Diplomatic Missions And WMDs: A Brief Overview

What are Diplomatic Missions?

1.What are the differences in immunity for ambassadors and their embassies and consuls and their consulates? Explain the rationale and implications of the differences.

2.Out of the three categories of weapons falling under the rubric of WMD, which has the most effective control regime and why?

3.Does ethnic cleansing spill over into genocide, or should the two be treated as separate phenomena and crimes? Illustrate your response with actual examples.

1.Diplomatic mission are being build upon by one country that establishes its presence in another country which is known as embassy. Normally the embassies are situated in the capital of the country and it is being run by the ambassador who represents respective countries. The ambassadors are the official rank holder (Subramanian, 2017).  The main objective that the embassy does is to maintain friendly relation. The embassy also acts as a messenger between the countries they exchange important information.

Consulates are the smaller version in comparison to embassy and they are being placed in the states or cities where most of the tourists visit. The work of the consulate is to deal with the diplomatic issues which are minor in nature they deal with the issue such as visas, aiding in the relationship of trade, tourist and expatriates. Another important duty of the consulate is to maintain commercial links between two countries (Anderson, 2017).

Consulates are being maintained by consuls. With the number of consulates in a country the number of consuls will also vary. They represent the citizen of their respective countries. The consulate can provide protection and can help in case of lost passport and other documents that is necessary for traveling. They possess the power to grant and reject permission for their visit to their own country.

Embassies and consulates are product of the same material but the functions that they perform are different from one another (Hare, 2015).Where the embassies deal with the major issues of diplomatic issues the consulates deals with the trade issues and issues with the people who are residing in the country. Diplomatic immunity is given to some of the government officials who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the local authority or courts and different authorities for their official and local activities.

The principle of the immunity is one of the oldest concepts of foreign relation that evolve from the ancient and Greek and Roman Governments.

• It is considered that the foreign delegates can carry out their work effectively if they are being given some extra power and immunity in this regard so as they can carry their effectively without and issues (Cusumano, 2016).
• The high ranked diplomatic officials have highest form of immunity. The ambassador of a country is given full immunity that means that despite of any criminal activity charges may that be to the extent of murder even then the local courts or the local authority does not carry the power to prosecute. They can neither be arrested nor be forced to make any kind of justification in front of the court.
• Whereas in case of the consular who are considered to have a lower rank as a diplomat in comparison to the ambassador are provided with functional immunity. In this type of immunity implies only in the situation of work and not any situation which are outside the office activity.

The main difference that lies between the representative and the consular officer can be seen in the matter of privileges that they enjoy (Talbot, 2017). The privileges and their immunity vary according to the treaty between the two countries and legislation. The difference in immunity was created in order to mark the difference in rank of the official. Another important reason that was considered was that the ambassador who is considered as the highest in rank has greater responsibilities than the consulate so they should enjoy greater power where as the consulate has lesser responsibilities than the ambassador so they should be enough with the lesser immunity.

The Difference Between Embassies and Consulates

2.WMD is the abbreviation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The weapons of mass destruction has three category, those are as follows:

1. Nuclear Weapon
2. Chemical Weapon
3. Biological Weapon

Nuclear Weapon

The nuclear weapon is considered to be the deadliest when it comes to mass destruction. The nuclear weapon has destructive powers that can produce a huge power that can produce a heat wave that can be felt from hundreds of kilometres away (Fukuyama, 2017). A single nuclear weapon carries the power to kill more than hundred thousand people.

It is estimated that around 13, 70 nuclear weapons are being made by eight countries and many weapons are kept in reserve.

Chemical weapons 

These weapons are distinguished because of the extensive and established commercial constituents. Especially if we compare it with nuclear weapon, chemical weapons are considered to be much cheaper and easier to manufacture (Knopf, 2016).An international agreement came into existence in order to ban chemical weapons which came into existence in the year 1997. The treaty says that the countries that are in possession of nuclear weapon should destroy them.

Biological weapons

This is the form of weapon where very lethal form of bacteria or toxins is being used. These types of weapon are uncontrollable and can spread quickly and there damage cannot be judged or limited. These types of weapon are very rare in nature and were used very rarely in war or terrorist attack. There are rising concerns, though, about the probability of future employ of weapons (Caves  & Carus, 2014).

