Asylum

Asylum is a Latin word and it derives its origin from a Greek word “Asylia” meaning inviolable place or
freedom from seizure

MEANING
Asylum means a legal protection granted to people who have fled their home countries due to
warship, conflict, persecution, or fear of persecution. It is a possibility to remain in a country either
permanently or for a temporary period. A person who seeks International asylum i.e. an asylum
seeker is known as an ‘Asylee’.

ACCORDING TO BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY

Asylum in common parlance means giving protection and immunity by a state to an individual from
their native country

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ASYLUM AND REFUGEE

In day-to-day conversation, the term asylum is used interchangeably with the term refugee, there is a
difference between the two procedurally where a person who is still overseas seeks protection from a
nation when given patronage after reaching there is given the title of a refugee whereas in the asylum
the person seeks the protection from a nation after reaching there and hence is known as an asylee
or asylum seeker.

The main purpose of asylum is to give shelter to those who have well-rounded fear in their home
countries of persecution.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights under article 14 (1), provides that “Everyone has the right
to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”.

New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants by the UN General Assembly in 2016 also reaffirms
the ‘right to seek asylum’ and freedom of an individual to leave or return to their country.

Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also provides that as per the
rules of the Geneva Convention(28 July 1951) and 1967’s protocol, the right to Asylum is guaranteed.

TYPES OF ASYLUM
The idea of Asylum remains that of personal immunity from authoritative steps of a decision maker
than that of jurisdictional authority under whose power it falls. There are mainly two forms of Asylum:

Territorial Asylum:
1.​ It is granted in the territorial boundary of a state providing asylum.
2.​ Every sovereign state has the right to control and maintain jurisdiction on its territory,
hence the decision to extradite someone or give them asylum is totally under its discretion.
3.​ Thus a state has territorial sovereignty over all its subjects and aliens.
4.​ This form of asylum is mainly given to people who have been accused of political offences like
sedition, treason, and espionage in their home country.
5.​ Territorial asylum is based mainly on the national law of the sovereign.

Illustration:
1.​ If an individual, ‘A’ from Syria comes to Turkey and applies for asylum due to the horrifying
condition in Syria and apprehension of danger to his life.
2.​ If the individual is granted by the Turkey government within the country itself, it is an example of
Territorial asylum.

1
In 1947, the topic was first raised by the Commission on Human Rights and later was incorporated in
the UDHR under Article 14. Later in 1967, after a rigorous attempt, the General Assembly had passed
a ‘Declaration on Territorial Asylum’ at its twenty-second session.

Article 1(1) of the Declaration on Territorial Asylum states that a state can grant asylum by exercising
its sovereign power to an individual who invokes his/her right under Article 14 of UDHR. Article 1(2)
provides that if an individual that has a record of crime against humanity, peace, or a war crime
cannot seek asylum in another country. Article 1(3) provides the power to the state to evaluate based.

Article 2 provides that if any state feels overburdened in providing asylum to the people then States
shall either individually or through the United Nations help that particular to lighten the burden.

Article 3(1) provides safety to the individuals and assures that once they are provided asylum in a
country they cannot be expelled or forced to return to a place where they might be persecuted. Article
3(2) and 3(3) act as exceptions to Article 3(1). Article 3(2) provides that a State can expel or force to
return the person to protect the national security of the state and Article(3) provides that if the State
feels justified to send away an individual then it shall give the opportunity to allow it to go to another
state.
An individual must not be provided Asylum to engage in activities that are contrary to principles of the
United Nations; this is provided in Article 4 of the declaration.
Some famous examples of this type of asylum include:
1.​ The asylum that was given by India to the Dalai Lama and his followers in India in
1955 as those people were facing atrocities for a long time in China.
2.​ Salman Rushdie, a writer who was in controversy for his novel ‘Satanic Verses’ was given Asylum
by the United Kingdom.

Extra-territorial Asylum:

It is granted when the state provides asylum outside the territory of its state, such as in warships,
legation consular premises, international headquarters, or its Embassy situated in a different country
i.e. one of its public places situated/ lying in foreign territorial borders. The term extra-territorial means
beyond the jurisdiction of the authorities of the state where such establishment is i.e. the local
authorities.
The immunity is granted to the diplomats and other officials to protect their country’s interests. The
local authorities are not allowed to enter the Embassy of any country situated in their country without
having special orders.
This form of asylum is usually granted by a state beyond its state territory and usually at places which
are not a part of its physical territory.
In such a case, a state providing asylum in its embassy established in a foreign state is called
Diplomatic Asylum. Extra-territorial Asylum is based on the framework of International Law
Conventions.

