JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 1 SESS: 1 OUTPUT: Fri Mar 03 14:31:54 2023

//MLJA/2023/Vol1/mlja2023_1_00219

The Principle of Inviolability of Diplomatic Agents in

[2023] 1 MLJ Diplomatic Law ccxix

THE PRINCIPLE OF INVIOLABILITY OF DIPLOMATIC

AGENTS IN DIPLOMATIC LAW

by

HAEZREENA BEGUM BT ABDUL HAMID

Ph.D, Senior Lecturer
Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya

Abstract

Diplomatic law has continuously developed since ancient times and has become a
unique part of public international law.1 The cornerstone of diplomatic privilege
and immunities is dominated by the principle of inviolability. Inviolability
guarantees the sanctity of diplomatic and consular premises. Whilst it does not place
premises above the law, anybody who remains on diplomatic or consular premises
can take refuge from the law. Thus, personal inviolability of diplomatic agents is
often considered to be at the root of diplomatic immunity. The need for the rule of
inviolability is so important in the concept of diplomatic relations without which
there would be chaos in the relationship between states. However, the principle of
inviolability has sometimes led to a breakdown in the rule of law when it is used as
a tool to evade prosecution in order to attain diplomatic impunity. This article will
highlight some of the abuses and violations of the principle of inviolability
perpetrated by diplomatic agents. This article will also discuss the response of states
in dealing with the principle of inviolability as contained in Articles 22 and 29 of
the Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations 1961 (‘Vienna Convention’),2 and
explore how states respond to situations where their diplomats themselves have
become a danger or a threat the general public or to a particular individual.

Keywords: Diplomatic Law, inviolability, Vienna Convention, diplomatic

privilege, impunity

1 Rene Vark, Personal Inviolability and Diplomatic Immunity in Respect of Serious Crimes,
Juridica International VIII 2003 at p1, http://www.juridicainternational.eu/?id=12585
accessed on 23 January 2023.
2 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 (done at Vienna on 18 April 1961,
entered into force on 24 April 1964) 500 UNTS 95 (VCDR)
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 2 SESS: 1 OUTPUT: Fri Mar 03 14:31:54 2023
//MLJA/2023/Vol1/mlja2023_1_00219

ccxx Malayan Law Journal [2023] 1 MLJ

INTRODUCTION

Diplomatic law has continuously developed since ancient times and has
become a unique part of public international law.3 A fundamental concept of
diplomatic law is diplomatic immunity, which derives from state immunity.
Diplomatic immunity is a fundamental principle of international relations and
was established to promote international relations by protecting diplomats
‘from retaliation in time of international conflicts’.4 The cornerstone of
diplomatic privilege and immunity is dominated by the principle of
inviolability. Inviolability guarantees the sanctity of diplomatic and consular
premises. Whilst it does not place premises above the law, anybody who
remains on diplomatic or consular premises can take refuge from the law5 .
Thus, personal inviolability of diplomatic agents is often considered to be at
the root of diplomatic immunity. Article 29 of the Vienna Convention states:
The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any
form of arrest or detention. The receiving state shall treat him with due respect
and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom,
or dignity.

The need for the rule of inviolability is so important in the concept of

diplomatic relations without which there would be chaos in relationship
between states. However, the principle of inviolability has sometimes led to a
breakdown in the rule of law when it is used as a tool to evade prosecution in
order to attain diplomatic impunity. This is elaborated the case of Epson v Smith
where the learned judge said:
it is elementary law that diplomatic immunity is not immunity from legal
liability, but immunity from suit.6

Since there are no evident exceptions to the principle of inviolability, some

states tend to tread as finely as possible when dealing with situations of abuse

3 Rene Vark, Personal Inviolability and Diplomatic Immunity in Respect of Serious Crimes,
Juridica International VIII 2003 at p1, http://www.juridicainternational.eu/?id=12585
accessed on 23 January 2023.
4 S. R. Subramanian, ‘Abuse of Diplomatic Privileges and the Balance between Immunities
and the Duty to Respect the Local Laws and Regulations under the Vienna Conventions:
The Recent Indian Experience,’ The Chinese Journal of Global Governance 3, no. 2 (17
October 2017) https://brill.com/view/journals/cjgg/3/2/article-p182_182.xml accessed on
23 January 2023.
5 Paul Behrens, ‘The Personal Inviolability of Diplomatic Agents in Emergency Situations,’
in Diplomatic Law in a New Millennium, ed. Paul Behrens (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2017).
6 Empson v Smith [1965] 2 All ER 881; [1996] 1 QB 426 (QBD)
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 3 SESS: 1 OUTPUT: Fri Mar 03 14:31:54 2023
//MLJA/2023/Vol1/mlja2023_1_00219

