Assange could go to international court

[AntiFascist]

Source: Australian Associated Press

JULIAN Assange's legal team will likely apply to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to get the activist out of London to diplomatic asylum in Ecuador.

...

The ICJ is the world's top arbitration body for disputes between states.
Speaking through an interpreter on the sidelines of the International Council of Archives Congress in Brisbane, Mr Garzon said the United Kingdom is bound by international law to offer his client safe passage to asylum.

The UK could be ordered into negotiations with Ecuador if the ICJ finds in favour of an application.

...

"Mr Assange does not refuse to being tried in Sweden," he said.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/world/assange-could-go-to-international-court/story-fndir2ev-1226457066156?from=public_rss

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. UK would have to agree to the ICJ hearing the matter

[On the Road]

2. Is That How the ICJ Works?

I really don't know. I would have thought that once a country signs the treaty, they cede control over things like this.

[struggle4progress]

7. Jurisdiction, in practice, is by consent

[Posteritatis]

8. In practice countries pick and choose when they'll recognize international courts.

There's no way Britain will in this case, not if they're invested enough to be openly threatening to violate an embassy.

[cstanleytech]

3. But what are the odds the court would even agree to hear the matter?

After all as of this moment there is no warrant for the arrest of Assange in the US.
Could the US issue one in the future though? Sure at which time it becomes an issue for the courts.

[AntiFascist]

5. There is also the issue that...

Australia is not providing Assange with sufficient legal protections, as a citizen of Australia, which he should be entitled to. Furthermore, Australia admits to passing intelligence to the US in an ongoing investigation of Assange. Reuters has confirmed that there is an ongoing investigation of Assange and Wikileaks. This may warrrant the ICJ taking the case seriously since he is being ignored by his home country.

[Spider Jerusalem]

12. Define "sufficient legal protections"?

It's my understanding that diplomatic intervention in the case of a citizen accused of a criminal offence in a foreign country is limited to assurances that the rights of the citizen so charged are being respected and that he has approrpiate access to counsel. Both of these conditions are satisfied in this instance.

Not only that, the claims that Australia is "ingoring" the situation and failing in its obligations to a citizen is not even true:

Foreign Affairs Minister Bob Carr has released a list of when Australian consular officials contacted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Mr Assange is holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and is facing extradition to Sweden for questioning over sexual assault allegations.

He has repeatedly said many of his claims have been ignored by the Australian Government.

But Senator Carr says the list shows Mr Assange has been provided assistance 62 times, from when he was arrested in December 2010 to early last week.

"No other Australian has had more assistance than Mr Assange in a comparable time," Senator Carr said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-23/carr-reveals-timetable-of-consular-contact-with-assange/4218448

Foreign Minister Bob Carr's office says consular officials have spoken with Ecuadorian embassy staff on eight occasions, who have then relayed messages to the WikiLeaks founder.

The last conversation was less than two days ago, just before Ecuador granted him asylum.

A spokesman for Senator Carr says Mr Assange was offered consular assistance, but he thanked them and declined the offer.

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2012-08-18/assange-refused-offer-of-assistance-from-australia/1001562

Senator Carr said Australia had intervened on Mr Assange's behalf 62 times since the dispute began, more representations than were offered to any other Australian in that period of time.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/us-denies-wild-assange-witch-hunt-claims/story-fnd134gw-1226454565612

[AntiFascist]

20. Have consular authorities actually visited Assange?

That seems to be the main complaint:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/assange-lawyer-baltasar-garzon-declares-australia-has-failed-in-its-obligations/story-fn775xjq-1226456771346

"At no point in time have consular authorities visited Mr Assange and I understand that to be an obligation for citizens, for men and women in Australia, have the right to consular assistance and they should not have to request it," Mr Garzon said.

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. He rejected offers of consular assistance

so complaining that he didn't get what he said he didn't want seems a bit absurd.

[Cleita]

4. That would probably be the best solution.

It would take it out of the hands of any parties who might have secret agendas and then we might get real justice served. I don't think the ICJ has been corrupted by super powers yet.

