Following the vexed codification attempts of the International Law Commission and the relevant jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, this book addresses the permissibility of the practice of diplomatic asylum under general international law. In the light of a wealth of recent practice, most prominently the case of Julian Assange, the main objective of this book is to ascertain whether or not the practice of granting asylum within the premises of the diplomatic mission finds foundation under general international law. In doing so, it explores the legal framework of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, the regional treaty framework of Latin America, customary international law, and a possible legal basis for the practice on the basis of humanitarian considerations. In cases where the practice takes place without a legal basis, this book aims to contribute to bridging the legal lacuna created by the rigid nature of international diplomatic law with the absolute nature of the inviolability of the mission premises facilitating the continuation of the practice of diplomatic asylum even where it is without legal foundation. It does so by proposing solutions to the problem of diplomatic asylum. This book also aims to establish the extent to which international law relating to diplomatic asylum may presently find itself within a period of transformation indicative of both a change in the nature of the practice as well as exploring whether recent notions of humanity are superseding the traditional fundaments of the international legal system in this regard.

The legal status of the institution of diplomatic asylum really presents two separate questions. (I) Is there evidence that states have regarded the practice of granting such asylum to political refugees as sanctioned by a rule of international law? (2) Assuming this to be the case, does the available evidence make it possible to define a "political refugee" and to determine which party to a dispute has the right to decide upon this question? While in many cases the two questions are not dearly separated in the discussions between the parties involved, they will be treated separately in the following pages. Part one will attempt to answer this question: Assuming the political nature of an offence can be establish ed, is there evidence that states have regarded the practice of granting diplomatic asylum as sanctioned by a rule of international law? Obviously, the two questions cannot be separated entirely but it seems advisable to try to isolate them as much as possible. CHAPTER I NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM The term "asylum" is used to identify such a variety of phenomena that the following distinctions must be made before the problem can be properly discussed I. Between diplomatic and territorial asylum. The importance of this distinction was pointed out by the International Court of Justice in the Colombian-Peruvian Asylum Case,l often referred to as the Haya de la Torre Case.