The Economist reviews the diplomatic immunity of Embassies following Ecuador’s raid on a Mexican Embassy to arrest someone who had been granted asylum.
In their discussion they say:
“There are exceptions to inviolability under international law, too. The Vienna Convention only refers to the responsibilities of the host state, but says nothing about a third-party attack. Also, under the laws of armed conflict, embassies lose their protections if they are used for military purposes. That may mean that the recent strike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus was legal; a spokesperson for the Israel Defence Forces called the annexe that was destroyed a “military building […] disguised as a civilian building”. Iran may try to claim, falsely, that the same is true of Israeli embassies, and that attacks on them would be similarly justified.”
Source: Why are embassies supposed to be inviolable? (economist.com)
Speak Your Mind