The United States of America took the initiative of detaining one of the Japanese citizens on claims that he had abused his wife. The diplomat was accused of abusing his wife physically. The wife reported him to the local law enforcement agency, which took the initiative of opening charges of assault against him. On the other hand, the government has failed to act on the behavior of diplomats, citing diplomatic immunity. Nchang v. Nyamboli case shows that the US government is unable to punish misbehaving diplomats because it failed to instruct the Cameroonian diplomat to return the passport belonging to the domestic employee. In the first case involving the Japanese diplomat, the government acted appropriately. However, it failed to act in the second case because the Cameroonian diplomat was not taken to court. The domestic employee had accused the diplomat of over-working her without adequate compensation. The diplomat is supposed to enjoy diplomatic immunity given the fact that he is a foreign citizen. The US applied its domestic laws to charge the Japanese diplomat since he does not enjoy diplomatic immunity on matters related to domestic violence. On the other hand, the matter relating to the Philippine diplomat is in court, pending further ruling.
Diplomatic immunity originated from the customary international law, specifically to protect representatives of various countries in foreign states from harassment. It was perceived that diplomatic immunity could protect diplomats from reprisal in time of conflicts. Moreover, it could promote refined intercontinental relations. In the current international system, diplomats and their families tend to abuse these powers by harassing their domestic workers and relatives. The laws of the foreign states cannot be applied since it would amount to a violation of international protocol. Apart from preventing diplomats from being charged, diplomatic immunity allows diplomats to escape civil liability in case of personal injury
In cities such as New York, Washington DC, and London, diplomats are found engaging in domestic violence such as rape, assault, imposition of slavery and even murder. This article discusses the relationship between diplomatic immunity and domestic violence. It is observed that foreign countries experience a number of challenges in dealing with cases of domestic violence involving diplomats. The first section talks about the Theoretical Perspective of Diplomatic Immunity. The second section of the article looks at the provisions of international law on diplomatic immunity and domestic violence. The third section delves into issues related to diplomatic immunity and domestic violence in the US. The fourth section examines some solutions that are yet to be applied. The fourth section looks at the case studies. The paper looks at the existing solutions in the fifth section. Some of these solutions include application of the persona non grata procedure, waiving the immunity, termination of diplomatic relations, and employing the measures devised by the state department. In the sixth section, the article looks at some of the solutions recommended by are yet to be implemented. Finally, the paper concludes by giving recapturing some of the concepts.
Theoretical Perspective of Diplomatic Immunity
Diplomatic immunity was developed to protect foreign representatives from malpractices perpetuated by foreign states. In reality, three theories can justify the existence of diplomatic immunity in the modern international system. One of the theories is personal representation. Others include extraterritoriality and the theory of functional necessity. Personal representation theory justified diplomatic immunity in the ancient international system. Diplomats were expected to represent their countries in terms of sovereignty. Their presence in foreign states signified the existence of their countries. Therefore, the respect accorded to a diplomat was interpreted to mean the respect of his or her country. However, the behavior of one individual does not represent the behaviors of his or her fellow citizens. In addition, the idea that the diplomat cannot be arrested means that the sending state is more sovereign than the receiving state because the laws of the host state cannot be used to incriminate the diplomat. In this regard, diplomatic immunity cannot be used to protect the diplomat in his or her private life.
The theory of extraterritoriality justifies diplomatic immunity in the sense that a foreign national will always belong to the sending state despite the fact that he lives abroad. Therefore, the diplomat cannot be subjected to domestic laws because he or she is not a local resident. However, scholars disapprove of the theory because extraterritoriality is subject to a number of interpretations. One scholar noted that in case the diplomat owns a whole city then the domestic law would not cover the city. This is illogical because the city would be ungovernable without the law. Finally, the theory of functional necessity is often invoked when interpreting the diplomatic immunity concept. The theory suggests that the application of the local law in controlling the behavior of the diplomat would interfere with the functions of the diplomat. Moreover, the application of the law would complicate the relationship between the sending and the receiving states. Therefore, the theory allows diplomats to conduct their businesses without interference from local authorities. It is perceived that the diplomat would execute his or her duties efficiently if domestic laws were not applied. However, the theory does not support the private actions of the diplomat. In other words, the theory tries to demarcate the personality of the diplomat from the powers of the office that he holds.