[struggle4progress]

6. Assange's legal team might want a quick peek at the Court's website before filing:

The Court has a twofold role: to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States ... and to give advisory opinions ... on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3

The ICJ will probably find Assange & Co to be neither a State nor a duly authorized UN organ or agency

I admired Garzon at one time, though I now begin to wonder if there is some good reason he is not allowed to practice law in Spain

[backscatter712]

11. This is going to be a case between Equador and the UK.

Those two are both states. Equador used its sovereign right to grant asylum to Julian Assange, and to fully exercise that right, they want the UK to grant Assange safe passage to leave the Equadorian embassy and leave the country for Equador.

So Assange himself is not the primary plaintiff. Equador is, as the nation-state that is exercising its right to grant asylum to those subjected to political persecution.

That's perfectly within the ICJ's jurisdiction.

[struggle4progress]

35. The Spaniard Garzon is not Ecuador's representative but heads Assange's legal team:

... Judge Baltasar Garzón, who is leading Julian Assange’s legal team, announced Thursday that he will go before the International Court of Justice at The Hague if Britain refuses to allow the WikiLeaks founder to travel to Ecuador, the country that granted him asylum.

In an interview after Ecuador had announced that it was approving Assange’s request for diplomatic asylum, the former High Court judge criticized the show of force and “threats of invading” the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where his client has been holed up since June 19.

“Of course they can’t do that,” he said. “They have to comply with diplomatic and legal obligations under the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and respect the sovereignty of a country that has granted asylum.

“If Britain doesn’t comply with its obligations, we will go before International Court of Justice to demand that Britain complies with its obligations because there is a person who runs the risk of being persecuted politically,” Garzón said ...

Garzón: “We will go to international court if UK blocks Assange exit”
Spanish judge says Britain must respect Ecuador’s decision to grant asylum
Foreign Minister Hague says his government’s only obligation is to extradite WikiLeaks founder
http://elpais.com/elpais/2012/08/16/inenglish/1345140794_436860.html

The poor old chap has come entirely unhinged

[JDPriestly]

13. The dispute would be between Ecuador and the UK.

[struggle4progress]

38. Assange will take UK to ‘World Court’ if not given safe passage to Ecuado

London, Sat Aug 18 2012, 11:31 hrs

A lawyer representing Julian Assange has said that the WikiLeaks founder will take Britain to the United Nation's International Court of Justice if it refuses to grant him safe passage to Ecuador.

The threat to appeal to the so-called ‘World Court’ came after UK Foreign Secretary William Hague promised that British authorities would arrest Assange if he tries to leave the Ecuadorean Embassy in London ...

Baltasar Garzon, Assange's lawyer, told the Spanish newspaper El Pais that Britain was acting far beyond its authority because Assange was a political refugee accepted for asylum by a sovereign nation and the UK was obligated to honour that ...

“If Britain doesn't comply with its obligations, we will go before International Court of Justice to demand that Britain complies with its obligations because there is a person who runs the risk of being persecuted politically,” he added ...

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/assange-will-take-uk-to-world-court-if-not-given-safe-passage-to-ecuador/989958/


Garzon takes the demented view that Assange is a refugee, and that Assange as a refugee can sue the UK at the ICJ to force the UK to grant him safe passage from the country

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. The International Court of Justice is likely to deny hearing

on the grounds that Assange is abusing the asylum process by seeking asylum in Ecuador to avoid prosecution for sexual assault in Sweden. Under international law the right of asylum does not extend to persons accused of ordinary crimes.

[JDPriestly]

14. Assange would argue that the "ordinary crime" alleged against him and the charge

derived from it are simply pretexts for political persecution. It is not unusual for governments to punish political foes by claiming an ordinary crime.

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. There's no evidence of that

it would probably be dismissed as paranoid fantasy, honestly. A competent prosecutiorial authority has found sufficient evidence for the prosecution of Assange under Swedish law. The case can only be answered at trial. His extradtion to Sweden on criminal charges in categorically NOT onward extradition to the US on political or espionage charges, and I am not really certain how he would expect such an argument to succeed.

[AntiFascist]

15. Wikileaks has evidence...

based on a series of stolen emails, that there may be plans for Assange's prosecution, or at least questioning, in the US, including:

http://justice-integrity.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=559&catid=44§ionid=1&Itemid=1

In another email, Burton suggests that authorities could “lock him up” by having Assange detained as a material witness. Burton’s email was sent in response to a discussion about reports that U.S. prosecutors have not been able to hang the case against Pvt. Bradley Manning on any direct contact with Assange. Speaking to Raw Story Tuesday morning, U.S. Department of Justice spokesman Dean Boyd said that they cannot comment “on whether anyone has been charged in a sealed indictment.”