The Principle of Inviolability of Diplomatic Agents in

[2023] 1 MLJ Diplomatic Law ccxxi

and violations committed by their diplomatic agents while some blatantly

disregard the rules of diplomatic law. The variation of responses could be
attributed to several factors such as to preserve diplomatic ties, to facilitate safe
passage of diplomats, and to promote amicable foreign relations between
governments, particularly during times of disagreement or armed conflict.7 To
explore the depth and gravity of the principle of inviolability, this article will
analyse Articles 22 and 29 of the Vienna Convention and investigate how states
respond to situations where their diplomats themselves have become a danger
or a threat to either the general public or to a particular individual. Examples
will be presented in this article to illuminate the abuses and violations of the
principle of inviolability perpetrated by diplomatic agents.

CONCEPT OF PERSONAL INVIOLABILITY

The principle of personal inviolability appears to be the ‘oldest rule’ established

in diplomatic law.8 The Vienna Convention, which has been agreed to by 187
countries, states that all ‘diplomatic agents’ including ‘the members of the
diplomatic staff, and of the administrative and technical staff and of the service
staff of the mission’ should be granted’immunity from the criminal jurisdiction
of the receiving state’.9 They are also granted immunity from civil lawsuits
unless the case involves funds or property not related to diplomatic
assignments.10 The establishment of diplomatic relations between States are
made by mutual consent pursuant to Article 2 of the Vienna Convention.11
The functions of a diplomatic mission is governed under Article 3 of the
Vienna Convention which explains the functions of a diplomatic mission,
including representing the State, protecting the State, and promoting friendly
relations between the sending and receiving State.12 A diplomat is a head of
mission who is accredited to the receiving country’s head of state and is deemed
to represent the head of State; hence, they are given privileges by the receiving
state to carry out their work effectively.

7 ‘How Far Does Diplomatic Immunity Go?’ 2022, accessed October 31, 2022, https://
www.thoughtco.com accessed on 23 January 2023
8 Rene Vark (1)
9 Ibid
10 Ibid
11 Vienna Convention (3) Article 2 provides that the establishment of diplomatic relations
between States, and of permanent diplomatic missions, takes place by mutual consent.
12 Vienna Convention (3), Article 3
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 4 SESS: 1 OUTPUT: Fri Mar 03 14:31:54 2023
//MLJA/2023/Vol1/mlja2023_1_00219

ccxxii Malayan Law Journal [2023] 1 MLJ

The privileges accorded to a diplomat are enshrined under Articles 10413

and 105(1) and (2)14 of the Charter of the United Nations (‘the Charter’)
which gives immunity to the diplomat from being prosecuted for their
wrongful acts and crimes while serving as a diplomat in a receiving state. Such
impunity was intended to accommodate the diplomat who is not a national of
the receiving state but a representative of the sending state.15 However, the
immunity granted does not preclude the diplomat from being prosecuted for
serious crimes in the International Criminal Court (‘ICC’) or the International
Tribunals. Such immunity is also not intended to help a diplomat or its family
members or staff to evade prosecution for wrongs committed but to protect the
diplomat’s ability to carry out their work effectively.16 Furthermore, it is the
duty of the receiving state to guarantee safe passage and take necessary measures
to ensure the safety and security of the diplomats. This particular guarantee is
enshrined in the second part of Article 29 of the Vienna Convention which
promulgates the receiving state’s duty to protect the diplomatic agents.17

While diplomats are able to enjoy the immunity granted pursuant to the
Vienna Convention, there are no remedies available to any person or the
receiving state who might have suffered harm or injury caused by the diplomat.
Thus, in cases concerning offences against the security of the state, offending
diplomats are routinely declared ‘persona non grata’ (an unwelcome person in
Latin)18 pursuant to Article 9 of the Vienna Convention.19 Article 9 of the
Vienna Convention states:

13 United Nations, Charter of the United Nations (signed on 26 June 1945, entered into force
on 24 October 1945) UN Charter, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text,
accessed on 23 January 2023, Article 104 states that the diplomatic mission and its Members
shall enjoy the territory of the receiving state in order to exercise of its functions and fulfil
its purposes.
14 Charter of the United Nations (6), Article 105 (1): the diplomatic mission and its Members
shall enjoy such privileges and immunities so accorded by the law in the receiving state in
order to exercise of its functions and fulfil its purposes. Article 105 (2): the Representatives
of the Members of the United Nations and officials of the organization shall enjoy such
privileges and immunities deemed necessary in view of exercising their functions in
connection with the Organisation.
15 Vienna Convention (3), Article 3(1) (a) lays down the functions of a diplomatic mission
which consist, inter- alia to represent the sending State in the receiving State.
16 Eirwen Jane Pierrot, Escaping Diplomatic Immunity The Case for Diplomatic Reform,
October 2010 at p.7, https://paperzz.com/doc/7770094/escaping-diplomatic-impunity
accessed on 24/02/2023
17 Vienna Convention (3), Article 29
18 R. Higgins, ‘The Abuse of Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities: Recent United Kingdom
Experience.,’ The American Journal of International Law 79, No 3 (1985), https://doi.org/
10.2307/2201891 accessed on 23 January 2023.
19 Vienna Convention (3), Article 9(1)
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 5 SESS: 1 OUTPUT: Fri Mar 03 14:31:54 2023
//MLJA/2023/Vol1/mlja2023_1_00219

The Principle of Inviolability of Diplomatic Agents in

[2023] 1 MLJ Diplomatic Law ccxxiii

A receiving state may’at any time and without having to explain its decision’
declare any member of a diplomatic staff persona non grata.20

In diplomacy, the term persona non grata comes from the Latin terminology
which literally means ‘person not appreciated’ or ‘unwelcome person’.21 In
spite of the fact that it is the only recourse of the receiving state toward foreign
diplomats who exceed the limits of their functions, it is still the most severe and
serious sanction which one country can impose on foreign diplomats, who are
under the umbrella of diplomatic immunity from detention and other
categories of prosecution.22 A person declared as ‘persona non grata’ is usually
recalled to his/her home nation. If such steps are not taken, the receiving state’
may refuse to recognise the person concerned as a member of the mission’.23

Diplomats have over time been declared ‘persona non grata’ for making
disparaging remarks against the host government, violating its laws,
committing crimes, interfering with its politics, meddling with its domestic
affairs, using offensive language, criticising its head of state, and other similar
acts.24 For example, Kang Chol, the North Korean Ambassador to Malaysia
had made disparaging remarks against Malaysia over investigations into the
death of Kim-Jong Nam, a Democratic People’s Republic of Korea citizen on
13 February 2017.25 He alleged that the conduct of the investigation into the
death of Kim Jong Nam indicates that the Malaysian government had
something to hide and that Malaysia has colluded with outside powers to
defame his country. Kang Chol was summoned by the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs to explain the situation and tender a written an apology but he refused
to do so and was declared ‘persona non grata’ thereafter. He was given 48 hours
to leave the country.

20 Ibid
21 Amer Fakhoury, ‘Persona Non Grata: The Obligation of Diplomats to Respect the Laws
and Regulations of the Hosting State ‘ Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization Vol 57, No
1 (2017), https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JLPG/article/view/35178 accessed on
23 January 2023.
22 Ibid
23 Ibid
24 Nehaluddin Ahmad, ‘The Obligation of Diplomats to Respect the Laws and Regulations of
the Hosting State: A Critical Overview of the International Practices,’ Laws 9, No 3 (2020),
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/9/3/18, accessed on 23 January 2023.
25 Fernando Fong, ‘Malaysia declares N. Korean ambassador persona non grata, gives him
48-hours to leave country,’ New Straits Times (Kuala Lumpur), 4 March 2017, https://www.
nst.com.my, accessed on 23 January 2023.
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 6 SESS: 1 OUTPUT: Fri Mar 03 14:31:54 2023
//MLJA/2023/Vol1/mlja2023_1_00219