Illustration:

If ‘A’ from Syria approaches the US Embassy in Syria for grant of Asylum due to imminent danger to
his life. If the US Embassy grants the Asylum, it becomes an Extra-Territorial Asylum.

Earlier the practice of extra-territorial asylum was often exercised but with the development of time, it
has been restricted to only in urgent cases, once it is assured that the local government cannot keep
the asylum-seeker safe. It is granted on a temporary basis and ends once the emergency is over. The
reason being that it is seen as a derogation of the sovereign power of the state over its territory.
Providing asylum in such cases, to an extent, deprives the local country’s jurisdiction over all the
individuals present on its territory. There have been instances of people misuse of the right to seek
asylum by hiding people who have committed political crimes.

2
The Convention on Asylum held in Havana in 1928 to which only a very few countries have ratified,
provides that it is not allowed for states to grant asylum to people who are accused of common
crimes or deserters from the navy or army in their legations, military camps, warships or military
aircraft.

There are the following types of extra-territorial asylum:

1.​ Asylum in Diplomatic Asylum

It is granted when the state provides asylum in the Embassies, foreign legations, and consular
premises (premises of a consul-an individual who heads a particular mission in that local country). It
has not been recognized as a right because it is often believed that it interferes with the sovereign
power of the host country over its territory. Normally, the right to asylum, it is not recognized in
International law but asylum can be granted in the following exceptions:
•​ If individuals are in physical danger due to violence.
•​ In case of a binding local custom.
•​ In case of a special treaty between the State of Legation concerned and the territorial State.
The two reasons for not recognizing it are:
Firstly, it violates the territorial sovereignty of the state; and secondly it is the violation of diplomatic or
consular immunity. The receiving party cannot enter the foreign legations and consular premises
without the consent of the mission head.

In Latin America ‘right to seek extra-territorial asylum’ is recognized not as an International law but as
a local law due to increased violence and government instability. Britain does not recognize the right
to asylum in diplomatic or consular premises or ships but it has granted asylum in cases of
emergency on humanitarian grounds. Similarly, other countries also do not recognize it as an
International law but provide it in case of an emergency.

In fact, India also does not recognize such rights but exceptions have been seen. For instance, Aziz
Olough Zade, a Soviet defector was granted asylum in the USA embassy in India after which foreign
missions were urged to respect the International practice and not grant asylum unless urgent.

Asylum in the premises of the International Institution

There is no general right to grant asylum in International institutions. In terms of International law,
there is no recognition of such a rule. International institutions include the United Nations
Organization (UNO), the World Trade Organization (WTO), etc. The absence of any agreements of
the United Nations or other agencies in this regard has kept the answer to this inconspicuous.

However, looking closely at the laws and precedents it can be concluded that in the premises of
International institutions one cannot be granted asylum. However, every case might be considered
based on a humanitarian basis.

Asylum in Warship

The situation in this aspect is very uncertain as there are no specific guidelines regarding this.
However, the laws are similar to those of asylum in legations, consular premises, and embassies.
When a warship is in the territorial water body of another state then the coastal state only has the
power to require the ship to leave their territorial waters and do nothing else.

The Havana Convention on Asylum’s Article 1 provides that people who are accused of common
crimes and not political crimes if taking refuge under a warship, military camps, or aircraft or legations
shall be handed over to the local government on request.

3
Article 2 of the Convention provides that asylum at such places be provided only in urgent cases.
Once the asylum is granted the foreign minister of the asylee’s country should be informed to ensure
his/her safety. The convention basically permits the grant of asylum to political offenders.
Certain countries like the USA and UK accept the practice to grant asylum on warships on
humanitarian grounds for a temporary time.

A significant example of this was the conflict between Argentina and Paraguay. In 1911, revolution
broke out in Paraguay due to which various revolutionaries sought refuge on the Argentine vessels.
This led to conflict between the two counties as Paraguay contended that the asylum-seekers were
not political refugees rather were common criminals or deserters. The incident led to the breaking of
ties between the two countries.

