.. ndividuals affixed with a racial designation identifying ancestral background as well as American citizenship, dual nationality arises as an issue under diplomacy. Dual nationality presents problems particularly in nations that consider any descendents of their homeland citizens regardless of their current residence. For example, in Vietnam, negotiations affecting the erection of a liaison office between Hanoi and Washington, D.C. were stalled. The intended act was to establish full diplomatic relations between both nation, but Vietnamese officials refused to agree to terms mandating U.S.

notification in the matter that an American diplomat must be detained in Vietnam. Assuming the U.S. diplomat would have Vietnamese descent, in its disregard of dual nationality, Vietnam resolved not to grant immunity or respect to U.S. diplomats. While recognizing its dilemmas, the United States follows a policy when abuse of diplomatic immunity happens.

With a breach in federal, state, or local laws, the Department of State takes various steps to rectify the matter. Firstly, the State Department notifies the native country of its diplomats misconduct and advises a waiver of immunity to permit the appropriate U.S. court to bring prosecution. If the waiver of immunity is denied, the Department orders for the infinite expulsion of the diplomat from American soil. At times, the home country may try the diplomat within its judiciary.

Civil suits against diplomats often are settled through mutual settlements. V. ABUSES OF DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES (U.S.& abroad) Indeed, diplomacy offers a preferred solution to international conflict than war. Diplomacy eliminates the mortality and economic costs many countries suffer when engaged in war. However, on a smaller scale, diplomacy, causes its own forms of national disruption.

Diplomatic immunity grants beyond even what many national supreme law documents constitutes. Unlike diplomatic immunity, even the U.S. Constitution does not promise freedoms from prosecution after a crime is committed. Abuses of such near absolute freedom occur, in many instances, go unprosecuted, and thus ignites public disdain for international relations. Abuses of diplomatic immunity situate countries in awkward and adverse dual roles.

The state or foreign service departments must act in responsibility of their duties to maintain international fellowships, but also, show allegiance to the country in which it serves. Cases of abuse diplomatic immunity and privilege arise abroad and in the United States, each resulting in different outcomes. On July 21, 1994, the District Court (Amtsgericht) of Berlin-Tiergarten issued a warrant for the arrest of S. (name must remain anonyomous), the former Ambassador of Syria to the German Democratic Republic (GDR), on charges of having assisted in the commission of murder and the bringing about of a bomb explosion in West Berlin in August of 1983. Result: The Court concluded that S. had exercised official duties because he acted according to orders from his government, regardless of its legality in another country. Therefore, he is exempted from prosecution and granted diplomatic immunity.

General Augusto Pinochet thwarts a Communist takeover of Chile in the early 1970s and placed the regime in a plebiscite. Result: The British House of Lords grants an extradition of Pinochet of Chile to Spain to stand trial for crimes against humanity. However, Chileans democratic government contends Pinochet should be immune from persecution and extradition because he was the head of state at the time. The United States has also faced many cases of misconduct from foreign due to diplomatic immunity. Gueorgui Makharadze, diplomat from the Republic of Georgia, on January 3, 1997, kills a 16-year old girl when driving at 80 mph sets off a horrific five-car crash that catapults onto her Volkswagen.

Result: Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze waives his diplomats immunity in order for him to stand trial in U.S. federal courts for second degree murder with a sentencing of approximately 20 years. In December of 1996, a brawl between New York Citys police and U.N. diplomats results over a traffic accident. U.N.

diplomats said to have been drunk, while officers are alleged to have been harassing. In addition, Mayor Giuliani claims diplomats owe excessive amounts of money to the City. Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov alleges discrimination and harrassment. Result: Matter is settled mutually between nations. Because of the uproar, U.S., Russia, and other nations began outlashing one another alleging maltreatment of foreign diplomats. In 1992, Angel Francisco Breard, Paraguayan diplomat, kills an Arlington woman during an attempted rape.

Result: Because of the brutality and severity of the crime, the Virginian government tried and found him guilty. Paraguay officials were not notified of the act, and thus Virginia failed to recognize any diplomatic immunity. The sentencing was death by legal injection. Secretary of State Albright attempts to stay the execution, along with a similar appeal form the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The Supreme Court rules in favor of the state of Virginia (Breard v.

Greene), ruling that the ICJ, the U.S. federal government, nor the Supreme Court could not order Virginia to stay the execution. The execution took place on the evening of April 14, 1998 at 10:39pm. As a result of these occurrences, Congress, in three attempts, have tried to protect the rights of the people of America. In 1995, the Senate, led by Foreign Relation Committee Chair Jesse A. Helmes (R-N.C.), proposed executive withholds of foreign aid to the country of the diplomat who abused his diplomatic immunity or privilege.

In 1997, Republicans Representatives form California and Tennessee crafted a proposition to the Department of the State. The proposition entailed the Department to initially attempt an immunity waiver, and if failed, an assurance that diplomats accused of misconduct be tried in their home countries. In 1999, crimes committed by diplomats are addressed in the United States Code of Service under title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse, ch. 38, 2728, the Secretary of State shall prepare and submit to the Congress, a report concerning diplomatic immunity entitled, Report on Cases Involving Diplomatic Immunity. VI.