ccxxiv Malayan Law Journal [2023] 1 MLJ

In the case of Alhaji Umaru Dikko,26 an exiled former Nigerian Minister

was abducted from his home in London on 5 July 1984 and was later found,
drugged and bound, in a wooden crate about to be loaded on a Nigerian
Airways flight to Lagos with one Israeli citizen.27 The UK government upon
receiving the report proceeded to search the crate in the presence of a Nigerian
diplomatic official as required by Article 36(2) of the Vienna Convention.28
Following this incident, two Nigerian diplomats were identified as being
involved with the kidnapping and was declared ‘persona non grata’ and
expelled from the United Kingdom. Their expulsion was made along with a
consular official and an attaché since the Nigerian Government refused to
waive their immunity.29

Abuse of Personal Inviolability

Article 4130 of the Vienna Convention provides a duty to all diplomatic agents
and its staff to observe the law in the receiving state and to ensure that the
premises of the mission is only used for diplomatic purpose. This provision has
long been established prior to the codification of the Vienna Convention31 and
was created to foster good diplomatic relations between the sending and
receiving state and preserve reciprocity. The concept of reciprocity allows the
state to reciprocate any favours or unfavourable action committed by another
states towards its diplomatic agents.32 While most diplomats do earnestly abide
by the law, there have been an exponential growth of crimes committed by
diplomats, their family members, and consular officials. Some have paid scant
respect for laws and regulations of the receiving states and have frequently
abused their immunities and privileges, necessitating the invocation of local
jurisdiction by the receiving state. For example, in the case of Muhammad
Ismail (Muhammad), a junior military officer who was on a diplomatic mission
in Wellington, New Zealand, he broke into the house of a woman and attacked

26 J Craig Barker (28) at p 5

27 Alex Last, The Foiled Nigerian Kidnap Plot, 12 November 2012, BBC News Africa,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20211380 accessed on 23 January 2023
28 Adeoye Akinsanya, The Dikko Affair and Anglo-Nigerian Relations, Cambridge
University Press, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol 34, No 3 (July
1985), at p 602
29 J Craig Barker (28) at p 5
30 Vienna Convention (3) Article 41
31 Rene Vark (1)
32 Rene Vark (1)
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 7 SESS: 1 OUTPUT: Fri Mar 03 14:31:54 2023
//MLJA/2023/Vol1/mlja2023_1_00219

The Principle of Inviolability of Diplomatic Agents in

[2023] 1 MLJ Diplomatic Law ccxxv

a 21-year-old woman in her own home in 2014.33 The victim was confronted
by Muhammad who was naked from waist down in her bedroom but managed
to fight Muhammad off and called the police.34 The government of New
Zealand was prepared to charge the intruder with burglary and assault with
intent to rape which carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years.35 Initially,
the Malaysian government was willing to waive his diplomatic immunity and
did not dispute New Zealand’s course of action but later changed their mind
and invoked diplomatic immunity. Muhammad and his family was later flown
back to Malaysia for further investigations.36
In the case of Floyd Karamba, a diplomat at the Zimbabwe mission to the
United Nations, he severely abused two of his children but could not be
charged of the crime due to the principle of personal inviolability (Article 29 of
the Vienna Convention).37 The only relief available was to obtain an
interlocutory order from the court for safe custody of the children to prevent
imminent danger, and to deport Karamba.38 In the Ndombasi Case, the
International Court of Justice (‘the ICJ’) held that the arrest warrant issued by
the State of Belgium failed to respect the immunity from criminal jurisdiction
and inviolability under the international law. However, the ICJ emphasised
that the immunity enjoyed by Ndombasi does not exonerate him from any
criminal responsibility.39 In this context, what amounts to crime and criminal
responsibility is unclear. The term ‘crime’ itself is absent or clearly defined in
the VC neither is there any provision detailing ‘acts of crime’. While the
absence of this term can be considered problematic, it is imperative to note that
crime is a social construct and would vary according to countries.