Asylum in Merchant Vessels

Merchant vessels include the commercial ships, the territory in which they are the law of that country
is binding upon them. They do not exercise or enjoy immunity similar to warships. For instance, if an
individual commits a crime and then asks the merchant vessel of the UK which is in the water body of
France, to grant him asylum. In such a case the French government can assert the individual either
before leaving the port of France or when it reaches another port of France. Asylum can be granted if
there is a treaty between the two Nations.

The laws of maritime law state that if the asylum-seeker is in life-threatening trouble and facing
serious persecution then he/she will be allowed the asylum. In 2013 a British merchant ship on the
wharf of Christmas Island rescued around 78 asylum seekers from a stricken vessel.
To conclude, asylum is granted in consulates, embassies, legations, warships, merchant vessels, and
not just to political offenders but also in certain cases to common criminals. The purpose behind it is
to save human beings from persecution, retribution.

Assange v. The Swedish Prosecution Authority

The recent case that has captured a lot of media attention is of Julian Assange. Assange is a founder
of Wikileaks and also an Australian editor & publisher. The Sweden government accused him of rape
and molestation. The Sweden government had filed for the extradition of Assange and the UK
Supreme Court had ordered for his extradition to Sweden in May 2012. In June 2012, he was granted
asylum in England at the Embassy of Ecuador.
The UN declared that he had been ‘arbitrarily detained’ by the Ecuador embassy. The reason given
by Assange was that if he is to be sent to Sweden, his human rights would be violated. In 2015
Sweden dropped the charges against Assange. He was sentenced to 50 weeks jail for breaching bail
conditions. After this, the United States of America has been trying to extradite him because he has
released some confidential documents of the United States of America on his website which has
been regarded as a criminal act by the United States of America.

Colombia vs. Peru-

The political leader of Peru was accused of the crime of instigating a military rebellion. He was
granted asylum at limo by the Colombian embassy and was not allowed to leave the country. The
matter between Peru and Colombia was then taken to the international court of justice on the
question of the right to diplomatic asylum. The court held that diplomatic asylum is suppression of
territorial sovereignty and should not be recognized unless the legal basis is established. The state
granting the diplomatic asylum must prove its right to grant the diplomatic asylum and the other
territorial state should respect it.

A and Another v. Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs

Chinese nationals asked for asylum in Australia and claimed that they fear prosecution because they
are expecting a second child which might land them in trouble. The reason being that China has
adopted the one-child policy and the fear arose that they would be subjected to sterilisation as the

4
community from which they belonged had only one child and whosoever surpassed the limitation was
forced or coerced to undergo sterilisation.
The Court of Australia did not accept it to be a sufficient ground of persecution. Whereas, the US
Congress has recognized that forced sterilisation amounts to and is enough to be considered as a
ground for persecution.

In India, there is no specific law related to asylum-seekers. They are categorised as ‘foreigners’ under
various acts like Registration of Foreigners Act,1939, Foreigners Order, 1948, Passport Act,1920 and
The Foreigners Act, 1946. India is not even a party to the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights(UDHR). Still, India has provided asylum in certain cases, the main one being the asylum
provided to the Dalai Lama and his followers in 1955 despite being highly criticised by the China
government. India had the power to do so by exercising its sovereign power.

CONCLUSION

Presently, most of the countries are under confusion because of the increase in wars day-by-day in a
few countries. It has become essential to make sure the implementation of the right to grant asylum
with cautiousness and planning. India and many other countries must have clear asylum laws in the
country by abiding with the principle of humanity.

5
 Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala)
Citation : I.C.J. 1955, I.C.J., 4 (1955)​

Brief Fact Summary.

A month after the start of World War II, Nottebohn (P), a German citizen who had lived in Guatemala
(D) for 34 years, applied for Liechtenstein (P) citizenship.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Nationality may be disregarded by other states where it is clear that it was a mere device since the
nationality conferred on a party is normally only the concerns of that nation

Facts.
Nottebohm (P), a German by birth, lived in Guatemala (D) for 34 years, retaining his German
citizenship and family and business ties with it. He however applied for Liechtenstein (P) citizenship a
month after the outbreak of World War II. Nottebohm (P) had no ties with Liechtenstein but intended
to remain in Guatemala. The naturalisation application was approved by Liechtenstein and impliedly
waived its three-year. After this approval, Nottebohm (P) travelled to Liechtenstein and upon his
return to Guatemala (D), he was refused entry because he was deemed to be a German citizen. His
Liechtenstein citizenship was not honoured. Liechtenstein (P) thereby filed a suit before the
International Court to compel Guatemala (D) to recognize him as one of its nationals. Guatemala (D)
challenged the validity of Nottebohm’s (P) citizenship, the right of Liechtenstein (P) to bring the action
and alleged its belief that Nottebohm (P) remained a German national.

