UK on the verge of committing an act of war...

Post Reply New Topic

if a refugee was seeking asylum at the US embassy in the UK, and the US granted this person asylum… would the UK storm the US embassy?

answer: no, of course not.

why?

article 1 of the convention defines a refugee as



that's why it means that



http://www.justia.com/immigration/asylum/


so…

what is different in the assange/ecuador case? nothing.

same rules. same arguments. same rights. same laws. same procedure.

please remember: assange is (officially) NOT trying to bail prosecution for possible rape in sweden (that could not give him asylum anywhere!) … he is (officially) trying to prevent being extradited to the US for his political views for what he is doing in wikileaks, while being in sweden for the rape-case. sweden has an agreement with the US to extradite … so his concern is 100% legit. and so is his wish for asylum to prevent that.

he calls upon his rights to seek asylum in any country that has signed the convention, and he seeks this asylum solely based on the consequences his membership in a particular social group or political opinion has put him in.

if the UK storms the embassy, it will most likely be regarded as an act of war and can not be legal according to international law.

ecuador and its embassy has done nothing wrong; they have obeyed the convention they agreed upon.

just as any US embassy would do… anywhere in the world.

Assange is not a Convention Refugee for two reasons:

1) It is well established in refugee law that prosecution of crime only amounts to a well founded fear of persecution when the crime for which the person is sought is a political crime with a nexus to one of the grounds on which refugee status is sought. Sexual misconduct is not a political crime, and it has nothing to do with Assange's race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Any suggestion of a request by the United States for extradition is speculative, and does not demonstrate a well founded fear, nor that that the reasons for which the United States would seek him would constitute persecution within the meaning of the Convention.

2) Assange is able to avail himself of the protection of Australia. Were the United States to seek his extradition, and were that request to make out a fear of persecution, there are ample legal remedies in Australian law with which to make that case. He is perfectly able to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality.

You seem to have no idea about the nature of extraterritorial action. Sovereign states are capable of acting extraterritorially--it's one of the things that distinguishes a sovereign state, like the United States or Canada, from subordinate jurisdictions, like their individual states and provinces. But extraterritorial action can never legally subordinate the sovereignty of the territory in which the action takes place, unless that territory has agreed to that subordination. Embassies enjoy diplomatic immunity not because international law says so, but because the Receiving State passes law that says so, and the extend of their immunities is a question of local law.

So when taking the extraterritorial action to grant legal status to an individual, how far can a state go? The normal practice when granting asylum or refugee status on an extraterritorial basis is to issue a visa. A country declares, "we believe that this person is a refugee, and we will give that person safe haven upon arrival." In most circumstances the countries where such people find themselves allow them unhindered departure. But there is nothing in the issuance of an immigrant visa--even as a convention refugee--that requires a country to do so. Countries that have exit controls are still free to exercise those controls, even over a person with a refugee travel document, let alone a third country's immigrant visa.

What Ecuador has done--and this is an action that is recognized only in a handful of Latin American countries--is to not only recognize a claim to asylum, but to purport to insulate the individual from the sovereignty of the local state. That is Ecuador's offence. They know full well that the United Kingdom does not recognize any status of diplomatic asylum, and yet they have purported to act in this fashion, anyway.

If Assange were to seek Convention Refugee status, the limit that the United States or any other country could go would be to issue him with a visa and--were he unable to present a passport--a travel document. Ecuador has pretended to do more than that, and to harbour him from the authorities of the state in which he finds himself. There is nothing in the 1951 Convention, the 1969 Protocol, the 1961 Vienna Convention or, most importantly, United Kingdom law that permits such an action.

As for your spurious claims:

Ample difference. Ecuador is attempting to use their doctrine of diplomatic asylum to frustrate British law. The United States issuing a refugee with an immigrant visa does no such thing.



Not the same rules. Ecuador has not pretended to find Assange to be a Convention Refugee, they have extended asylum to him. Those are two different things.
Certainly the rights are the same, but they are not the rights that you pretend them to be. A person claiming refugee status has the right to apply for resettlement, but he does not have the right to be sheltered from local authorities.
The laws most certainly aren't the same, because Ecuadorean law admits of diplomatic asylum, whereas the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Australia (and just about every other country on earth outside Latin America) do not.
And the procedure most certainly isn't the same. If he walks out of the Ecuadorean embassy with an immigrant visa in his passport, and tries to go to the airport, then the procedure will be the same.



The United States hasn't sought his extradition. If they seek his extradition from Sweden, Sweden cannot extradite him without the United Kingdom's consent, because extradition agreements are built with these protections to prevent exactly what you are suggesting. He will be just as well protected in Sweden as he is in the United Kingdom, so his avoidance of Swedish jurisdiction on this basis is a lie. He has had his chance to make this argument three times in English courts, and three times his argument has been categorically rejected.

I don't doubt that Assange is fearful of falling into the hands of United States authorities. But so far as the law of the United Kingdom and of England is concerned, his fear is not well founded.



If he is genuinely a convention refugee, then his remedy is to seek resettlement in the United Kingdom, or to obtain an immigrant visa on that basis from some third country. But so far as I am concerned, he is not a Convention Refugee--and even if things came to pass as you suggest, I see little basis upon which such a claim could succeed.



Who, other than the Ecuadorean Ambassador, has ever suggested that the UK would storm the embassy? So far as I am aware, the United Kingdom has pointed out to the Ambassador that they view this use of the Embassy as improper (perfectly correct), and that there is domestic British legislation on this subject of which they should be aware (equally correct). They have made no threat to enter the Embassy's premises. The police presence is external to the Embassy premises. The Ambassador and his staff have free access. Assange wasn't hindered in the delivery of his urbi et orbi message from the balcony.

So far as I can see, the Ecuadoreans have a long term houseguest.



You may believe that they have done nothing wrong. But the Foreign Office do, and they are the final authority on such a question. It's British territory, granted immunity under conditions set out in British law, and I rather think that the Foreign Secretary is in a better position to opine on this subject than you.

I think you are labouring under a grave misapprehension about the United States' willingness to harbour individuals in missions. There have only been a handful of such cases (I only know of 14 individuals in 7 instances). Of these two arose from the overthrow of governments recognized by the United States (Hungary in 1956 and Burundi in 1996), one took place in a third country (France) which had no interest in the individual. The other four involved active sheltering from local authorites (one in the USSR and three in China).

Seven incidents hardly justifies the statement, "just as any US embassy would do... anywhere in the world."

if you say so, james.