Display:
That is a very good question about the consequences.  The treaty does not appear to spell them out.

I imagine that the severing of diplomatic relations would be a unilateral action that Denmark and Norway could take, but since the treaty is to apply even in the event of severed relations, it must be enforcable by the UN, regardless of the state of relations between the states involved.

Which means, I guess, that sanctions could theoretically be on the table... which would make the Bush administration soooooo happy.  Sigh.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 04:12:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The extent to which the treaty goes in protecting embassies is actually quite eye-popping:
45. If diplomatic relations are broken off between two States, or if a mission is permanently or temporarily recalled:
(a) the receiving State must, even in case of armed conflict, respect and protect the premises of the mission, together with its property and archives;


guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 04:16:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
a cambodia mob burned the Thai embassy. It didnt take long to get things back on track. Guess it depends on the countries respective interests.
by observer393 on Sun Feb 5th, 2006 at 01:08:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series