Issue.
Must nationality be disregarded by other states where it is clear that it was a mere device since the
nationality conferred on a party is normally the concern of that nation?

Held.
NO. issues relating to citizenship are solely the concern of the granting nation. This is the general
rule. But it does not mean that other states will automatically accept the conferring state’s designation
unless it has acted in conformity with the general aim of forging a genuine bond between it and its
national aim. In this case, there was no relationship between Liechtenstein (P) and Nottebohm (P).
The change of nationality was merely a subterfuge mandated by the war. Under this circumstance,
Guatemala (D) was not forced to recognize it. Dismissed.

Discussion.
A state putting forth a claim must establish a locus standi for that purpose. Without interruption and
continuously from the time of the injury to the making of an award being a national of the state making
the claim and must not have been a national of the state against whom the claim has been filed.
International law 347 (8th Ed. 1955) Vol.1.

6
Brief facts and judgements of the case

●​ 1881-Nottebohm born in Germany

●​ His brother was living in Liechtenstein, which is an independent state between Austria and
Switzerland
●​ 1905-He moved to Guatemala for business purpose
●​ 1905-1939- He established business, property etc. in Guatemala (34 Years)
●​ During all these years he was frequently visiting both Liechtenstein and Germany
●​ 1939-World War II started
●​ 1939 - Nottebohm left Guatemala and gone to Liechtenstein and applied for Nationality there
and got it
●​ 1940 - He returned to Guatemala and because of change in nationality in the passport he had
to register in 'Register of Aliens'
●​ 1943-Guatemala, as an implication of World War II, declared Liechtenstein as 'Enemy' &
hence Nottebohm became 'Enemy Alien', got arrested and was submitted to US authorities and he
had to serve 2 years imprisonment
●​ 1943-Authorities of Guatemala seized all this properties
●​ 1945-46 - Nottebohm got released and wanted to go back to Guatemala, to take control over
all his properties. However he was not permitted to enter Guatemala
●​ 1946 - With no option, he gone back to Liechtenstein
●​ 1949-Guatemala finally confiscated all his property, under their law
●​ 1951-Liechtenstein decided to fight the case against Guatemala and hence approached
International Court of Justice (ICJ)
●​ Liechtenstein asked for compensation by Guatemala for the losses of Nottebohm

Question - Is the nationality of Nottebohm i.e. Liechtenstein is "REAL AND EFFECTIVE'?

Judgement -

Nottebohm's intention of taking the nationality of Liechtenstein during wartime was not genuine.He
might have had done that for the purpose of being the national of a neutral state at the time of war.
As such, the intention was not real and effective to be the national of Liechtenstein, Liechtenstein can
not fight for the rights of Nottebohm

That way ICJ rejected the claims of Liechtenstein

7
 Functions, privileges and immunities of diplomats

Introduction

Diplomats are the persons who reside in foreign countries as the representative of the country by
whom they are dispatched. They act as a link between the country who despatch them and by whom
they are accredited. Therefore, they perform the act of diplomacy, which in International Law means
by which the States maintain or establish mutual relations and carry out their legal or political
transactions based on their foreign policies.

Act of diplomacy may be performed by the head of State, Government, Minister of Foreign Relations
or by and by diplomatic agents.

The Congress of Vienna of 1815 for the first time codified customary rules of International Law on
ranks of diplomatic representatives. The institution of diplomacy continued to develop after 1815 and
after the establishment of the United Nations, the task for codifying the law relating to diplomatic
agents was given to the International Law Commission.

The Commission prepared the draft article and submitted them to the General Assembly. The
Assembly convened a conference in 1961 and adopted the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
relations.

Classification of Diplomatic agents

Diplomatic agents accredited to a State differ in class. The Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations,
1961 under Article 14 divides diplomatic agents into three classes. They are:

●​ Ambassadors accredited to the head of State.