Loads of info at that webpage.

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. Which has fuck-all to do with a criminal prosecution in Sweden.

[AntiFascist]

24. On the contrary...

one of the emails states:

http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1050427_re-assange-is-off-the-hook-.html

Let's say the following scenario happens. Assange is arrested and
extradicted to Sweden to face rape charges. Wikileaks releases the
password to the insurance files. Would he not then be directly
endangering U.S. and other country intelligence professionals? Would
it not then be possible to prosecute him for espionage?

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. That's absurd and nonsensical

espionage is a political crime. US extradition treaties with Sweden, and the UK, and pretty much every country, specifically bar extradition for political crimes. Furthermore Assange is not a US citizen. His actions as such were committed outside the US (a country he has never visited, as far as I know). The Espionage Act of 1917 applies to actions committed by US citizens, and to acts committed by foreign nationals within the borders of the United States and subject to US law and immigration controls. It does not apply to acts committed by foreign nationals outside the US.

[AntiFascist]

26. I have to disagree with you again...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html

Wikileaks Founder Could be Charge under Espionage Act

"To the extent there are gaps in our laws," Holder continued, "we will move to close those gaps, which is not to say . . . that anybody at this point, because of their citizenship or their residence, is not a target or a subject of an investigation that's ongoing." He did not indicate that Assange is being investigated for possible violations of the Espionage Act.

...

"But when it comes to Assange, Jeffrey H. Smith, a former CIA general counsel, said: "I'm confident that the Justice Department is figuring out how to prosecute him."

Smith noted that State Department general counsel Harold H. Koh had sent a letter to Assange on Saturday urging him not to release the cables, to return all classified material and to destroy all classified records from WikiLeaks databases.

"That language is not only the right thing to do policy-wise but puts the government in a position to prosecute him," Smith said. Under the Espionage Act, anyone who has "unauthorized possession to information relating to the national defense" and has reason to believe it could harm the United States may be prosecuted if he publishes it or "willfully" retains it when the government has demanded its return, Smith said."

Also, there may be an international loophole where international law dictates that extradition cases are to be decided on a case by case basis (presuming that this could override Sweden's domestic law?)

[Spider Jerusalem]

31. The Congressional Research Service examined Espionage Act grounds for seeking indictment.

And found that there was no instance of the publisher of classified information being charged (as opposed to the person who obtained said information).

As a cyberwar erupts over WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, the question remains as to what the United States can actually do to prosecute the diplomatic cable leakers for endangering national security.

Unfortunately for the hawks, the 1917 Espionage Act is the most recent and most relevant law on the books applying to the WikiLeaks case, reports Steven Aftergood on his FAS Project on Government Secrecy website. The Espionage Act is not just outdated, its applicable statutes (as well as those from other similar laws) may leave the media organization in the clear, according to the latest report from the Congressional Research Service.

"There appears to be no statute that generally proscribes the acquisition or publication of diplomatic cables, although government employees who disclose such information without proper authority may be subject to prosecution," the report's author, Attorney Jennifer K. Elsea, states.

In other words, the alleged illegal downloading of the material by PFC Bradley Manning is covered under the Espionage Act, but not WikiLeaks' (or The New York Times') release of the material.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20025040-503543.html

[AntiFascist]

34. As of May 12, 2011...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8508517/WikiLeaks-grand-jury-hearing-opens-in-US.html

there has been a "grand jury investigation into WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, who faces the possibility of being charged with espionage in the United States."

This was confirmed in a recent report I cited from Reuters.

Did you not read the excerpt in my previous post? Eric Holder was seeking to close gaps in the laws.

If there is a sealed indictment against Assange (which no one would admit to since it is "sealed&quot who knows what is going on?

[Spider Jerusalem]

37. "seeking to close gaps in the laws" = ex post facto and thus unconstitutional

and only applicable in prosecution for future actions, not the current case.

[AntiFascist]

41. We'll see how this plays out....

it is encouraging that the Obama admin claims that the likelihood of prosecution is receding.

One flaw in this logic is that the Consitution applies to US citizens, but Assange is not an American. What if the US military views this a matter of a foreigner collaborating with the enemy? What if the military has already taken the wild leap that this was an act of terrorism by a rogue organization?

[Spider Jerusalem]

42. Not really

it's not its applicability to non-US citizens but to Congress that is at issue: "Congress may pass no ex post facto law".

