Embassy land not sovereign<\/p>\n
I refer to the letter by Brien Doyle that appeared in The
\nJakarta Post on July 10, concerning the refusal of Governor
\nSutiyoso to permit the construction of a protective fence on the
\npremises of the U.S. Embassy, even after repeated requests from
\nAmbassador Boyce.<\/p>\n
Doyle states, \"Let us not forget that the embassy is U.S.
\nsovereign territory\". If this statement is accurate, why would
\nthe embassy ask anyone for permission to build a wall anyway?<\/p>\n
There is no precedent under international law that grants a
\n\"sovereign territory\" status to embassies, not even for the
\nUnited States.<\/p>\n
It is a widespread misconception that a foreign embassy
\nbelongs to the territory of the representative nation. The only
\nstatus given to embassies under international law concerns
\n\"premises of the mission, which are inviolable and agents of the
\nreceiving state may not enter them, except with the consent of
\nthe head of the mission\" (Article 22 of the 1961 Vienna
\nConvention on Diplomatic Relations).<\/p>\n
Hence, His Excellency Boyce is well guided in applying to the
\nCity of Jakarta for consent to build such a wall, as permission
\nis a requisite.<\/p>\n
M.N. NAHUIJSEN
\nJakarta<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/embassy-land-not-sovereign-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}