Theories Relating to Diplomatic Immunities and Immunities are available to Diplomatic agents
Theories of Diplomatic Immunities: -
There are following three theories regarding immunities of diplomatic agents:
1. Extra-territorial Theory: -
This theory reveals that the diplomatic agents are not under the jurisdiction of the receiving state, rather they are under the sending state. And their physical presence shall not entitle the receiving country to have jurisdiction on them. This theory is also called as fictional theory, because the extra-territoriality is based merely on a fiction.
2. Representational Theory: -
According to this theory immunities are given to the diplomatic agents because they are the representatives of the sovereign, so just as the immunities are given to the prince of a sovereign in the same way the immunities are to be given to the diplomatic agents.
3. Functional Theory: -
According to this theory the immunities and the privileges are given to the diplomatic agents because they have given so special duties to be performed and the nature of the task given to them requires them to be free in all respects. Other wise the local administration may by abuse of powers interrupt them and their function may be affected scrupulously. So, to avoid such situation they should
be given certain immunities and privileges.
Conclusion: -
From the above discussion it is evident that the extra-territorial theory is not maintainable at all. But both representational theory and functional theory provide basis for the diplomatic immunities and privileges.
Immunities And Privileges of Diplomatic Agents: -
According to the provisions of the Veinna Convention following immunities and privileges are available for diplomatic agents:
1. Inviolability of Diplomatic Agents: -
The person, freedom and dignity of a diplomatic agent is inviolable. The receiving state shall guarantee his person and shall give him respect. In other words, diplomatic agents cannot be detained or arrested. But the immunity of inviolability of diplomatic agent is not absolute. They may be arrested in special cases. As for example, if a diplomatic agent is found drunken having a gun, so due to avoid violence he may be arrested by the receiving states.
2. Inviolability of Mission’s Staff: -
The Veinna Convention also lays down certain immunities and privileges to the administrative and technical staff of the diplomatic mission and for their family members which are also inviolable subject to certain limitations.
3. Inviolability of Premises: -
The permanent diplomatic mission has premises in the receiving state where it is to operate its mission. So, the premises and the private residence of the diplomatic agents are also inviolable.
4. Immunity from Local Jurisdiction:-
The diplomatic agents are immune from local jurisdiction. In other words diplomatic agents cannot be tried by the Courts of the receiving state. Immunity extends to civil,criminal and administrative jurisdictions.
5. Immunity from Taxes and Customs Duties: -
The diplomatic agents are also immune from all sorts of taxes subject to certain exceptions.
6. Immunity from Local and Military Obligations: -
The diplomatic agents are also immune from certain local and military obligations of the receiving state. As for example, the diplomatic agents are exempted from military contributions, etc.
7. Freedom of Communication: -
The diplomatic agents have also been entitled to communicate any information for official purpose to the sending state. Such communications includes the use of couriers and code messages. The diplomatic bag is also inviolable.
8. Freedom of Movement: -
The diplomatic agents are free to move and travel in the territory of the receiving state. But this is subject to the laws and regulations, and laws made by the receiving state concerning the prohibited security zone.
9. Right to Worship: -
The diplomatic agents have a right to worship any religion they like within the premises. They cannot invite the nationals of the receiving state to take part to the worship. In other words, they have no right to preach their religion in the receiving state.
