Law violation misinterpreted

In the Internet age, a trivial matter can rapidly spread across the whole country and even the world. And an uncomplicated event may become sensitive and elusive after being interpreted and commented on by different people.

The Chen Guangcheng incident occurred because a Chinese citizen believed he had not been fairly treated. With the assistance of the US Embassy in China, Chen Guangcheng entered and stayed several days in the US Embassy via abnormal means. Two issues arise: firstly, was it legal for the US Embassy to offer asylum to Chen?; secondly, Chen’s future treatment has become a topic of diplomatic discussion between the two governments.

Asylum is a law-related notion rather than a political one. There are certain international laws and regulations about it, which are accepted and followed by many countries including China and the United States.

According to the international law, embassies should not conduct what is not in accordance with its duties. This is also the rule of Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Offering asylum to citizens of host countries not only undermines the sovereignty of host countries but is also beyond the legitimate jurisdiction of embassies. In history, there were indeed similar cases, which are called territorial asylum, and they caused many international disputes. In the case of Haya de la Torre, the International Court of Justice ruled that diplomatic asylum undermined the sovereignty of the host country, intervened with its exclusive affairs and violated general international laws. The International Court of Justice’s verdict is an authoritative judgment based on modern international law.

Therefore, the international law acknowledges the right of a person in a foreign country to seek asylum in that country. However, it opposes diplomatic missions to offer asylum to citizens of host countries. It is easy to understand this: can any country accept extraterritoriality?

Chen Guangcheng entered the US Embassy in China. It should be made clear that according to modern international law, an embassy is not the “extending territory” of a foreign country. Offering diplomatic privileges and immunity to the diplomatic mission does not mean the transfer of territorial sovereignty. Believing an embassy is the territory of a foreign country is actually an idea deviating from international law.

The moment Chen entered the US Embassy, a political and legal problem was created. As a big power, the United States cannot disregard the international law regarding diplomatic privileges and immunity, and cannot grant “territorial asylum”.

Chen, a self-taught lawyer, is familiar with domestic law but not necessarily knowledgeable about international law. In modern society, the diplomatic action of a sovereign state must bear the responsibility under international law. Any case that violates the law, even if matching the political demand of a country for the moment, is bound to undermine the international legal system and the right and guarantees the system offers to that country.

Territorial asylum cannot be accepted by a sovereign state, politically or legally. The US government understands this. Whether it is appropriate or not, the US government expressed its concerns over the situation of Chen Guangcheng and let him leave the embassy “of his own volition” after learning that the Chinese government would ensure the lawful rights of Chen. A legal and political conflict was thus defused.

However, it is reported that Chen said he wanted to live in the United States, which made the US diplomats feel embarrassed. It added another wrinkle to the incident that has already calmed down. It is Chen’s own affair to dream of which country to live in, but the feasibility of realizing it depends on reality and law.

We wish Mr. Chen a quick recovery and that he lives a good life. We also hope that the diplomatic incident quiets down and the unnecessary political speculation and exaggerated comments about the incident come to an end as soon as possible.