The nuclear nonproliferation regime includes more than a few treaties, wide-ranging agreements, mutual group and domestic organizations, and the local laws of participating nations. The regime prohibits all the three categories of WMD from being manufactured while there most focus is always on the nuclear weapon as it has the most devastating effect on the human being upon being used. But they also know that the materials such as uranium and plutonium are not available easily and it is less likely to fall in the hands of the terrorist who can cause huge destruction (Bale,2017). But they are afraid of the chemical bomb which is easier to make than the nuclear bomb and the materials are easily available.

3.Both the terms “ethnic cleaning” and genocide carry different and distinctive meaning and different emotions. When it comes to crime they can’t be considered as the same. As considered by the united as termed them as different crimes and “ethnic cleansing” does not fall under the crime of genocide.

Genocide is considered to be an act which is being committed towards a group with the intention to completely destroy the particular group (Yanagizawa-Drott, 2014). The target may vary as they can be based on race, religion, cast, or ethnicity. In this type of crime the group of people are completely destroyed and eradicated. This could be done in several of ways such as destruction of children and future generation so that the group does not go ahead and therefore comes to an end. Genocide may include killings and massacre of a group so that in order to end their existence. 

On the other hand ethnic cleansing is the crime where a particular group is affected from an era. Though the end goal in both the crime is the same in all the cases but the crime is differentiated by their motive. Ethnic cleansing may be a situation where the group removed and resettled but resettlement does not occur in case of genocide (Horowitz, 2017).

The difference between the ethnic cleansing and genocide are very faint and are mostly unclear although it is recognized by United Nation as separate crime. Where ethnic cleansing is considered as a crime against humanity whereas the genocide is considered a crime where there is a specific goal that lies behind the destruction and eradication. So we can say ethnic cleansing is more random in nature whereas genocide is something with a cause (Taras & Ganguly,2015).

Though the differences sound simple but they are extremely complicated in nature. There are number of situations which were found that ethnic cleansing has genocidal implication. So it is very hard to differentiate between the two but we can give away the fact that there is a difference between the two. Ethnic cleansing is considered as less horrific crime. As if any kind of destruction is caused to a particular group without and intention and they have a chance of re-settlement, whereas in case of genocide the chances of resettlement is not present and further the destruction or eradication are being caused with an intention which is far more horrific in nature

References

Anderson, K. (2017). Perpetrating Genocide: A Criminological Account. Routledge.

Bale, J. M. (2017). The Darkest Sides of Politics, II: State Terrorism,“Weapons of Mass Destruction,” Religious Extremism, and Organized Crime. Routledge.

Caves Jr, J. P., & Carus, W. S. (2014). The Future of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Their Nature and Role in 2030. NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIV FORT MCNAIR DC CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

Cusumano E. (2016). Diplomatic Security for Hire: The Causes and Implications of Outsourcing Embassy Protection. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 12(1), 27-55.

Fukuyama, F. (2017). State building: Governance and world order in the 21st century. Profile Books.

Hare, P. W. (2015). Making Diplomacy Work: Intelligent Innovation for the Modern World. CQ Press.

Horowitz, I. L. (2017). Taking lives: Genocide and state power. Routledge.

Knopf, J. W. (2016). International cooperation on WMD nonproliferation. University of Georgia Press.

Subramanian, S. R. (2017). Abuse of Diplomatic Privileges and the Balance between Immunities and the Duty to Respect the Local Laws and Regulations under the Vienna Conventions: The Recent Indian Experience. The Chinese Journal of Global Governance, 3(2), 182-233.

Talbot, M. (2017). British-Ottoman Relations, 1661-1807: Commerce and Diplomatic Practice in Eighteenth-Century Istanbul. Boydell & Brewer.

Taras, R., & Ganguly, R. (2015). Understanding Ethnic Conflict. Routledge.

Yanagizawa-Drott, D. (2014). Propaganda and conflict: Evidence from the Rwandan genocide. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(4), 1947-1994.