Quote:
Originally Posted by TarJak
Not wanting to claim Wikipedia as the most reliable source, it is in fact correct in this instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diploma...territoriality
The piece of law in Britain was introduced to allow actions such as the Iran hostage crisis to be "legal" in Britain, whilst there would still be an international law case that could be brought, the likelyhood of that proceeding and being successful would be small and is certainly no protection for the Ecuadorian embassy in this case. |
The Wikipedia entry says that "
the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country."
That's what it is about.
Violate the embassy's status without Equador's permission, and this effectively ends the basis of needed trustworthiness in any diplomatic relations worth the name. If I were Equador, I would retaliate againmst this hosdtile action by the same standards. Get my peoplke out of Britain immediately. When they are safe, end diplomatic relations and arrest British diplomatic staff in Equador, all that I can get. And leave it like that until Britain accepts to return to internationally accepted standards of action and behviour and exchnages their people against Assange.
Why sticking to the rules oneself if the other side breaks them for its own "advantage"?