See also international law, specifically the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, which says &quot 2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed." See also the same stipulations in Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The US is party to both of these; treaties have the force of law in the US. Taken together with the Constitutional prohibition on ex post facto law I don't really see any way in which a law can be legitimately created and made to apply retroactively.

[AntiFascist]

43. "Closing the gaps"....

might refer to the judicial process of interpreting existing laws without necessarilly going through the Congressional process of enacting new ones, although Senators (and including the president of the Senate) have gone on record as stating that Assange should be prosecuted. What laws relate to the release of information that could endanger intelligence sources?

[truedelphi]

46. Your citations of laws dating back to 1917, without mentioning how

Very different the post-Nine Eleven political climate has become, worries me. .

Since Nine Eleven, it is as though an entirely new political climate has been brought into existence, such that an American teen was killed by a drone, (accidentally, our government says) and American citizens can be held indefinitely without being charged, but your ignoring of these realities seems to indicate you have a slant on this issue.

The Patriot Act does not offer Assange any such protections as the citations you mention. And the NDAA is even more severe.

If things were as you portray them to be, would Manning be in custody, under the conditions he has faced?

[Spider Jerusalem]

47. The Espionage Act of 1917 is the only law that would apply.

The Justice Department has said the same. And the Patriot Act doesn't apply to acts that can be classed as "espionage".

And of course Manning would be in custody. He was a serving member of the armed forces who intercepted classified material and transmitted it to foreign nationals. Laws applicable to civilians aside this is a serious offence under the UCMJ; the maximum penalty is death, and the best he could hope for would probably be 25 years in Leavenworth.

[truedelphi]

50. The Justice Department? Of the United States of America?

They said that only the espionage act would be applied?

Would this be the same Justice Department that doesn't possess the needed cajones (or has been ordered not to) to take on Wall Street Malfeasance?

Even after Sixty Minutes, the TV show, detailed how the Justice Department backed away from prosecuting financial crimes of a totally felonious nature, brought about by a financial firm, where whistle blowers had in their possession the signed documents showing how executives at the firm knew of the wrong doing? Do you indeed mean The Justice Department that has the record of indicting fewer Wall Street white collar criminals than any Administration in the last Twenty Years?

So okay, if it is that Justice Department, I guess I would totally like, uh, believe them. (Said in a very Valley Girl tone of voice.)

[mwooldri]

10. About Assange....

Does Ecuador have an embassy in Stockholm? Why not grant Mr. Assange safe passage to the Ecuadorian embassy in Sweden? Then the Swedish authorities can quiz him all he likes in the embassy? Why can't the Swedish authorities come to London and quiz Mr. Assange at the embassy there?

I think I remember this phrase about Muhammad and a mountain... that if mountain won't come to Muhammad, then Muhammad would have to go to the mountain. In this case I don't know which is which - is Sweden the mountain or is Mr. Assange?

[hack89]

17. Only if Assange promises to go into custody if the Swedish prosecutors decide to arrest him

the reason he fled Sweden the day before his interview with prosecutors is he fears arrest. Your solution does not fix that problem - he has to be on Swedish soil to be arrested.

[tama]

27. And the reason for that

is that it became a matter of national prestige in Sweden instead of justice for the people whom the case most concerns. National prestige and justice don't easily coexist.

[hack89]

28. If Ecuador and Assange refuse to recognize Sweden's right to arrest Assange if necessary

then why should Sweden participate in such a farce? Just who gets to decide what is justice? Assange?

[tama]

33. "Who gets to decide what is justice?"

Good question which I like to approach in terms of general philosophy of politics and ethics. Skipping the philosophical discussion and history of millenia of thought and wisdom on the matter (which skipping is admittedly anti-philosophical act but hopefully justifiable by reasons of brevity), I suggest that first and foremost those decide whom the matter most directly concerns, JA, AA and SW. If they are unable to come to common agreement and decision of what is just for them in this matter, then the circle of discussion about justice could be widened according to their consensual wishes.

Nation states and their laws are very low on my list of priorities about who should get to decide what is justice.

[hack89]

36. So you have no practical solution that could solve the present impasse?

ok - that's fine.

