Scholarlink

<p>The inviolability of diplomatic premises is an axiomatic principle of diplomatic law; however, the literal application of its uncompromising character creates a normative tension with the realm of human rights, in particular, with the positive obligation to protect human life in life-threatening emergencies. On the one hand, revisionists contend that a harmonious interpretation of norms, or the revision of our perception of the material (in)completeness of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 (VCDR), enables the principle to accommodate human rights concerns. On the other hand, traditionalists insist that the absolute inadaptability of the principle is a necessary prerequisite for the efficacy of the entire diplomatic system. Connectedly, after outlining the jurisdictional implications of the functional <i>raison d’être</i> of the principle, the article addresses the revisionist stance by suggesting that, while the employment of a harmonious interpretation may be ineffectual, the ambiguous intent of the Contracting Parties rendered the VCDR materially incomplete. Finally, the article explores the permissibility of invoking the state of necessity, to protect human life on diplomatic premises, within the self-contained régime of diplomatic law.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Stretching the Limits of Inviolability: The Re-examination of the Inviolability of Diplomatic Premises in the Light of the Right to Life

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月1日

查看全文
  • Jan Andrzej Karpiuk

摘要

The inviolability of diplomatic premises is an axiomatic principle of diplomatic law; however, the literal application of its uncompromising character creates a normative tension with the realm of human rights, in particular, with the positive obligation to protect human life in life-threatening emergencies. On the one hand, revisionists contend that a harmonious interpretation of norms, or the revision of our perception of the material (in)completeness of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 (VCDR), enables the principle to accommodate human rights concerns. On the other hand, traditionalists insist that the absolute inadaptability of the principle is a necessary prerequisite for the efficacy of the entire diplomatic system. Connectedly, after outlining the jurisdictional implications of the functional raison d’être of the principle, the article addresses the revisionist stance by suggesting that, while the employment of a harmonious interpretation may be ineffectual, the ambiguous intent of the Contracting Parties rendered the VCDR materially incomplete. Finally, the article explores the permissibility of invoking the state of necessity, to protect human life on diplomatic premises, within the self-contained régime of diplomatic law.