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

[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*.)