dear law & order

[fox]

Look, I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure no country has an embassy in New York. (Consulates and all the diplomatic missions you want, why not. And if I'm wrong about the embassies, I'll say so.)

signed,
Washington, DC
you know, the actual capital.

Comments

[mecurtin]

I think you're wrong -- they have embassies to the UN, heaps of them on the East Side.

[fox]

These are mainly permanent missions, best as I can figure out - <a href="http://www.embassyworld.com/dev/result.php?guest=%25&host=212&count=0&menu=1</a>here</a>, e.g. - where for all I know the ambassadors to the UN have offices? But a country's embassy in another country is normally (I might go so far as to say always) in that second country's capital, I'm pretty sure. The US government conducts its business here, which is where other countries' ambassadors are sent. Something to look into in more detail next time I'm bored at work. :-)

[bethbethbeth]

It's true that mostly what we have here are Consulate-Generals, but there are eleven small countries officially represented by their missions in New York, which...I've been led to believe counts?

[fox]

(a) I think the fact that they don't call those diplomatic missions in New York embassies means that while they may be the official representation of those countries in the United States, they are nevertheless not embassies or else they'd be called embassies. You know? (Let me also pre-emptively warn everyone off saying anything like "tchah, just semantics." Semantics being about what words mean, there's no 'just' about it. [g]) And (b) not Iran, which was the subject of the 10pm L&O on TNT. (In fact, I'd lost track, but you and Uncle Wiki have reminded me that we don't actually even have diplomatic relations with Iran - so not only do they not have an embassy in New York because that's not where embassies go, but they don't even have a c-g in New York because we're not speaking to each other anyway. Oh, Law & Order.

(c) Consulates General. :-D Sorry. Tried to leave it, and couldn't.

[bethbethbeth]

Re: (c)

You're evil! Evil, I tell you! And all the passer bys would agree with me. And my brother-in-laws!

*g*

[tevere]

But a country's embassy in another country is normally (I might go so far as to say always) in that second country's capital, I'm pretty sure.

There are a couple of exceptions I can think of, off the top of my head: Tel Aviv is not the capital of Israel, yet hosts a large number of embassies due to sensitivities regarding Jerusalem; and most foreign diplomatic missions to Myanmar/Burma remain in Rangoon/Yangon, rather than the new capital of Naypyidaw (and I don't believe there are plans to forcibly relocate the diplomatic missions--?).

But generally speaking, yes: embassies will be located in a country's capital. A consulate-general is a secondary branch of a foreign diplomatic mission; a High Commission is the mission of one Commonwealth country to another one. Permanent missions to the UN are not embassies -- even if a country's diplomatic relations are maintained through them. A diplomatic relationship is maintained through an accredited representative (an ambassador, or an honourary consul, or a visiting diplomat from an embassy located in a third country), but an embassy is an institution-- not only does it provide services (passports, consular, etc), but its physical grounds are considered native soil of that embassy's country. It's how people can claim political asylum by flinging themselves over embassy fences! You can't fling yourself through the office door of your UN permanent mission and expect to be granted asylum; you'd still be in US territory. So there are definitely important differences.

[fox]

Huh. You know, I think I'd have said Tel Aviv was the capital of Israel, despite its being pretty clearly a second city (the capital is manifestly not always the biggest or most important city in a given country -- witness Glasgow vs. Edinburgh; most Australian cities that can be named by non-Australians vs. Canberra; and, well, New York vs. WDC [g]), probably on account of I knew the embassies were there. Which is to say I'd talked myself right around past the right answer into a different wrong one. ;-)

its physical grounds are considered native soil of that embassy's country.

Interestingly, at least per wikipedia this is not precisely true. (It is true that people can seek sanctuary inside, though, which is your main point here and one with which I don't disagree.)

[tevere]

That's interesting regarding extraterritoriality! I've always operated under the understanding that embassies are functionally sovereign territory, as in: although the land still belongs to the host nation (it isn't an enclave of a foreign nation, so it doesn't have its own airspace or anything like that), the laws of the embassy's country apply inside that physical space-- which is different from simple immunity from host nation laws. But then I thought about it, and. Hypothetically: if I, an Australian, was admitted into the Saudi Embassy in Canberra and performed an action that was illegal under Saudi law but not under Australian law-- the Saudis can't report that action to Australia for action, as it's not illegal in Australia. Neither can the Saudis unilaterally arrest and transport me to Saudia Arabia for prosecution. (I mean, countries do it in practice -- extraordinary renditions -- but I wouldn't argue it's legal.) Which, yeah, implies that Australian law still applies inside foreign embassies, even if diplomats themselves are immune. An interesting technicality. And a good thing to know in advance if you're planning on breaking local laws while inside an embassy overseas-- the locals could theoretically arrest you when you leave! (If they find out, that is *g*.)

[titti]

You're totally right. None of ours are Embassies.