33 Associated Press, ‘Malaysian official on sex charge uses diplomatic immunity to leave NZ,’
The Guardian (London) 1 July 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/
malaysian-official-sexual-assault-charge-diplomatic-immunity-leave-new-zealand accessed
on 23 January 2023.
34 Ibid
35 Ibid
36 Ibid
37 MARK A. UHLIG, Children Taken From Diplomat In Beating Case, New York Times
Published: 17 December 1987, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/17/nyregion/children-
taken-from-diplomat-in-beating-case.html accessed on 23 January 2023
38 MARK A. UHLIG (46)
39 Eirwen Jane Pierrot (8)
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 8 SESS: 1 OUTPUT: Fri Mar 03 14:31:54 2023
//MLJA/2023/Vol1/mlja2023_1_00219

ccxxvi Malayan Law Journal [2023] 1 MLJ

CONCEPT OF INVIOLABILITY OF PREMISES

The concept of inviolability has been extended to the premises of the mission
pursuant to Article 2240 of the Vienna Convention. The consent of the head of
mission is required even in cases of emergency or public safety.41 Such stringent
requirements is considered risky and counter-productive. Thus, Sandstrom,
the Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission (‘the ILC’)
proposed that entry into a diplomatic premise should be permitted in cases of
extreme emergency during the Harvard Draft Convention. This would include
situations of grave and eminent danger to human life, public health, property,
or to safeguard the security of the State.42 The ILC however refused to adopt
this proposal and concluded that the formulation of any exceptions might
cause controversies rather than solve any problems. They further felt that any
listing of exceptions might lead to an erosion of the principle of inviolability.43
Therefore Article 22 (2)44 of the Vienna Convention would only be relevant so
far as to avoid intrusion into an embassy by the agents of the receiving state. On
the contrary, it may prove to be fatal in cases of emergency such as fire and
natural disaster.45 For example, in the case of the United States Embassy in
Moscow, a fire broke out in the premises and fire-fighters were called to put out
the fire. However, it was later discovered that the fire-fighters were KGB agents
who were sent to spy on the United States.46 This incident affected the level of
trust and relationship between the two countries. Following this incident
several diplomats have attempted to control extreme situations, rather than
engage local emergency services.
In view of safeguarding a diplomatic premises, countries such as the United
States have enacted the Foreign Assistance Act 1967 which permits the

40 Vienna Convention (3) Article 22

41 D’Aspremont, Jean, Diplomatic Premises in International Law (13 August 2008), Max
Planck Encyclopedia of International Law, 2009. Available at SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/
sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1448769 accessed on 23 January 2023
42 Matthias Herdegen, The Abuse of Diplomatic Privileges and Countermeasures not
Covered by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations at p 739, http://www.zaoerv.
de/46_1986/46_1986_4_a_734_757.pdf accessed on 23 January 2023
43 Matthias Herdegen (17)
44 Vienna Convention (3), Article 22 (2)
45 United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities, (UN Docs
A/Conf. 20/C 1/L 129 (Mexico)), Vienna — 2 March - 14 April 1961 https://digitallibrary.
un.org/record/700026?ln=en; https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/700026/files/A_CONF.
20_14-EN.pdf accessed on 23 January 2023
46 James Gerstenzang and Don Shannon, KGB Snooped During Embassy Fire, U.S. Says :
Security: The building in Moscow is described as ‘compromised in terms of classified
operations, Los Angeles Times, 1 May 1991, http://articles.latimes.com/1991-05-01/news/
mn-1029_1_classified-operations accessed on 23 January 2023
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 9 SESS: 1 OUTPUT: Fri Mar 03 14:31:54 2023
//MLJA/2023/Vol1/mlja2023_1_00219

The Principle of Inviolability of Diplomatic Agents in

[2023] 1 MLJ Diplomatic Law ccxxvii

President to terminate its assistance to any country that fails to adhere to Article
22(2) of the Vienna Convention. The Act also provides for the offending
country to pay reparation and compensation to the United States in the event
of any breach of duty.47 The state may also request for a waiver of immunity
pursuant to Article 32 of the Vienna Convention, and in worst cases, severe all
diplomatic ties with the sending state in accordance with Article 45 of the
Vienna Convention.