Theoretically, diplomatic immunity is a product of international relations. It was formulated to protect the process of formulating intimate relations among states in the international system. However, scholars have been quick to suggest that the diplomat must break the law of the host country in order to execute his or her functions effectively. Theories of diplomatic immunity suggest that the office should be protected from unnecessary legal suits, but not the individual diplomat. From the theories, it is clear that all diplomats found engaging in domestic violence should be charged and be prosecuted in the courts of law, irrespective of whether the courts are foreign or local.
Provisions of the International Law on Diplomatic immunity and Domestic Violence
A number of international acts talk about the application of diplomatic immunity. However, none of them suggests that diplomatic immunity should be employed in cases involving domestic violence. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunity was formulated to reinforce the previous provisions that granted diplomats powers and authorities that would interfere with the domestic law. For instance, the US formulated a law in 1790 that permitted diplomats, as well as their workers, to conduct business without restrictions. In fact, it was a criminal offense to sue a diplomat in the US due to the 1790 provision. An individual risked being jailed for three years for simply filing a legal suit against a diplomat. The Vienna convention came up with standard regulations governing the conduct of diplomats and their support staff. The convention categorized diplomats into four groups. The first category consists of diplomatic agents, who are the heads of missions. This category of diplomats is immune to the civil jurisdiction of the host country. However, the law does not exempt them from cases involving domestic violence, such as rape and assault. The second category is the administrative and the technical personnel that are employed by the embassy. The category has limited civil jurisdiction as compared to the senior agents of the mission1.
The personnel of the embassy should obey the laws of the host country strictly to avoid any arrest and possible deportation. The junior staff has limited powers. The laws of the host country govern them. In cases related to domestic violence, the support staff is subjected to the laws of the host country in the same way as the locals. The final category is the private servants have minimal powers extended to them by the mission. They should always behave in a manner that cannot interfere with the missions of the delegation.
The Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978 is another provision of diplomatic immunity formulated to rectify the flaws in the previous acts. The 1978 act goes against the provisions of the Vienna agreement in a number of ways. The US formulated the Diplomatic Relations Act in 1978 because diplomats were causing serious injuries, but no action was taken against them. Domestic violence crimes were singled out as some of the crimes committed by diplomats. Members of the public were frustrated because little was done to contain the behavior of diplomats. The law provides that all diplomats must obtain insurance covers in order to compensate victims of domestic violence in cases of injuries.
Diplomatic Immunity and Domestic Violence in the US
In the United States, the executive branch of government has the responsibility of ensuring that diplomats enjoy diplomatic immunity. In 1978, the head of state, Jimmy Carter, delegated this authority to the Secretary of State, who has powers to determine whether to grant diplomatic immunity to an individual. This means that the issue of diplomatic immunity is political rather than judicial. The state department has always held secret talks over the determination of old cases involving domestic violence crimes committed by diplomats. The case of Abdulaziz v. Metropolitan Dade Country demonstrates how the department of state plays a critical role in determining and protecting the powers granted to diplomats. In this case, the allegations were made against the Saudi prince who overworked his staff for over twenty hours a day. This was considered slavery because the junior workers were not allowed to interact with their friends and relatives. The court ordered police officers to conduct a search in the residence of the prince, but the bodyguards and the prince himself assaulted them. The prince never enjoyed diplomatic immunity, but he was granted one upon application and intervention by the government of Saudi Arabia. The actions of the state department complicate the functions of the local law enforcement agencies. Overworking the domestic staff and forcing them to work under appalling conditions is another form of domestic violence. This does not promote individual freedoms and rights provided by the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the government is reluctant to apply local laws in holding diplomats responsible.
Victims of Domestic Violence
In international law, domestic violence and abuse take place quite often, but policy-makers have always overlooked or denied it. Diplomats all over the world are engaged in domestic rankles with domestic workers or family members, but foreign states cannot intervene using domestic laws owing to the ambassadorial invulnerability. Abuse can be psychological or physical. Both women and men are victims of psychological abuse, but women are always victims of physical abuse. Domestic violence takes the form of physical attack, which occurs when one partner in the relationship dominates the decision-making process. Such individuals would force family members to accept the decisions even though they might be defective. In case of any resistance, violent partners would use force to ensure that their decisions and policies are adopted. In a family set up, domestic violence takes various forms.