[tama]

40. Practical solution that could solve the present impasse

is in no way in my power - or yours. If interested parties had the will - and I might add common decency - to find a practical solution, the facts on which it could be founded upon are pretty well established also in collective DU analysis of the legal and other aspect of the situation and could be easily negotiated. The problem is that there is no such will to respect the rights for justice for each of the three individuals whom this matter most concern, as they have been overridden by matters of national interests and prestige from the very beginning.

[JDPriestly]

19. Ah!!! The irony:

Criminal proceedings have begun in Spain against six senior officials in the Bush administration for the use of torture against detainees in Guantánamo Bay. Baltasar Garzón, the counter-terrorism judge whose prosecution of General Augusto Pinochet led to his arrest in Britain in 1998, has referred the case to the chief prosecutor before deciding whether to proceed.

The case is bound to threaten Spain's relations with the new administration in Washington, but Gonzalo Boyé, one of the four lawyers who wrote the lawsuit, said the prosecutor would have little choice under Spanish law but to approve the prosecution.

"The only route of escape the prosecutor might have is to ask whether there is ongoing process in the US against these people," Boyé told the Observer. "This case will go ahead. It will be against the law not to go ahead."

The officials named in the case include the most senior legal minds in the Bush administration. They are: Alberto Gonzales, a former White House counsel and attorney general; David Addington, former vice-president Dick Cheney's chief of staff; Douglas Feith, who was under-secretary of defence; William Haynes, formerly the Pentagon's general counsel; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee, who were both senior justice department legal advisers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/29/guantanamo-bay-torture-inquiry

It is said that Obama stopped Garzon from prosecuting these individuals:

But what really seems to have raised the ire of the U.S. was Garzón’s attempt to indict six former Bush officials for crimes against humanity, including Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo (Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel, Douglas Feith (Undersecretary of Defense for Policy), William Hayne (Donald Rumsfeld’s Chief Counsel), Jay Bybee (Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel), and David Addington (Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff).

The Bush 6 constituted a legal team which authorized torture at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba and elsewhere. One might think, on the surface at least, that the incoming Obama administration would want to bring these figures to justice. However, WikiLeaks cables reveal to the contrary that Obama officials pressured to have Garzón removed from the Bush 6 case, which was ultimately dismissed.

If that was not bad enough, cables also reveal that the U.S. pressured the Spanish government to have Garzón drop his investigation into the death of a Spanish journalist who was killed by American shelling in Baghdad. Moreover, Garzón was obliged to abandon efforts to get to the bottom of allegations made by Spanish Guantánamo detainees that they had been tortured. The intrepid Garzón had also sought to investigate the use of Spanish bases for CIA “rendition” flights, which resulted in suspects being transported to third countries which practiced torture. Once again, according to WikiLeaks cables, Garzón was obliged to cease and desist from his important legal work.

Perhaps, as a result of these WikiLeaks disclosures, Garzón feels a certain degree of personal solidarity with Julian Assange. Having irked the powers that be in Washington once before, the Spanish judge is now entering the public spotlight once again.

http://warcriminalswatch.org/index.php/news/40-recent-news/1345-1-25-12-thoughts-about-the-baltasar-garzonjulian-assange-teamup-

Could the revelation that Obama stopped the trial of the Bush leaders for war crimes the real reason that Obama is so angry about Wikileaks?

At any rate, Garzon is a fierce fighter for human rights and justice no matter who the perpetrators are:

Spanish courts, led by the indomitable Garzón, have pursued dictators, torturers and human rights abusers around the globe, pioneering a bold use of international law. They chase Nazi criminals, jail Argentinian torturers and even had Chile's former dictator, Augusto Pinochet, arrested in London. Yet crimes committed on their own doorstep are untouchable.

. . . .

One of the ironies of the Garzón case, in which a far-right group called Clean Hands accuses the magistrate of bypassing Spain's 1977 amnesty law, is that people like this are finally being heard in court. In the upside-down world of Spain's relationship with its murderous past, then, it is the investigator who is accused of committing a crime. Men like Lobo have never been placed in the dock. "We victims did nothing to turn the spotlight on them afterwards. Spain's reforms had absolved their masters. Would it have been right to pursue the servants?" the writer Manuel Vázquez Montalbán once explained, referring to 1970s police torturers in Barcelona.

Garzón's failed attempt at opening a case against Franco and his henchmen nevertheless set out a devastating narrative for the 1936 rightwing military rebellion that sparked a civil war and toppled an elected government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/05/baltasar-garzon-trial-franco-crimes

Garzon at least tries to speak truth to power. Very ironic that he is representing Assange. No wonder a country like Ecuador could be persuaded to give Assange asylum.

