Embassy land not sovereign

Embassy land not sovereign

I refer to the letter by Brien Doyle that appeared in The
Jakarta Post on July 10, concerning the refusal of Governor
Sutiyoso to permit the construction of a protective fence on the
premises of the U.S. Embassy, even after repeated requests from
Ambassador Boyce.

Doyle states, "Let us not forget that the embassy is U.S.
sovereign territory". If this statement is accurate, why would
the embassy ask anyone for permission to build a wall anyway?

There is no precedent under international law that grants a
"sovereign territory" status to embassies, not even for the
United States.

It is a widespread misconception that a foreign embassy
belongs to the territory of the representative nation. The only
status given to embassies under international law concerns
"premises of the mission, which are inviolable and agents of the
receiving state may not enter them, except with the consent of
the head of the mission" (Article 22 of the 1961 Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations).

Hence, His Excellency Boyce is well guided in applying to the
City of Jakarta for consent to build such a wall, as permission
is a requisite.

M.N. NAHUIJSEN
Jakarta