One of the signs of domestic violence is when a partner develops a contrite and unpredictable temper. This might end up hurting other family members or might as well threaten their lives. When one partner threatens to take children away or cause physical harm to them, domestic violence is said to have taken place. Some marriage partners might force their spouses to have sex even when they are not willing. This is considered one of the worst forms of domestic violence. Destruction of personal belongings is also a form of domestic violence. However, analysts note that when one partner controls the behavior of other family members, domestic violence is inevitable. Some partners might act invidious while others might appear to domineer. All these are recipes for domestic violence. In a relationship, partners might control the movements of each other. In fact, some might claim that seeing friends and other family members is prohibited. In case these regulations are not observed, domestic violence and abuse would take place.
Women are perceived to be individuals who rely on men on almost everything in society. They are not incorporated in societal activities fully, but instead, they are incorporated as underdogs. This implies that men are dominant in every aspect of life, including education. Male partners are believed to be strong while women are sympathetic and weak individuals. Women are emotionally dependent on men. In this regard, they should be pure physically and emotionally. Women are impeded by the extreme conventionality of the other sex. Even though men sagaciously allow themselves absolute liberty in these respects, they rarely realize or control the extreme severity with which they condemn such freedoms in women. It is clear women believe men are exceptionally strong in society due to cultural values and the defective social structure. Even though men advocate for freedoms in society, they are reluctant to grant women their rights and freedoms. This is surprising because men believe that women do not have rights, but they simply exist to serve men. Men are exceptionally strong because masculinity is often associated with superiority and success in society. Femininity exposes women to injustices that are perpetuated by men in society, such as domestic violence. For women to coexist peacefully in society, they should ensure that they do not interfere with the interests of men.
Another aspect that exposes women to domestic violence is that women are often excluded from public activities and are relegated to the private domain of the home. The world smiles favorably on the feminine women, but it extends little courtesies and minor privileges on them. This statement means that women have been relegated to the domain of the home. In other words, women are restricted from participating in societal activities fully. Women are forced to compromise in order to please men in society. In fact, femininity is interpreted to mean the tool of appeasement in modern society. Women have no right to express their ideas without considering the views of men. In fact, a woman is not expected to comment on sensitive topics, such as ethics, sex, and human relationships. Women must always lie in case they want people to believe them regarding the above topics. In this sense, women have always blamed religion for portraying them as evil people who brought tribulations to this world. In this regard, they should be relegated to the domain of the home and be excluded from public activities, such as leadership, policy formulation, politics, and economic life. In the Bible, a woman deceived a man to do something that jaded God. God was so angry to an extent of unleashing his wrath on human beings. Since then, women have been viewed as evil people who should not be involved in decision-making processes. This gives men a leeway to abuse women in families.
The other factor that exposes women to domestic violence is that they are subjected to stereotypes, which portray them as weak and emotionally dependent on men. The views of feminists suggest that women are expected to be passionate and loving. This would invite positive judgments from men. Moreover, this would allow women to associate well with men in society. Feminist scholars note that masculinity is known to satisfy by displays of mastery and competence while femininity pleases by suggesting that these concerns, except in small matters, are beyond its intent. From this statement, the writer suggests that men are always right in what they do because society recognizes their existence in society. For women, they are allowed to make errors because they are not emotionally dependent. This affects women in families because men always dominate decision-making while women are denied to formulate key decisions, with incompetency being cited as a major reason. In society, masculinity is interpreted to mean superiority. This perception has helped men in conducting economic activities because they believe that they will always succeed. Women, on the other hand, are individuals who need protection. In this case, they must avoid all forms of conflicts with men for them to survive. A real woman should show that she is dependent on a man in one way or the way. Feminists note that masculinity is expected to give an advantage to men2.
Functionalist feminists note that the purity of the woman is her chief beauty. In the professional world, women were expected to support the views of men always. In their writings, feminists note that they are advised to be sympathetic, tender, and decisive in order to win the hearts of men. In other words, she was expected to use her femininity to satisfy men in her writings. This means that women work hard in everything simply to satisfy the interests of men. On their part, feminists note that women are always restricted in society implying that they have to do things that are only approved by men. Even though there were some developments in the 1980s, all changes were meant to satisfy men. Women were allowed to wear miniskirts and apply lipsticks in order to make them attractive. This would only benefit men, but not women. Furthermore, this predisposes women to domestic violence.
Apart from women, domestic workers are also victims of domestic violence. In fact, a number of them would be reluctant to report to the law enforcement agencies because they know that diplomats would not be charged in court since they enjoy diplomatic immunity. Domestic workers are subjected to unfair treatment such as beating, sexual abuse, and assault. Diplomats would not be held responsible because the victims do not report the cases. The government should come up with a clear system that would help victims to report the cases without victimization.
