand their own way on 'small issues' like this at the expense of trade? On aggregate could it for example be possible that India will end up worse off in terms of people dyeing from poverty related aliments than the 'price' of these murders? Similarly, should Italy put the benefit to itself of trade before the principle of correct jurisdiction? They don't seem to be saying that they shouldn't stand trial at all. In allowing wider relations to worsen are they both right, both wrong or one right?
[ Forum Rules ][ Newbie Guide ][ Mission Statement ][ FAQ ]