[Spider Jerusalem]

22. "A country like Ecuador"...

which is extraditing a Belarussian blogger and regime critic named Alexander Barankov, who had previously been granted asylum in Ecuador, after a visit from the Belarussian trade minister. Sure, they care about human rights and press freedoms and won't use Assange as a bargaining chip in a future trade deal with the US or UK when and if it suits them (and if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you).

[tama]

29. Not extraditing

but having the matter decided by court. Judging from legal and other persecution and oppression of indigenous representatives of CONAIE, which courts have not so far convicted any against the Charges of Correa administration, courts of Ecuador have at least some level of independence. As for the court cases against editors of corporate pro-coup media, propagandists for banksters have little sympathy from me when they are prevented from spreading their lies, but I also support pardoning them as individuals, as making them into martyrs of any kind would be both inhumane and stupid.

[Spider Jerusalem]

32. "having the matter decided by a court"...

very conveniently reopening the extradition case following the Belarussian trade minister's visit, despite Barankov having been granted asylum after extradition was rejected by the courts in 2010. Forgive me for having less faith than you seem to in the probity and fairness of the Ecuadorean government.

[tama]

39. I have very little of such faith

My sympathies go with the rural indigenous opposition of Correa, who represents the interests of oil-dependent urban class whose short sighted and unsustainable way of living is dependent from destroying the ecosystems from which the indigenous self-sufficient ways of life depend from through oil extraction. As so often, oil is curse, not a blessing for the people of land. Both have previously united in battle against most heinous forms of right-wing neocolonialism, and CONAIE also supports Correa's decision to grant Assange a asylum for reasons of humane behavior and support for freedom of expression, while condemning Correa's persecution of representatives of indigenous people of Ecuador and policies of destruction of their way of life.

[hack89]

44. I thought nation states and their laws are very low on your list of priorities

regarding who should dispense justice.

I take it they just moved higher on your list?

[tama]

45. Nope

That was just a factual correction of a misleading statement plus a couple supplementary facts to get a fuller picture of the situation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. The ICJ decided in 1950 that diplomatic asylum only applied if both countries had already agreed

One last tidbit of academic dryness before considering the Assange case: The prevailing view that diplomatic asylum is not part of accepted international law was settled in a case between Peru and Colombia before the International Court of Justice in 1950.

Victor de la Haya, a Peruvian, led an unsuccessful rebellion in Peru and was wanted by authorities there. He hid in the Colombian embassy in Lima and asked for, and received asylum from Colombia. Peru, however, refused to grant safe passage. Sound familiar?

The court ruled that diplomatic asylum is not recognized unless treaties or other agreements are in place between countries.

So today, "in general international law there isn't actually a right to grant diplomatic asylum, or at least other states aren't required to respect it," said Matthew Happold, an international law expert at the University of Luxembourg.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/17/world/uk-assange-international-law/index.html

[rachel1]

30. the best of luck to him and his attorneys

he really needs it for the heroism he displayed.

[cliss]

48. Sure. Send him.

But only after you send Bush, Cheney, and 10,000 other crooks.

[treestar]

49. ........

CHAPTER II - COMPETENCE OF THE COURT

Article 34

1. Only states may be parties in cases before the Court.

2. The Court, subject to and in conformity with its Rules, may request of public international organizations information relevant to cases before it, and shall receive such information presented by such organizations on their own initiative.

3. Whenever the construction of the constituent instrument of a public international organization or of an international convention adopted thereunder is in question in a case before the Court, the Registrar shall so notify the public international organization concerned and shall communicate to it copies of all the written proceedings.

Article 35

1. The Court shall be open to the states parties to the present Statute.

2. The conditions under which the Court shall be open to other states shall, subject to the special provisions contained in treaties in force, be laid down by the Security Council, but in no case shall such conditions place the parties in a position of inequality before the Court.

3. When a state which is not a Member of the United Nations is a party to a case, the Court shall fix the amount which that party is to contribute towards the expenses of the Court. This provision shall not apply if such state is bearing a share of the expenses of the Court

Article 36

1. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force.

2. The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning:

a. the interpretation of a treaty;

b. any question of international law;

c. the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation;

d. the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.



http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0#CHAPTER_II