Published on 3 November 2023 in Client Alerts
The Times article, entitled “Diplomats have immunity for a reason”, examines the recent split decision in the UK Supreme Court case of Basfar v Wong. The case has raised eyebrows in foreign ministries around the world. The prevailing view is that the decision has placed the UK in the unenviable position of being an outlier in its interpretation and application of State and diplomatic immunity. This in turn raises personal risks for UK diplomats overseas and threatens to hamper UK diplomatic activities.
It is a fundamental rule of international law that diplomats posted overseas are granted immunity from most of the host State’s domestic laws. This is a mutual, reciprocal obligation of States under international law. This immunity extends to the personal household of the diplomat within the host State. Such diplomatic immunities provide the vital stability that diplomatic missions need in order to function without interference from the host State (including the host State’s courts). Only through narrowly defined exceptions can diplomats be subject to litigation in a domestic court of a host State (one of which relates to personal commercial activity undertaken by a diplomat).
In Basfar, the UK Supreme Court considered a claim made in relation to the conditions of employment of a diplomat’s domestic staff. The staff had been brought to the UK as part of the diplomat’s personal household. The court decided that the alleged employment conditions of one member of the domestic staff — which were legal in the state of origin —transformed this otherwise immune diplomatic activity into not-immune commercial activity. This novel and highly creative approach taken by the Court does not reflect international law and practice.
The article considers the practical implications of Basfar within the wider context of international relations, as well as UK domestic litigation. The article predicts that foreign diplomats situated in London will now face increasing risk of litigation before the UK courts and a narrowing of the traditional scope of their immunity in ways that they would not in other countries. Given that State and diplomatic immunity are reciprocal, the Basfar judgment may well cause other States to reconsider the scope of protections that they will give to UK diplomats and diplomatic activities overseas.
The article is available to read in The Times.
For more information, contact robert.volterra@volterrafietta.com and jehad.mustafa@volterrafietta.com.
In the brief 60 years of space flight, humanity has sent over 60,000 space objects and 1 million pieces of smaller debris into orbit around the planet. This has created the risk of a legal and physical log-jam in space. The congestion and space-junk problems are projected to become even more acute as the space race broadens its participants.
Learn moreDuring the 29th annual session of the International Seabed Authority (“ISA”), Malta, Tuvalu, Honduras, Guatemala and Austria declared their support for a precautionary pause on deep-sea mining. To date, now over thirty States have called for a halt in the exploitation of the deep seabed minerals. These calls come as the ISA struggles to adopt a final set of regulations on mining exploitation.
Learn moreOn 30 May 2024, the European Council adopted decisions enabling the European Union (“EU”) to denounce (the proper international law term for ‘withdraw from’) the Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT”).
Learn moreThe COVID-19 pandemic exposed significant gaps in the global health system, leading to immense human and economic losses. In response, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) and its member States decided to draft a comprehensive international treaty—the Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Accord.
Learn more