Abuse on Inviolability of Premises

Abuse on the inviolability of premises on diplomatic missions would generally

mean carrying out activities which is not relevant to the purposes of diplomatic
missions. Examples would include drug and weapons smuggling, abduction of
political opponents or involvement in terrorist activities. However, the Eritrea-
Ethiopia Claims Commission (‘Commission’) was of the view that such an
abuse does not affect the absolute character of the inviolability of the
diplomatic premises.48 This view was made following the invasion of Ethiopia
on Eritrea for using its Embassy’s residence in Ethiopia for criminal activity and
illegal purpose.49 The Commission held that the act of Ethiopia’s government
who ransacked, searched and seized the Eritrean Embassy Residence cannot
constitute a legal defence even if there was criminal activities taking place.50
This case demonstrates the depth of the principle of inviolability which estops
the receiving state from intruding and invading a diplomatic premises even if
there are illegal or criminal activities being carried out in a diplomatic
premises.51

Although abuse of privilege and inviolability among diplomats and misuse

of diplomatic premises are not unheard of, there are also cases where diplomatic
privileges are not adhered and respected to. In this case, they have been
numerous complaints of inaction or intrusion towards diplomatic privileges.
For example, in the case of United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in
Tehran,52 the International Court of Justice (‘the ICJ’) held that the intrusion

47 Jean D’Aspremont (16)

48 Jean D’Aspremont (16) Ethiopia Claims Commission, Partial Award, Diplomatic Claim,
Eritrea’s Claim No20, 19 December 2005, p 12)
49 Ibid
50 Ibid
51 Ibid
52 Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Judgment of 24 May
1980, International Court of Justice, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.
php?sum=334&code=usir&p1=3&p2=3&case=64&k=c9&p3=5 accessed on 23 January
2023
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 10 SESS: 1 OUTPUT: Fri Mar 03 14:31:54 2023
//MLJA/2023/Vol1/mlja2023_1_00219

ccxxviii Malayan Law Journal [2023] 1 MLJ

of United States Embassy on 4 November 1979 by the Iranian students and the
taking of 52 staff and diplomats as hostage amount to a ‘clear and serious
violation’ of Article 29 of the Vienna Convention.53 The ICJ also stated that
the inaction of the Iranian authorities towards the militant’s continued
occupation of the United States diplomatic premises and hostages ‘gave rise to
repeated and multiple breach of the applicable provisions of the (Vienna)
Convention’. Thus, violating its obligations to the United States under Articles
22(2), 24-27 and 29 of the Vienna Convention. However, the Iranian officials
insisted that their actions were warranted under Islamic law and that any action
taken by them were well justified.54 The refusal of the Iranian government to
abide by the principle of inviolability is rather compelling which ultimately
strained the diplomatic relationship between the United States and Iran.
However, the only reparation available to the United States was money
awarded by the ICJ. This shows the limitation of remedies and reparation
available to any aggrieved states in the event of breach.

Further example is illuminated in the case of United Kingdom’s case of

WPC Yvonne Fletcher, a Metropolitan Police officer who was fatally wounded
while on duty at St James Square on 17 April 1984. She and 11 others were
injured by several shots fired by an unknown gunman. The shots were believed
to be fired from two windows inside the premises of the Libyan People’s Bureau
(‘the Bureau’).55 Appalled by the incident, the United Kingdom terminated its
diplomatic relations with Libya on 22 of April 1984 and the diplomats and
staffs were asked to evacuate the premises. Those leaving the Bureau were
questioned and electronically searched for weapons and explosives. According
to the Foreign Commonwealth Office (‘the FCO’), the searches was a necessary
exercise of ‘their fundamental right to self-defence in international law and
domestic law’56 and to detect any weapons or explosives which can pose as a
threat to the UK.57 However, the FCO did not conduct any search or scan on
diplomatic bags in adherence with the Vienna Convention. The United
Kingdom authorities demanded for all Libyan diplomats and staff to withdraw
from the Bureau but the Libyan authorities refused to abide to such order.58 As
a result, the occupants of the Bureau were declared persona non grata pursuant

