Loading...
Publication
Imunidades diplomáticas: a imunidade de jurisdição penal dos familiares
| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.24 MB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
As imunidades diplomáticas representam, desde a sua origem até aos dias de hoje, um importante instrumento de Direito Internacional Público que tem como objetivo proteger a diplomacia e assegurar o bom funcionamento das relações internacionais entre Estados soberanos.
Tendo como principal suporte jurídico a Convenção de Viena sobre Relações Diplomáticas, de 1961, cumpre-nos analisar os fundamentos e contornos das imunidades diplomáticas.
Baseadas, de uma forma geral, na teoria do interesse da função, as referidas imunidades são prerrogativas da titularidade do Estado acreditante; no entanto, por ser o agente diplomático o seu representante direto, é ele o beneficiário por excelência. Porque a prática diplomática assim o exigiu, os diplomatas começaram a fazer-se acompanhar pelas suas famílias e, nessa medida, sentiu-se a necessidade de estender o regime das imunidades diplomáticas aos respetivos familiares, que devem preencher determinados requisitos, sem os quais não pertencem ao núcleo de beneficiários.
A imunidade de jurisdição penal encontra aqui particular relevo, já que determina a subtração dos seus beneficiários ao poder soberano do Estado onde se encontram. O que impossibilita que sobre e contra eles se exerça a ação das autoridades judiciárias nacionais, nomeadamente dos tribunais, cuja competência se lhes é retirada.
Corolário do princípio da igualdade jurídica dos Estados soberanos, a imunidade de jurisdição penal é absoluta e, enquanto não for levantada pelo seu titular (o Esatdo acreditante), representa um entrave ao exercício da ação penal e prossecução da justiça nacional, no Estado recetor.No atual contexto internacional, a diplomacia enfrenta, hoje, desafios que, aquando da elaboração da Convenção de Viena sobre Relações Diplomáticas, em 1961, não foram pensados. Impõe-se por isso uma (re)abordagem das formas de cessação da referida imunidade e uma reflexão sobre as consequências políticas e jurídicas que emanam, tanto para o Estado recetor, como para o Estado acreditante, da declaração de “persona non grata” e da transferência do processo para o Estado acreditante, em ordem a evitar situações de impunidade total.
Diplomatic immunities embody, since their beginning until modern days, an important tool by which International Public Law aims at protecting diplomacy and ensures the well-functioning of international relations among sovereign states. Its main legal support lies on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, and our task is to analyse the Convention’s reasons and outlines for the immunities. Based, in a large sense, in the theory of functional necessity, the immunities here discussed are prerogatives which belong to the accredited state; however, the diplomatic agent by being its direct representative, is the person by excellence who receives those prerogatives. The diplomatic practices started to demand that the diplomates began to be accompanied by their families, and due to that there was a need to extend the rules of diplomatic immunities to others than the person representing the accrediting state, such as the diplomates’ family members, who need to fulfil certain criteria to be placed in the nucleus of the beneficiaries. The immunity from criminal jurisdiction has an important role in this matter, since it allows the subtraction of its beneficiaries to the sovereign power, where they are located. This means that the receiving state is forbidden to pursuit a judicial action upon and against them, becoming the courts in those states incompetents to judge such actions. Corollary of the principle of equality between sovereign States, the immunity from criminal jurisdiction is absolute and while is not removed by its lawful right – the accrediting state –, presents an impediment to the correct function of the national justice of the receiving state. The diplomatic practices faces, in today’s context, challenges that when the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 was written, did not rise. Therefore is imperative to reach a new approach on how cease those immunities, and to reflect on the political and judicial consequences that decision related to that matter have on the receiving and accrediting state, the declaration of “persona non grata” and the transfer of the process to the accredited state in order to prevent cases of total impunity.
Diplomatic immunities embody, since their beginning until modern days, an important tool by which International Public Law aims at protecting diplomacy and ensures the well-functioning of international relations among sovereign states. Its main legal support lies on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, and our task is to analyse the Convention’s reasons and outlines for the immunities. Based, in a large sense, in the theory of functional necessity, the immunities here discussed are prerogatives which belong to the accredited state; however, the diplomatic agent by being its direct representative, is the person by excellence who receives those prerogatives. The diplomatic practices started to demand that the diplomates began to be accompanied by their families, and due to that there was a need to extend the rules of diplomatic immunities to others than the person representing the accrediting state, such as the diplomates’ family members, who need to fulfil certain criteria to be placed in the nucleus of the beneficiaries. The immunity from criminal jurisdiction has an important role in this matter, since it allows the subtraction of its beneficiaries to the sovereign power, where they are located. This means that the receiving state is forbidden to pursuit a judicial action upon and against them, becoming the courts in those states incompetents to judge such actions. Corollary of the principle of equality between sovereign States, the immunity from criminal jurisdiction is absolute and while is not removed by its lawful right – the accrediting state –, presents an impediment to the correct function of the national justice of the receiving state. The diplomatic practices faces, in today’s context, challenges that when the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 was written, did not rise. Therefore is imperative to reach a new approach on how cease those immunities, and to reflect on the political and judicial consequences that decision related to that matter have on the receiving and accrediting state, the declaration of “persona non grata” and the transfer of the process to the accredited state in order to prevent cases of total impunity.
Description
Keywords
soberania igualdade jurídica entre Estados imunidades diplomáticas imunidade de jurisdição penal “membro da família” renúncia declaração de "persona non grata"