INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. A diplomat is a person appointed by the national government official and maintain
political , economic and social relations with other countries Lennington ( 2001: 515 )
states that the president appoints persons to serve as ambassadors or principal
representative of Zimbabwe accredited to other countries or international organisations
.Diplomatic immunity is defined as the privilege of exception from certain laws and
taxes to diplomats by the state which they are working. There are three theories on which
diplomatic immunity is based these are ex -territorial theory according to which diplomatic
immunity is based, the second one is the representative character theory based on the theory
that the diplomatic mission personalises the sending state and the third one is the functional
theory that considers that immunities and privileges are necessary to perform its function
effectively . Diplomatic immunities serve a good purpose as they promote good
communication between diplomats and their governments, protect the diplomat from the
criminal jurisdiction. They are protected from harm in state that are serving their missions;
however diplomatic immunities are also viewed as not serving a good purpose as diplomats
are violating human rights, involved in corruption and many criminal cases knowing that they
can be protected, these criminal cases don not serve a good purpose because they create bad
reputation among the states .The essay below will discuss whether diplomatic immunities
serve a good purpose or not.
Diplomatic immunity became international law with the Vienna convention on diplomatic
relations, according to the document the practise was put in place to benefit and to ensure the
efficient performance of functions of diplomatic missions as presenting states ‘diplomats
have to be able to do their jobs without being vulnerable to petty or retaliatory
punishment in the hand of the host country. According to the diplomatic immunities
privileges act of 2001 the convention apply on diplomatic missions and members of such
missions in the republic. Article (20-40) of Vienna charter convention provides certain rights,
privileges and immunities that guard any animosity that could arise in any country.
The diplomatic agents enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction according to article 31 of
the convention charter this serves a good purpose as the diplomats are not supposed to be
sued or persecuted ,hence it will not affect the diplomats on their missions .sending state can
waive an immunity on behalf its diplomat this protect the diplomats from prison sentences
as some countries have harsh laws which are not favourable to human being . The immunity
from criminal jurisdiction was seen in the case of S V Mothopeng Courlous J held that
diplomats might not attend in camera hearing in the course of political trial . And this can be

2. seen as serving a good purpose as sometimes diplomats can be involved in matters relating to
succession in his official capacity diplomat can enjoy immunity.
The diplomatic immunities serves a good purpose in such that they protect diplomats from
forced intervention from the receiving country their premises are not attached , in this
instance Durgard (2005:261) sates that the premises of the missions should not be
inviolable . According to article 22 of the Vienna conventions states that the agents
receiving state may not enter them exempt with the consent of the head of the mission ,
again the premised of their property thereon and the means of transport of the mission
are immune from search , requisition , attachment or execution , this serves a good purpose
in the sense that the diplomat will have safety in the states they are placed since they will be
not familiar with environments , its also saves protection of the diplomats from the robbers.
More so the diplomatic immunities serves a good purpose in that it promote a good
communication between the diplomats and their governments the other chapter of the
convention provide that the archives and official corresponded of mission are inviolable
from other missions and consulate . this serves the best communication of the of the
diplomats and their government s in their respective countries , however the other state fails
to observe for example the government of Iran to observe these fundamental principles of
diplomatic law in 1979 , when it endorsed to the seizure of the united states embassy was
strongly condemns by the International Court of Justice.
Diplomatic agents are officially expected to be true representative to the receiving state ‘
a diplomat represents the political system and its ideology , trade and commercial interest
the international cultures and other features of the sending state Basu( 2012 :83) in as
much as diplomatic immunities serve a good purpose diplomats abuse these immunities as
they are involved in many criminal cases and they are however viewed as people with bad
behaviour in the world they are involved in serious crimes for example in violation of
animal law . In 1988 it has been reported that six Iranian diplomats in caused stink in
London bay taking a sheep and cutting its throat in the street. The ritual public laughter in
the street of an animal is generally frowned upon but since the had diplomatic had
immunity , the British authority were powerless to charge the violating animal cruel
hence it can be noted that these immunities do not serve a good purpose as the diplomats are
violating the given laws in the.