53 United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (22)

54 United States of America v. Islamic Republic of Iran [1980] ICJ, https://www.icj-cij.org/
case/64 accessed on 24/02/2023
55 J Craig Barker, Dartmouth, The Problem of Abuse in Abuse of Diplomatic Privileges and
Immunities, 1996 at p 1
56 J Craig Barker (28) 4, F.A.C. Report, supra, para 45
57 Matthias Herdegen (17) at p 737
58 Ibid
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 11 SESS: 1 OUTPUT: Fri Mar 03 14:31:54 2023
//MLJA/2023/Vol1/mlja2023_1_00219

The Principle of Inviolability of Diplomatic Agents in

[2023] 1 MLJ Diplomatic Law ccxxix

to Article 9(1)59 of the Vienna Convention and was ordered to leave the
country.60 The United Kingdom was meticulously mindful of the Vienna
Convention and only attempted to enter the Bureau after it was evacuated and
was also accompanied by a neutral observer from the Saudi Arabian Embassy in
that process.

Although the principle of inviolability seems to be interpreted strictly by the

ICJ and International Commissions in cases regarding forced entry, a more
lenient approach have been taken by ICJ in cases involving eavesdropping by
the receiving states towards a diplomatic premises. Eavesdropping is regarded
as a violation of the freedom of communication under Article 27(1) and (2) of
the Vienna Convention.61 The planting of electronic eavesdropping devices in
diplomatic mission premises constitutes a violation of the principle of
inviolability under Article 22 (1) of the Vienna Convention since it can be
considered as an intrusion of privacy to the sovereignty of a state. In this
regards, Article 22(2) of the Vienna Convention has expressly stated that the
receiving state has a special duty to protect and prevent any form of disturbance
to the foreign diplomatic premises.62 This is to ensure that members of the
mission and visitors are able to access the mission and will be not subjected to
any form of harassment.

A further obligation cast upon the receiving state is to ensure that the
diplomatic premises is safe from intrusion or invasion in the event of rallies or
demonstration. However, it might be difficult for the state to police and
prevent excessive noise and chanting by outsiders. Nevertheless, acts such as
playing loud music may still constitute a breach under Article 22 (2) and (3) of
the Vienna Convention. For example, in the case of the Holy See, the United
States troops constantly played loud rock music in front of the Holy See
mission where President Noriega had taken refuge after the invasion of United
States on Panama in 1989.63 This eventually resulted in Noriega’s surrender on
3 January 1990.64 The psychological pressure imposed upon Noriega infringed
Holy See’s inviolability and their right to enjoy the diplomatic mission without
any disturbance. A further breach is exemplified in the invasion of the
Nicaragua ambassador’s residence by the United States troops. The troops

59 Vienna Convention (3), Article 9(1)

60 J Craig Barker (28) at p 3
61 Vienna Convention (3) Article 27(1)
62 Vienna Convention (3) Article 22 (2)
63 Roberto Suro, After Noriega: Vatican is Blaming U.S for Impasse On Noriega’s Fate, New
York Times, 30 December 1989, http://www.nytimes.com accessed on 23 January 2023
64 Ibid
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 12 SESS: 1 OUTPUT: Fri Mar 03 14:31:54 2023
//MLJA/2023/Vol1/mlja2023_1_00219

ccxxx Malayan Law Journal [2023] 1 MLJ

ordered the personnel’s to evacuate the premises and searched for weapons in
the premises.65 Although the United States was heavily criticised by the Vatican
for their blatant actions and breaching the principle of inviolability, no other
action was taken against the United States.

CONCLUSION

The abuse of privileges and immunities by diplomats, as well as by the states

that receive them, constitute one of the major challenges to the continued
success of the Vienna Convention. The Vienna Convention does not lay down
any expressed exceptions to the principle of inviolability of persons or premises
even on the basis of self-defence or to hinder criminal activities. There is an
innate understanding that States should be able to use its discretion to deal with
problems and issues based on individual circumstances. Thus, one may
conclude that the absence of the exception to the principle of inviolability is to
enable states to deal with each situation distinctly in view of preserving good
diplomatic ties.

65 Roberto Suro, Vatican Blames U.S for Impasse, Noriega is Asked To Leave Embassy,
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 30 December 1989, http://news.google.com accessed on 23 January
2023