Analysis of Diplomatic Asylum and Free Passage Under International Law

This report analyzes the case of Mr. Huxley, a resident of Veritas who published confidential documents belonging to Tyrania and sought diplomatic asylum in the Atonia embassy. The report examines whether Veritas is obligated to grant him free passage. It explores four pieces of evidence: a UN General Assembly Resolution on diplomatic courtesy, a statement by the Queen of Veritas, the ICJ's Asylum case, and Article 2 of a Friendly Relations Treaty. The analysis delves into the provisions of GA Resolution 3321, the concept of unilateral declarations in international law, the ICJ's ruling in the Asylum Case (Colombia/Peru), and Article 2 of the Friendly Relations Treaty. The report concludes that, based on the provided evidence and legal principles, Veritas is not legally bound to grant Mr. Huxley free passage. The study emphasizes the importance of treaties and customary international law in determining obligations related to diplomatic asylum and free passage.

Running head: PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Asylum generally means giving shelter or protection to a person who has left their
country with the status of political refugees. There are several instances where it can be seen
that different forms of asylum obtained the status of customary law. Though, generally, these
scenarios happened in such cases where the human rights of a refugee are involved. But even
in such cases, the question in issue was whether there is adequate need to grant asylum under
the principle of customary law. It has been seen that even in cases of mob violence where the
refugee discovers himself to be pursued by the parts of the pupil before he or she reaches the
haven of the embassy, the practice of asylum did not take place and the diplomatic mission
did not get induced by the scenario to act over the same (Malinowska, 2014). Another aspect
of such an issue is the opinion of the international community about the same is not clear
though. However, some of the international states have widely accepted this concept of
diplomatic asylum such as; USA (Lavander, 2014). Some of the international states are also
clear about the opponent's view or restrictive interpretation regarding the issue of diplomatic
asylum as customary law. However, the General Assembly Resolution 3321 through
promoting this concept based on humanitarian grounds but critic states of this view opine that
diplomatic asylum cannot be held to be internationally recognizable concept unless there
exists a special treaty or agreement between the state that is granting diplomatic asylum and
the resident state of such diplomat in whose favor such asylum is being given(Зубарева,
2014). The study aims to discuss the rightness of diplomatic asylum and free passage to the
diplomat as its one of the characteristics, can be regarded as customary law or not by
elaborating various scenarios.
However, regarding the concept of customary rights, it can be said that it is difficult to
grant diplomatic asylum merely on the grounds of humanitarian concern (Capone, 2015).
This is because the very first question that will arise is whether the ground of "humanitarian
concerns" is sufficient enough to explain the fact which amounts to a sufficient degree of

2PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
correctness to allow the assumption of a rule with normative character (Taylor, 2019).
Another study of the Latin American institution of diplomatic asylum states that the reasons
for humanity are itself not sufficient to institute a right of refuge over the premises of another
land (Harley, 2014). The noteworthy characteristic of diplomatic asylum which appears in the
relevant treaties is that the concerning persons who are seeking asylum in another country are
generally accused of several political misconducts or trailed for various political reasons. If
that would have been the case then even offenders of common offenses in any country could
also be held liable for diplomatic asylum in another country (Repository.law.umich.edu,
2014).
Therefore, it can be said that the Government of Veritas is not liable to permit Mr.
Huxley for diplomatic asylum merely on humanitarian grounds. Furthermore, they do not
owe the right to free passage to Mr. Huxley on this ground as it is clear from the above-
mentioned fact that diplomatic asylum is not compulsory to political offenders of a country
under the International Law, similarly, the free passage being one of the rights guaranteed
under asylum does not fall within the purview of this case which the State of Veritas owes to
Mr. Huxley.
Issue 1: General Assembly Resolution
Issue:
The issue is what is the provision of GA regarding diplomatic asylum?
Rule:
In this case, General Assembly Resolution 3321 regarding asylum have been
discussed

3PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Analysis:
The General Assembly Resolution 3321 has been attended by an ample number of
members of the United Nations to share their views on the issue of diplomatic asylum,
mentioned that the humanitarian touch or ground for granting asylum to refugees and
diplomat is a magnificent idea but many of the member states do not cast their support in
favor of granting diplomatic asylum as a customary right. However, it can be seen that the
various international states do also not possess the same opinion about what should be
standard humanitarian ground to consider asylum (Legal.un.org, 1962). On the other hand the
GA resolution in granting territorial asylum solely depend on Article 13 and Article 14 of
Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that a person can leave a state and start
living in a new state and any state whoever is granting asylum to a person on the ground of
sovereignty must grant full respect as a citizen (Dalli, 2020). Furthermore, a state must not
compel any person who is seeking asylum in such a state to go back to a state where he might
get prosecuted. However, the UDHR further states that a person to get asylum in a state must
not be guilty of any crime or political offense in another state. Furthermore, the UDHR gives
full authority to a state to decide about their ground whether to give or not to give asylum to a
person and further authorizes the states to take the decision of asylum keeping in mind the
purpose to promote international solidarity (Spies, 2019).
Conclusion:
Therefore, though the GA resolution promotes the object to give asylum to people Mr.
Huxleydefinitely does not fall within such category as his history of being an offender of the
sedition of the state of Tyrania. Further, the government of Veritas to maintain solidarity and
peace with Tyrania, can decline Mr Huxley’s request of asylum on the ground of him being a
political offender.

4PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Issue 2: Unilateral Declaration:
Issue:
Whether unilateral declaration applies to Mr Huxley’s asylum or not?
Rule:
The rule relating to Unilateral Declaration as created by the International Law
commission in 2006 is discussed here.
Analysis:
Unilateral declaration binds the different States internationally. The various executive
bodies of a state are authorized to make decisions following the standard guidelines of an
international declaration. However, there exists a standard principle that each state needs to
follow to implement its unilateral guidelines (MARTÍN, J201). The Internal Court of Justice
is the autonomous body that works as a watchdog over these international states. The guiding
rules which apply to the international declaration of states are sufficient enough to create
legal obligations to give authoritative supervision on the prerequisites and binding impact of
Unilateral Declarations. This guiding rule was adopted by the International law commission
in the year 2006 (Radan, 2016). However, the International court of justice declared
Unilateral declaration has legal status under International Law.
Therefore, in the present case, as per the principle of a unilateral declaration, Tyrania
might offer asylum to Mr Huxley, if the other states do not pose an objection of such a
decision of Tyrania.

5PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Conclusion:
Therefore, it can be concluded that the unilateral declaration is an important aspect of
international law as it legally binds the international states under a standardized legal
principle made by the International Law commission
Issue 3: ICJ case law:
Issue:
Whether the asylum case of ICJ is applicable in the present case or not?
Rule:
In this case decision of the court in Asylum Case (Colombia/Peru) has been discussed.
Analysis:
The Court of Justice stated that in this case, that the normal course of granting
diplomatic asylum a diplomatic representative has the competence to make
a provisional qualification of the offense and the territorial State has the right to give consent
to this qualification. In the present case, Colombia has emphasized, as a state which is
granting asylum, that it is capable enough to qualify the nature of the offenses which are non-
reversible and definitive and is binding on Peru. The court had to decide the abidingness of
the decision on Peru merely because of treaty law, or other rules of international law or by
way of provincial or local custom. Furthermore, the court held that under the Havana
Convention or relevant principles of international law there does not exist any expressed or
implied right of the unilateral and definitive requirement of the asylum granting
State(Colombia v Peru). On the other hand, the Montevideo Convention of 1933, which
recognizes the right of unilateral qualification, and on which Colombia based its justification
on unilateral qualification, was not sanctioned by Peru. Therefore, the Convention was held

6PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
to be non-binding on Peru and further considering the low numbers of sanction, the
provisions of the latter Convention cannot be adequate to reflect customary international law.
Therefore, the court dismissed both the acquiescence of Colombia and held that it has failed
to establish the fact that the custom of Asylum was constantly or adequately executed to
demonstrate its normal application (Goodwin-Gill & Sorel, 2017).
Therefore, in the present case, Tyrania can reject Mr Huxley’s appeal of asylum on
the ground that they do not have any customary treaty with Veritas for granting asylum.
Conclusion:
Asylum can be granted not based on customary rights but the basis of the treaty of
asylum existed between two states if the states are not binding on any convention that has
accepted customary rights as a component to offer diplomatic asylum.
Issue 4: Friendly Relations Treaty
Issue:
Whether Mr Huxley can be granted asylum under the provision of the Friendly
Relations Treaty?
Rule:
In the present case, Article 2 of the Friendly Relations Treaty adopted in General
Assembly Resolution 2625 has been discussed in this case.
Analysis:
Article 2 of the Friendly Relations Treaty adopted in General Assembly Resolution
2625 states that every state must provide free passage to a person who has been granted
diplomatic asylum in such a state. However, it has been further held in the resolution that

7PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
each state has to follow the UN charter and must not violate the provision of the charter while
granting the asylum (Lee & Stek, 2016). Therefore, in this case, Mr Huxley can be denied
asylum in Veritas on the grounds of the abovementioned resolution.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded from the above-mentioned discussion that, Diplomatic asylum
must be granted by a state following the guidelines provided by the UDHR and every state
must comply with the same while granting asylum to a diplomat.

8PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Reference:
Capone, D. (2015). Diplomatic Asylum: A New Path Forward. NCJ Int'l L., 41, 221.
Colombia v Peru [1950] ICJ 6
Dalli, M. (2020). The content and potential of the right to social assistance in light of Article
13 of the European Social Charter. European Journal of Social Security,
1388262720908695.
Goodwin-Gill, G. S., & Sorel, J. M. (2017). Asylum (Colombia v Peru), 1949 and Request
for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the Asylum Case
(Colombia v Peru), 1950.
Harley, T. (2014). Regional cooperation and refugee protection in Latin America: A ‘South-
South’approach. International Journal of Refugee Law, 26(1), 22-47.
Lavander, T. (2014). Using the Julian Assange dispute to address international law's failure to
address the right of diplomatic asylum. Brook. J. Int'l L., 39, 443.
Lee, E., & Stek, P. E. (2016). Shifting Alliances in International Organizations: A social
networks analysis of co-sponsorship of UN GA resolutions, 1976-2012. Journal of
Contemporary Eastern Asia, 15(2).
Legal.un.org. (1962). Retrieved 2 April 2020, from https://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/dta/A
%20CN.3%20SR.1192-1202.pdf
Malinowska, A. (2014). The institution of diplomatic asylum as the possibility of protecting
human rights. makalah pada Marie Curie-Sklodowska University di Lublin, Polandia.
MARTÍN, J. R. (2015). The Right to Secession in the Framework of Liberal Democracies
and the Legitimacy of a Unilateral Declaration. The Case of Catalonia. The Age of
Human Rights Journal, (4), 111-137.

9PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Radan, P. (2016). International law and the right of unilateral secession. In The Ashgate
Research Companion to Secession (pp. 345-356). Routledge.
Repository.law.umich.edu. (2020). Retrieved 2 April 2020, from
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=mjil
Spies, Y. K. (2019). The Law of Diplomacy. In Global Diplomacy and International
Society (pp. 101-142). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Taylor, S. (2019). Australia's diplomatic asylum initiative at the United Nations: comparing
international law rhetoric with foreign policy practice. Australian Journal of
International Affairs, 73(4), 376-396.
Зубарева, А. В. (2014). THE DIPLOMATIC ASYLUM: WARRANTIES IN THE
NATIONAL LAW AND MULTILATERAL TREATIES.