Mildrate Yancho Nchang Case
Mildrate was a Cameroonian national who worked for one of the Cameroonian diplomats in the US. She served the diplomat as a house help for a period of three years. The diplomat misused her services because she worked for more hours but she received diminutive pay. In other cases, she was never paid. The diplomat confiscated her passport to prevent her from returning to her homeland. Moreover, the employee was abused physically because the diplomat could beat her at some times. This was a violation of human rights. The employee urged the court to intervene so that her passport could be returned. However, the court dismissed her case, citing diplomatic immunity. The court observed that the diplomat enjoyed diplomatic immunity and could not be summoned in court. Mildrate held a passport type A-3. Nchang v. Nyamboli case was a civil case number 0502-0001-794-2005. In the first application, the Maryland court gave the employee a go-ahead to reclaim her passport from the diplomat. However, the decision was overturned after the claims that the diplomat enjoyed diplomatic immunity. In this regard, the employee has never been paid because she the court cannot intervene. In Cameroon, the law enforcement agencies failed to intervene because of unknown reasons. The Embassy of Cameroon was reluctant to act because the case was treated as a private case.
Mildrate’s case shows that a number of diplomats abuse their employees yet they are not charged in court due to diplomatic immunity. Since the US enjoys cordial relationships with many states, it would not wish to act in a manner that would destabilize the relationships. However, domestic workers have always suffered at the hands of diplomats yet no agency is willing to act.
Japanese diplomat charged with domestic abuse in US
In San Francesco, a Japanese diplomat was charged with cases involving domestic violence, even though he enjoyed diplomatic immunity. The district attorney claimed that the diplomat could be jailed for a period not less than twenty years. The diplomat was charged at the US district court at San Francesco on 28 Aug 2012. Vincent Bugliosi from Los Angeles acted as the district attorney. In this scenario, the court invoked domestic laws to indict the diplomat. Yoshiaki Nagaya was charged with various crimes related to domestic violence, including seventeen felonies and fourteen cases of domestic violence. Cases of family aggression included physical attack, such as piercing his wife with a screwdriver and hammering her tooth out. The envoy alleged that he was not responsible, but it required a cash surety of $350,000 for him to be set free. In a domestic violence case, the diplomatic was charged for pushing and shoving his wife to an extent of knocking her tooth out. The diplomat was also charged for hitting his wife and shoving her out of the car at their parking lot. The acts of the diplomat caused serious injuries to the complainant, particularly in the knees and face. The court ruled that diplomatic immunity could not be used to protect the diplomat because the offenses were considered serious. The jury declared that diplomatic immunity could not be used to protect the diplomatic because he was a senior member of the embassy. Furthermore, the crimes he committed could not be expected from an individual of his caliber.
The jury issued a provisional restrictive order barring the envoy from accessing the building occupied by his wife. This was aimed at ensuring the safety of the accuser. In other words, the court barred the diplomat from being in contact with his wife until the court resolved the matter fully. However, the Japanese embassy did not sack the diplomat but instead declared that the diplomat was still an employee until an official communication was received from Tokyo. The embassy officials added that the diplomatic would be punished once the court ascertains that the charges are valid. The embassy never supported the diplomat in offsetting legal bills because it would complicate the court process. Cases related to domestic violence are treated as private matters that should be handled by individuals affected only. The action taken by the embassy showed that domestic violence is an act of crime that is condemned by every person in the international community.
Existing Solutions to the problems related to domestic violence
In the US and other developed countries, the government has designed a number of strategies to prosecute diplomats, irrespective of whether they enjoy diplomatic immunity or not. The US applies either civil or criminal laws in charging diplomats. This is based on the idea that diplomats would continue oppressing other members of society in case effective strategies are not devised. The US government applies mainly four strategies, including declaring a diplomat persona non grata, waiving of the immunity, terminating diplomatic relations, and utilizing state department measures. All these are discussed in detail, in the subsequent subsections.
The Persona Non Grata Procedure
The ninth article of the Vienna convention permits the host state to declare the misbehaving diplomat persona non grata. This means that the diplomat’s behavior does not allow him or her to reside within the United States borders. In other words, the laws permits the US government to expel the diplomat who is found engaging unruly behaviors, such as domestic violence. Diplomats are people with respect because they are entrusted to represent their countries in foreign states. They are usually drawn from the civil service having performed with distinction. However, the US government would always analyze the effects of the policy before invoking it. For instance, it might strain the relations between the sending and the receiving countries. Therefore, the US utilizes the policy infrequently due to its negative effects. The strategy is not one of the best because the injured person is left stranded once the criminal is deported. The complainant would simply sue the sending country once the diplomat is in his home country. The case would not flourish mainly because of cultural, logistical, and political reasons.
