The UK has issued a "threat" to enter the Ecuadorian embassy in London

  Forum Editor 00:44 16 Aug 2012

The impasse over our request that the Ecuadorian embassy should hand over Julian Assange looks like coming to a sudden end if our Foreign Office carries out its threat to enter the embassy and arrest him.

Swords are being rattled in advance of the Ecuadorians' declared intention to announce their decision regarding Assange's asylum request tomorrow (technically today, in view of the time now).

  carver 01:57 16 Aug 2012

Quite strange that all this attention is being given to this man to get him sent to Sweden to answer questions that only turned up after America said they wanted him and to do it just before his request for asylum is considered is even stranger.

And for the British Government to threaten to enter an Embassy to seize some one who has not even been charged with a crime is a bit OTT, I wonder how the UK would respond if the same thing was threatened to one of their Embassy's.

  Kevscar1 03:01 16 Aug 2012

and I always thought Embassys were soveriegn territory, if so that would be an act of war. Why would any country do that to get an alleged sex offender

  daz60 08:22 16 Aug 2012

Should Britain engage in this dangerous precedent it would show, once again,that 'we' are Americas poodle.The decision to revoke diplomatic status in order to pursue an alleged criminal could have serious ramifications for British officials and civilians abroad.

A decision like this would bring into sharp focus the apparent inability of this Government to deport criminals who are a danger to the public and the ,as yet unknown,status as regards Gary Mckinnon.

If it is the case that Assange is genuine in his fear that the assault charges are a ruse to enable his extradition to Sweden then ultimate 'redaction' to the USA he has only himself to blame and placing Ecuador in an unenviable position has not helped his case.

  carver 09:23 16 Aug 2012

"If, when he ends up in Sweden, the USA does try and get him then there are Swedish lawyers who can deal with that."

And there are fairies at the bottom of our garden.

Yes the Americans really care for international law enter link description here and we also care enough that we will even help them enter link description here to transfer prisoners to it.

If the Swedish authority had really wanted him they could have interviewed him here then charged him with the alleged offences, once he is in Sweden nobody if going to say any thing if one day he shows up in America by "accident".

  johndrew 09:47 16 Aug 2012

Rather an unusual situation, but there is merit in the suggestion made by fourm member about people turning up at Ecuador's embassies worldwide.

I think I would like to have been a 'fly on the wall' at all discussions on this subject as the legal and diplomatic arguments would have been fascinating. How it will all turn out will also be interesting for the future of diplomacy. Consider the effect if this consideration had been put into effect during the Libyan embassy shooting.

  john bunyan 09:56 16 Aug 2012

The threat to enter the Embassy, in this case, is way OTT. This law was brought in to avoid a repeat of the Libyan Embassy situation when a police woman was shot from within an embassy. He need not be granted safe passage, so let him "rot" where he is for now, and arrest him if and when he tries to leave.

  carver 10:24 16 Aug 2012

This case gets worse the longer it lasts and the response from the authority's is more akin to a multiple killer, this man was not even thought to have any thing to answer to until Swedish Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny reopened the case after the original warrants had been dropped .

"She tells AFP that overturning another prosecutor's decision was "not an ordinary (procedure)"

Quote "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape," says one of Stockholm's chief prosecutors, Eva Finne."

enter link description here

  Woolwell 10:56 16 Aug 2012

carver - I think that you are maligning the Swedish. They are protective of their independence. Your last post is irrelevant to whether the Ecuadorian Embassy should be entered or not. The UK Supreme Court decided that the extradition could go ahead but did not consider the substance of the accusations. It is now about how the extradition takes place. I do not think it is wise to enter an Embassy. It could set a dangerous precedent whereby other countries could enter Embassies.

  Kevscar1 11:41 16 Aug 2012

An embassy is inviolate - Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations:

1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission. 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

The Vienna Convention has effect in English law because of the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964

  Flak999 11:59 16 Aug 2012

The particular piece of legislation that the UK Government would use to enter the Ecuadorian embassy is this: Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987

If this was invoked the embassy would cease to be an embassy and therefore the Vienna convention would not apply.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

iMac Pro review

Illustrator Charles Williams on how to create magazines and book covers

iMac Pro review

Les meilleures prises CPL (2018)