●​ Envoys, ministers accredited to the head of State.
●​ Charges d’ Affairs accredited to Ministers of Foreign Affairs.

Functions of Diplomatic Agents

Functions of diplomatic agents are determined by the rules and regulations of International Law and
municipal law (law of country) of the States. Article 3(1) of the Vienna Convention of Diplomatic
Relations, 1961 lays down various functions of diplomatic agents which are as follows:

●​ Representation: Diplomatic agents represent the policies and beliefs of the State by which
they are dispatched to the state where they are accredited. The function of representation is primarily
entrusted to the head of the mission. Oppenheim, in his book, says that “diplomats are the
mouthpiece of the head of his own State and the Foreign Minister for communication to be made to
the State where they are dispatched.
●​ Protection: Diplomatic agents protect the rights and interests of sending State and also of
nationals, within the limits allowed by the municipal law of the respective State. The limit of diplomats
is not prescribed by the International Law but by the municipal law of the State.
●​ Negotiation: Negotiation is the most important function which is performed by the diplomatic
agents. Generally, the head of the diplomatic mission negotiates on various aspects of behalf of the

8
sending State with the State to which they are accredited in order to maintain a friendly relationship.
Diplomatic agents are required to communicate the outcome of the negotiation to sending State from
time to time,
●​ Observation: Diplomatic agents are required to observe those events and happenings which
take place or which may take place in the State where they are accredited, especially those which
may affect the interests of the State by which they are sent. After making observations of the events,
they are required to make periodical reports to the government of sending State.
●​ Promotion of Friendly Relations: Diplomats are required to promote friendly relations
between the sending State and the receiving State. They also have the function to develop the social,
cultural and economic relations between the two States.
●​ Consular Functions: Vienna Convention lays down that diplomatic agents can also perform
consular functions which may be allotted to them from time to time such as death, birth and marriage
registrations of the subjects of home State, issue of passports etc.

Diplomatic immunities and privileges

International Law confers diplomatic immunity on diplomats from the exercise of jurisdiction by
receiving States. The principles governing diplomatic immunities and privileges are among the most
ancient and universally recognised principles of International Law.

Basis of Diplomatic immunity and privileges

Different international jurists have divergent views as to the basis for giving immunities to diplomatic
agents. Their views led to the emergence of three important theories which are as follows:

●​ Extra-territorial Theory: This theory is also known as the fictional theory. According to this
theory, diplomatic agents are considered not within the territorial jurisdiction of the State to which they
are accredited, but at all times within that of the sending State. Extra- territorially of diplomatic agents
means that though diplomats physically present upon the soil of the country to which they are
accredited but they remain for all purposes on the soil to which they represent.
●​ Representational Theory: According to this theory, diplomatic agents are regarded as
personal representatives of the sovereign of the sending State. Therefore, they are given the same
degree of privileges and rights which are given to the head of sending State.
●​ Functional Theory: According to this theory, diplomatic agents are given immunities because
of the nature of their functions. The duties which the diplomats perform are far from easy. In other
words, their actions of duties are of typical or some special nature. They are allowed immunities from
the legal and other limitations of the State to which they are accredited to effectively perform the tasks
they are allotted.

IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS-Several immunities and FOR GIVING

EVIDENCES IN A COURT AS WITNESS". But if any diplomatic agent wants to give evidence on his
own then he will be allowed to present himself in a court for giving evidence.

These immunities and privileges are as follows-

1)- INVIOLABILITY- In international law, diplomatic agents have been given sufficient personal
security. This immunity is recognised under Vienna convention 1961. In Article 29 0f the said
convention it has been said that "Diplomatic agents will enjoy physical inviolability. He will not be

9
liable to any form of arrest or detention. Honourable treatment will be given to him by taking or
keeping state and every effort shall be made to maintain his freedom and reputation intact."

But if the behaviour and conduct of diplomatic agent is found to be objectionable and if charge is
imposed upon him of interference in internal affairs of keeping state, then he may be declared as
PERSONA NON GRATA and may be asked to leave the country (Article- 9 and 43 of Vienna
convention 1961), Indian diplomatic agent in Pakistan RAJESH MITTAL was tortured by officers of
intelligence agency of Pakistan on 25th may 1992 and with the result, India declared two Pakistani
diplomatic agents in India as PERSONA NON GRATA and was asked to leave India is an good
example of this.