Waiver of Immunity
Article 32 of the Vienna convention permits home country to ignore the immunity of the diplomat and issue an arrest warrant. This action emanates from the sending country in case the performance of the diplomat is below par. The government of the sending country has an obligation of ensuring that its representatives in the foreign countries follow the laws strictly. In this regard, the sending countries would waiver immunity, which would permit the receiving country to declare a misbehaving diplomatic persona non grata. However, the sending state cannot subject its citizens to the laws of the foreign land. The sending would instead instruct the diplomat to appear before the home courts and answer charges leveled against him or her. In most cases, the sending country will recall the diplomat and replace him or her with another competent diplomat. However, analysts observe that little information is available on whether the foreign states would prosecute their diplomats once they are recalled. The Nigerian ambassador to Kenya was accused of assaulting his wife and other domestic staffs recently. The Kenyan government arrested the diplomat, but he was not charged in court owing to his status. A few weeks later, his government on matters related to discipline recalled him. It is not clear update whether the diplomat was charged or not. It can be concluded that this strategy is aimed at saving the face of the sending country, but not administering justice to those abused.
Termination of Diplomatic Relations
This strategy is employed once other techniques fail. It entails the sending state breaking relations with the receiving state. In matters related to domestic violence, this is rarely applied. The British government was forced to cut links with the Libyan government after a police officer was assaulted and was later killed by the Libyan officials. In the same way, the US government terminated diplomatic relations with Iran when terrorists invaded the US embassy and kidnapped a number of American citizens. In the case of domestic violence, the receiving state would terminate diplomatic relations with the sending state if the sending state supports the disorderly behaviors of the diplomat. For instance, the diplomat might abuse domestic workers frequently, but the home government might be reluctant to act. Furthermore, the case would be complicated if the diplomat commits domestic crime against the citizens of the receiving country. Members of the public would force the government to cut links with the sending state. In particular, feminist organizations all over the world would demand that the diplomat in question be prosecuted in case the crime was committed against a woman.
State Department Measures
The US Secretary of state has enormous powers as regards to diplomatic immunity. For instance, the executive gives the secretary of state powers and authority to mediate relations between the government and sending countries. The secretary of state has the powers to formulate some strategies that would prevent diplomats from committing crimes, particularly those involving their private lives such as domestic violence. One of the strategies developed aims at preventing the offender from entering the United States. Such an individual is prevented from entering the US by recalling his or her visa. The process is undertaken through an automated visa lookout system. However, the system is ineffective because it failed to work in three occasions. Another policy applied by the state department entails dealing with crimes touching on juvenile crimes. The state department has the power to expel the family from the US. This is because the family might inconvenience other members of society. In many families, domestic violence results from the erroneous acts of adolescents, who assault their family members or domestic workers. This policy was formulated based on the idea that parents should be responsible for any act committed by their children. Parents have the responsibility of ensuring that their children are brought up in accordance with the laws of the receiving countries3.
The third policy employed by the state department is the monitoring of traffic violation. The officials of the state department utilize the standardized point system to analyze the behavior of diplomats. The department of state has the powers to revoke the diplomat’s driving license if he or she is found driving under the influence of alcohol. This is aimed at safeguarding other road users who are always willing to obey traffic rules. However, this does not apply to the domestic violence scenario though it is noteworthy as far as family law is concerned. The last measure undertaken by the state department is the issuance of the identification certificates. During this process, the department would evaluate the behavior of the diplomat in detail. Those diplomats found to have violated the law are often denied identification certificates. In particular, the department evaluates the behavior of the diplomat as regards to domestic relationships. Those diplomats who assault their partners and relatives are denied identification. This means that they will be forced to vacate the country because they are not legally supposed to be in the country. Only those diplomats with clean records are awarded identification certificates. Furthermore, such diplomats would be granted diplomatic immunity4.
Recommended Policies and Further Solutions
The government of the US has suggested a number of policies, which will help contain the behavior of diplomats. This is caused by increased cases of domestic violence among diplomats and other foreigners. The existing policies are not lean enough to offer justice to victims of domestic violence. Therefore, other scholars of international family law have proposed the establishment of the claims fund that will cater for the health needs of the injured victims. These scholars have suggested a number of policies and alternatives.
