Are embassies unavailable? The actions of Ecuador and Israel suggest otherwise – and set a dangerous diplomatic precedent

It has long been held that embassies must be treated as “off-limits” to other countries. However, in a single week, two governments – each long-established democracies – were accused of violating the laws applicable to foreign diplomatic missions in various ways.

First, April 1, 2024 Embassy of Iran in Damascus was bombed, probably by Israel, leading to the death of several high-ranking commanders of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Then on April 5, the Ecuadorian police they made their solution to the Mexican embassy in Quito arrest the previous vp of Ecuador who had applied for political asylum.

Both actions led to allegations of violations of international law and accusations That Vienna Conventionwhich establishes the immunity of diplomatic missions has been violated.

As a person with a fair amount of knowledge about embassy life – I served as the top of Chile’s mission in China, India and South Africa and was co-editor The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy – I imagine that these two incidents are of greater concern than most of the international community seems to perceive them.

Contrary to the famous joke from deceased businessman and presidential candidate Ross Perotembassies are usually not only “relics of the times of sailing ships.” Rather, in an increasingly complex world where geopolitical conflicts, mass migrations, pandemics and climate change require careful and stable diplomatic management, any incidents that undermine the sanctity of embassy principles could have serious negative consequences. In short, they create a more dangerous world.

Strange indifference to the attack on the embassy

Of the 2 recent incidents, the Iranian embassy bombing is probably the most serious involved the loss of life and it bore fruit warnings about retaliatory attacks.

However, Western countries, whose leaders often express concerns about maintaining the so-calledrules-based order“they were reluctantly condemns this act.

It was noteworthy that the three liberal democracies on the UN Security Council – the United States, Britain and France – refused to sentence the attack on the Iranian embassy when a problem appeared before them.

Israel, even though it didn’t officially admit responsibility, argued that the residence of the Iranian ambassador did it’s not likely a diplomatic place but “a military building…disguised as a civilian building.” As such, it was a completely legitimate goal for Israel.

However, following this logic, just about all embassies can be seen as fair game.

Almost by definition, the overwhelming majority of embassies – especially in larger countries – are staffed with significant numbers of military and intelligence personnel. To suggest that because of this embassies should lose their diplomatic immunity and develop into legitimate targets of armed attacks would bring down all the edifice of the Vienna Convention. And with it will emerge the structure on which formal diplomatic interactions around the globe are based.

Basic diplomatic rules

The the case of Ecuadoralthough less serious since it didn’t involve loss of life, it’s a bit more complicated and requires unpacking.

At the middle of the diplomatic dispute between Ecuador and Mexico is former Ecuadorian vp Jorge Glas, who served 4 years behind bars after Convicted of corruption in 2017.

Glasowi is now facing trial on various charges, which prompted him to make this charge December 2023 asylum application on the Mexican Embassy. Mexico accepted the request and forwarded it to the Ecuadorian government.

The latter justified his decision to send police to the Mexican embassy with the idea that Glas couldn’t be granted political asylum because he was a convicted criminal.

There is a few basis for this claim: inside the Organization of American States 1954 Convention on the Right to AsylumPolitical asylum can’t be granted to convicted criminals unless the fees underlying such conviction are of a political nature.

But at the identical time, Article 21 of the Vienna Convention states that diplomatic missions enjoy full immunity and extraterritoriality, meaning that the receiving government has no right to enter the embassy premises without the consent of the top of the mission.

Ecuador says Mexico has violated its diplomatic immunity, leaving it no selection but to send police.

However, a very important distinction should be made here.

Diplomatic immunity and extraterritoriality of foreign missions are the essential principles of the Vienna Convention. Political asylum is a separate issue that should be resolved individually.

Therefore, if the Ecuadorian government determined that Glas was ineligible for political asylum, it could try to legally block the move or deny protected passage to the asylum seeker to depart the embassy and leave the country. However, Mexico would have strong grounds to oppose such measures because, in accordance with 1954 Convention on the Right to Asylumit’s as much as the country granting asylum to choose whether a case is politically motivated.

Consequences for the long run

Regardless of the merits of the asylum case, sending the equivalent of a SWAT team to storm an embassy is an intentional violation of diplomatic norms.

There is a long history of Latin American asylum-seeking politicians who spent a few years hiding in embassy buildings because governments failed to supply them with protected passage – probably the most notable being Peruvian leader Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, who spent five years on the Colombian embassy in Lima.

But with a few exceptions, even within the darkest hour of Latin America’s military dictatorships within the Sixties and Nineteen Seventies, police weren’t allowed to enter embassy buildings to arrest asylum seekers.

This underscores what makes Ecuador’s actions particularly concerning.

Precisely because of Latin America’s problems related to political instability ia tradition of military coup d’étatprovisions on political asylum and diplomatic immunity are crucial.

Undermining the Vienna Convention in the way in which Ecuador is doing risks setting a precedent that other governments could be tempted to follow.

Political asylum in Latin America has traditionally acted as a safety valve, allowing deposed leaders to flee danger.

Weakening existing diplomatic structures supporting asylum will make democratic breakdowns tougher to take care of. It also threatens to accentuate regional disputes. We can already see it Mexico breaks off relations with Ecuador as a result of the raid on the embassy.

Obstructing diplomacy

Of course, embassy breaches are usually not unprecedented. Guatemalan dictatorship attacked the Spanish embassy in Guatemala in 1980, killing several asylum seekers, including the previous vp. And the military government of Uruguay sent security forces to the Venezuelan embassy in Montevideo in 1976 the arrest of a left-wing militant asylum seeker, which led to the severance of diplomatic relations between the 2 countries.

However, these events, which occurred within the relatively distant past, were widely and rightly condemned on the time because the result of authoritarian regimes that disregarded international conventions.

The relatively lax international approach to embassy violations by Israel and Ecuador reflects, in my view, a misunderstanding of the importance of weakening diplomatic immunity and norms.

As global challenges grow, embassies and their representatives have gotten more, not less, necessary.

If the lesson from the last two embassy incidents is that the safety of diplomatic premises may be secondary to what’s politically expedient on a given day, it would be of great detriment to the management of diplomacy. Diplomacy will develop into rather more difficult.

Given the enormity of the challenges the world faces today, that is the last item any country needs.