2)-IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION-It is a well established principle of

international law that diplomatic agents enjoy immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction.

Under this immunity:-

1)- no suit can be filed against diplomatic agent for recovery of debt;
2)- he can not be arrested in action for debt recovery;
3)- his property can not be seized and sold.

3)-IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL JURISDICTION -Diplomatic agents have also been given immunity
from criminal jurisdiction. Under Article 31 of Vienna convention 1961, it has been provided that
"diplomatic agents shall be immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the state". It means that the
keeping state shall not prosecute and penalise any diplomatic agent under any circumstance. Even
he can not be arrested. But it does not mean that he can behave as he likes in keeping state. It is
his duty that he should obey all rules and laws of keeping state and should not do such an act which
is inconsistent with the internal system of keeping state. If any misconduct is done by him, the
keeping state may suspend him and ask him to leave the country.

For example- in 1995 the first secretary sultan Mahmood DEHADER in the AFGANÂ embassy was
suspended by the government of India in Delhi in consequence of criminal charge and misconduct
and was sent back to AFGHANISTAN . This immunity is not available to children and relatives of
diplomatic agents who are not residing with them.

4)-IMMUNITY REGARDING RESIDENCE-There is inviolability of residence of diplomatic agents.

Entry in the house and even his house can not be searched. If there is any person hidden in his
house to whom the police want to arrest, normally the diplomatic agent surrenders such person to the
police.

5)-IMMUNITY FROM GIVING EVIDENCE IN THE COURT-Diplomatic agent is immune from

presenting himself for giving evidence in the courts. He can not be made bound for giving evidence in
the court. In Article-31(2) of Vienna convention, it has been said "NO DIPLOMATIC AGENT WILL BE
MADE BOUND

6)-IMMUNITY FROM PAYMENT OF TAXES-In international law, diplomatic agents are immune from
payment of taxes and customs duties. According to Article 34 and 36 of Vienna convention "A
DIPLOMATIC AGENT SHALL BE IMMUNE FROM PAYMENT OF ALL TYPES OF TAXES AND
DUTIES". But if any diplomatic agent wants to pay taxes in exchange for enjoyment of facilities of
water and electricity he will be allowed to pay. But if does not pay any tax , no legal action will be
taken against him.

10
7)- IMMUNITY FROM POLICE RULES AND REGULATIONS-Diplomatic agents are immune from
police rules and regulations. If he obeys these rules: it will be treated as his good manners towards
the state for maintenance of good relations.

8)-RIGHT OF WORSHIP AND DEVOTION TO GOD- Diplomatic agents have the right to worship
according to his own consciousness. But he does not enjoy the right to preach his own religion and to
make the citizens of keeping states bound to participate in his worship and devolution.

9)-IMMUNITY FROM LOCAL AND MILITARY OBLIGATIONS- According to Article-35 of Vienna

convention 1961,the diplomatic agent has been immune from local and military obligations.

10)-RIGHT TO EXERCISE been given to diplomatic agents under international law. S.S.DHAWAN
has considered these immunities and privileges a main base of international law.CONTROL AND
JURISDICTION OVER THEIR OFFICERS AND FAMILIES.privileges have

11)-FREEDOM OF COMMUNICATION FOR OFFICIAL PURPOSE-This freedom has been conferred

upon by Article-27 of Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, 1961. This Article provides that they
have freedom to communicate with their home-state in connection with their functions and duties.

12)-RIGHT TO TRAVEL FREELY IN TERRITORY OF THE RECEIVING STATE- This new right has,
for the time, been introduced in Article-26 of the Vienna convention on Diplomatic relations,1961.
Article 26 provides that diplomatic agents can travel in the territory of the receiving state subject, of
course, to the condition that they cannot go to the prohibited places or the places which are important
from the point of view of the security of the receiving state.

13)-IMMUNITY FROM SOCIAL SECURITY PROVISIONS-According to Article 33, a diplomatic agent

shall with respect to services rendered for the sending state be exempt from social security provisions
which may be in force in the receiving state.

14)-IMMUNITY FROM INSPECTION OF PERSONAL BAGGAGE-Article 36(2) of Vienna convention

1961 provides that the personal baggage of a diplomatic agent be exempt from inspection.

11