CONCLUSION The intentions and ideals behind diplomatic immunity center on the protection of diplomats for the development and endurance of international relations. Importantly, most diplomats and their countries uphold the laws of the United Nations Vienna Conventions and their succeeding acts. U.S. Code 254 under title 22 illustrates such compliance, Any action or proceeding brought against an individual who is entitled to immunity with respect to such action or proceeding under the Vienna Convention, or any other laws extending diplomatic privileges and immunities, shall be dismissed. Nevertheless, abuses of diplomatic immunity disrupt national and international order. Misuses of diplomatic immunity and privileges contradict and undermine the purposes of diplomacy. As diplomats promise to create peace and establish friendly relations with other countries, an allegiance is made concurrently to uphold the laws of the land the land wherever their mission resides and their foot trods. APPENDICES A.

Comparative Survey of Privileges and Immunities of Diplomatic and Consular Missions B. General Assembly Resolution 49/49 C. U.S. Code of Service Title 22, Ch. 38, 2728 D. U.S.

Code of Service Title 22, Ch. 6, 254d VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY And We Are the Law. The Economist (US). 18 Apr. 1998: 27.

Bad to Worse. US News and World Report. 20 Jan 1997: 14. Bradley, Curtis A. Breard, our Dualist Constitution, and the International Conception. Stanford Law Review 51 (1999); 529. Consideration of Effective Measures to Enhance the Protection, Security, and Safety of Diplomatic and Consular Missions and Representatives, G.A.

res. 49/49, 49 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 288, U.N. Doc. A/49/49 (1994).

Fact Sheet: Diplomatic Immunity. US Department of State Dispatch 4 (1993): 471. Fassbender, Bardo. Diplomatic Immunity Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Effect on Diplomatic Immunity on States Other Than Receiving State. The American Journal of International Law 92 (1998): 74-78.

Forbes, Steve. Like It or Not. Forbes. 25 Jan. 1999: 32. Frum, David.

Diplomatic Impunity. Forbes. 26 Apr. 1993: 110 Gould, Jennifer. Retaliation in Moscow. The Village Voice. 18 Mar.

1997: 27. Jacobson, Louis. An Undiplomatic Journal. National Journal 29 (1997): 1045. Kaplan, Refet and Walden Siew. Immunity No Longer Means Impunity for Diplomats? Insight on the News.

3 Feb. 1997: 42-43. Kubalija, Jovan. Comparative Study of Privileges and Immunities of Diplomatic and Consular Missions. DiploEdu (1997): 4 pp. Online.

Internet.Available: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/DIPLOMACY/topics/ privileges/immunity premises.htm. Richards, David A. The Tenant with Sovereign Immunity. Real Estate Law Journal 11 (1983): 232-240. United States Code of Service.

Title 22. Foreign Relations & Intercourse. Ch. 6. Foreign Diplomatic and Consular Officers.

254d. United States Code of Service. Title 22. Foreign Relations & Intercourse. Ch.

38 Department of State. 2728. Whitelaw, Kevin. When Diplomats Break the Law. US News and World Report. 20 Jan.

1997: 14. Wu, Irene. Identity Crisis. Far Eastern Economic Review. 5 May 1994: 32-34.

Bibliography VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY And We Are the Law. The Economist (US). 18 Apr. 1998: 27. Bad to Worse.

US News and World Report. 20 Jan 1997: 14. Bradley, Curtis A. Breard, our Dualist Constitution, and the International Conception. Stanford Law Review 51 (1999); 529. Consideration of Effective Measures to Enhance the Protection, Security, and Safety of Diplomatic and Consular Missions and Representatives, G.A.

res. 49/49, 49 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 288, U.N.

Doc. A/49/49 (1994). Fact Sheet: Diplomatic Immunity. US Department of State Dispatch 4 (1993): 471. Fassbender, Bardo. Diplomatic Immunity Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Effect on Diplomatic Immunity on States Other Than Receiving State. The American Journal of International Law 92 (1998): 74-78.

Forbes, Steve. Like It or Not. Forbes. 25 Jan. 1999: 32.

Frum, David. Diplomatic Impunity. Forbes. 26 Apr. 1993: 110 Gould, Jennifer. Retaliation in Moscow. The Village Voice.

18 Mar. 1997: 27. Jacobson, Louis. An Undiplomatic Journal. National Journal 29 (1997): 1045. Kaplan, Refet and Walden Siew.

Immunity No Longer Means Impunity for Diplomats? Insight on the News. 3 Feb. 1997: 42-43. Kubalija, Jovan. Comparative Study of Privileges and Immunities of Diplomatic and Consular Missions.

DiploEdu (1997): 4 pp. Online. Internet.Available: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/DIPLOMACY/topics/ privileges/immunity premises.htm. Richards, David A. The Tenant with Sovereign Immunity. Real Estate Law Journal 11 (1983): 232-240.

United States Code of Service. Title 22. Foreign Relations & Intercourse. Ch. 6.

Foreign Diplomatic and Consular Officers. 254d. United States Code of Service. Title 22. Foreign Relations & Intercourse.

Ch. 38 Department of State. 2728. Whitelaw, Kevin. When Diplomats Break the Law. US News and World Report.

20 Jan. 1997: 14. Wu, Irene. Identity Crisis. Far Eastern Economic Review.

5 May 1994: 32-34. Political Issues Essays.