3. The diplomats are involved in bribery taking advantage that they have immunities on such
cases where they cannot be arrested. Much of the criminal cases of corruption are done by
the diplomats corruption has become the order the day among diplomats. A case reported in
2015 of former president Ashe. of UN who also served as the UN ambassador for
Antigua and Barbuda , was charged receiving five hundred thousand in bribes from chines
businessman, Lapsing who wanted to build a UN conference centre in Macau , also
accused of accepting eighty hundred thousand dollars from Chinese businessman in order
to facilitate business .Again arrested in the criminal case of frazis lozenzo who was
given two million bail over the subjections of prosecutor’s diplomatic immunities have
a negative impacts in today society as are fuelling corruption internationally.
In addition ,diplomats tend to ignore legal laws they violate labour laws ; and are
involved in slavery as the respective persons who know much about law in international
community, the diplomats tend to violate more of these laws due to their immunities
knowing that they cannot be detained; article 41 states that without prejudice to their
immunity , it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges to respect the laws and the
regulations of the receiving state however they turn a blind eye to those laws Diplomatic
immunities from local employment and labour law has charted the diplomatic staff being
accused of abusing local workers who often lived for position requiring knowledge
diplomats have ignored legal laws concerning maximum wages , working hours and
imprisoned workers in their homes deprived them in no paid wages , invade their privacy
; for example in 2003 in Finland , a Filipino a maid escaped from the an embassy of
Asian country reported and being held in in a condition of slavery she was forced to work
from 7am to 10pm , 7 days a week and the ambassadors children were permitted to beat
her ( BBC News May 2010) instead for bringing change in the world as people who are
responsible; the diplomats tend to behave like cowards hence their immunity serves no
purpose , instead there worsening the number of crimes every day.
Diplomats also violates human rights as they are involved in domestic abuse and sexually
abuse , the diplomats tend to violate laws as they think their immunity serve them . A
Sudanese diplomat has been charged of sexual abuse in the USA a by claiming
diplomatic immunity that has helped many officials facing allegations of wrong doing
while serving abroad , Mohamad Alli had been charged with forcible rubbing himself
against woman on new York city s subway the police dropped the charges , and he was
protected by the Vienna convection which is intended to guarantee that no diplomat is

4. harassed in the normal course of his mission . Diplomatic immunities is not meant to
protect petty crimes but it has provides useful refuge for notorious case therefore not serving
good purpose, (bbc news 2017).
The exemption from taxes does not serve any purpose hence it creates large debts for the
sending state ,instead this promote the diplomats to be more reckless , diplomats are
exempted from most taxes( BBC news 2006) as the conduct of Vienna convention but not
from charges of services rendered , in such cases whether payment considered d on tax may
be disputed such as control congestion it was reported that thy would pay the UAE
embassy would pay their own accumulated charges of nearly hundred thousand pounds .
diplomat are exempted from import duty and tariffs for their personal use in some countries
this lead to charges that diplomats are profit markers of free tax goods . A Gambian
diplomat was charged of tobacco fraud as he was found guilty by the south work court he was
found selling free tax tobacco from Gambian embassy in UK. the court the crown
persecution court that much of the tobacco was sold in from the embassy without paying
vat and excise duty ( BBC news) .This lead lack of trust from the sending states as the
diplomats are supposed to build trust in their counties .
The diplomatic immunity can be seen as concept unjust because it prevents equal treatment
among the citizens and at make un fair distinction between citizens and the law , this is
seen as a human violation it determines that person are not equal before the law some are
given more power than others some agents are not considered as the state officials but a
family member of such person , the privilege is even more unjustifiable . The human
rights should be understood as asserting that each society ought to be organized so that all
members may enjoy full access to the rights (Hyden 2001).
In conclusion , diplomatic immunities were meant to serve a good purpose as they protect
the diplomats from forced intervention , protect their lives, and promotes good
communication between the diplomats and their governments, prevents them from being
persecuted .However the concept of diplomatic immunity creates an unjust legal system
due to lack of equality before law , diplomatic immunity can be considered as human rights
violation to the victims because the governments are maintaining the unjust legal systems
which had led to the increase of corruption in the world which leads to diplomatic immunities
to be viewed as not serving any good purpose.

5. NAME: CLOUDIOUS
SURNAME: NYIKADZINO
REG NO: R166900Q
MODULE AND CODE: INTERNATINAL LAW PPM 206
LECTUERER: DR MUDE T
QUESTION :WITH THE AID OF EXAMPLES DISCUSS THE CONTENTION
THAT DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITIES DO NOT SERVE A GOOD PURPOSE.

6. REFFERENCES:
BBC news(2010)
BBC new ( 2017).
Basu,R.(2012) Internationalpolitics concepts and theories:Sage Publication2455,TellerRoad,
ThousandOaks:Calfonia,USA.
Dugard. J ,(2005).Internationallaw:A south African Perspective;Juta& Co,Ltd Capetown:South
Africa.
Hyden,P.(2001).thephilosophy of human rights,ParagonHouse:New York
Linnington,G(2001)constitutionallawof zimbabwe