Scholars of family law have suggested that the government establishes a claims fund to compensate those injured in the course of domestic assault. In the current law under the Diplomatic Relations Act, victims are expected to file lawsuits with the sending countries. This tedious procedure takes centuries to materialize. In many cases, victims are not even compensated because of political and technical issues as mentioned earlier. A claims fund would enable victims to seek compensation from the government of the United States. Since diplomats are immune from criminal responsibility, they would be reluctant to compensate the injured once the charges facing them are dropped. The claims fund would investigate the causes of injuries and force the diplomat to contribute in restoring the victim into the previous position. However, the proposal would face a number of challenges because the diplomat is required to act as a witness in the court of law.
Furthermore, the success of the policy requires full cooperation from the diplomat. The claims fund would be required to compensate the injured person and move ahead to seek reimbursement from the sending country. The US government would come up with some strategies to ensure that the policy is endorsed by the sending countries. One of the strategies is to extend bilateral immunity agreements. Others include the implementation of the persona non grata procedure and application of political and economic sanctions. The proposal is extremely weak because the state department has no avenues through which it could recover its resources after compensating the victim. The American electorate would not approve the proposal because the government would be paying the bills of a foreigner. If this proposal were adopted, diplomats would cease from committing crimes that would cause injuries to other individuals, such as domestic assault5.
Mandatory Insurance Scheme
Under the proposal, all embassies operating in the US would be required to secure insurance for their diplomats. In this regard, insurance companies in the US would be required to allow diplomats to buy premiums. States that abuse diplomatic immunity are requested to insure their employees before being allowed to work in the country.
Permanent International Diplomatic Criminal Court
The international court would be charged with the responsibility of ensuring that diplomats abide by the laws of the receiving country. The proposal puts the court in an inquisitorial mode implying that the court would act as both the tribunal and the defense. The court would have powers to impose fines on the diplomat in question. The court may also jail the diplomat, depending on the seriousness of the crime committed. For instance, the court would instruct the diplomat to compensate the abused domestic worker in case the assault resulted to injuries.
Diplomatic immunity is aimed at protecting diplomats from injustices of the receiving state. In other words, its main objective is to ensure that states enjoy cordial relationships in the international system. However, diplomats interpret diplomatic immunity as a license to break the law of the receiving state. This has forced the international community to formulate a number of policies aimed at checking the powers of diplomats. One of the policies includes the Vienna convention, which described the powers and authorities of diplomats. A number of measures have been devised to contain the behaviors of diplomats while in the receiving countries. Recently, the Japanese diplomat was subjected to domestic laws after he was found to have abused his wife. From the experience of the Japanese diplomat, it is true that the international community is concerned with the behaviors of diplomats. The diplomat could not enjoy diplomatic immunity because domestic violence is not covered with the immunity. In the second case involving the Cameroonian employee, the court failed to make a ruling, citing diplomatic immunity. This shows that the American courts are yet to come up with ways through which diplomats could be charged. Analysts observe that diplomats abuse their domestic workers yet they are rarely taken to court. However, the US should strive to come up with effective policies that would resolve issues related to domestic violence. Domestic violence is a crime that raises moral issues hence diplomatic immunity does not cover it.
Denza, Eileen. Diplomatic Law: Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Fox, Hazel. The Law of State Immunity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Lemon, Nancy. Domestic Violence Law. New York: Thomson, 2008.
Benedetto, Conforti, Francesco, Francioni. Rethinking Diplomatic Immunity: A Review of Remedial Approaches to Address the Abuses of Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities. Washington: Washington College of Law, 1997.
Satow, Ernest. Satow’s Guide to Diplomatic Practice. London: Sage, 1979.
- SATOW, ERNEST, SATOW’S GUIDE TO DIPLOMATIC PRACTICE 67 (Sage Publications 1979).
- BENEDETTO CONFORTI & FRANCESCO FRANCIONI, RETHINKING DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY: A REVIEW OF REMEDIAL APPROACHES TO ADDRESS THE ABUSES OF DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES 90 (Washington College of Law 1997).
- FOX, HAZEL. THE LAW OF STATE IMMUNITY 112 (Oxford University Press, 2008).
- LEMON, NANCY. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAW 39 (Thomson 2005).
- DENZA, ERNEST. DIPLOMATIC LAW: COMMENTARY ON THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS 76 (Oxford University Press 2008).