Customs Law - Ambassador of Brigadoon - Assignment Example

Customs Law Incident 1 Incident 1 relates to issues of diplomatic immunity that is offered to diplomatic agents. This incident involves the Ambassador of Brigadoon and his wife on their return from Brigadoon on a two weeks leave and official consultations. On their arrival at capital’s international airport, a junior customs officer demand to inspect one of their luggages (Samsonite suitcase) on suspicion that it was carrying drugs since the drug detector dog had reacted to that particular piece of luggage on the carousel. The Ambassador politely declined baggage inspection and made clear to the officer that he was an Ambassador and hence he was immune from any kind of examination under the Vienna Convention. The junior customs officer denies the Ambassador the right to speak to his superiors and without advice or assistance from anyone goes ahead to examine the luggage despite the Ambassador’s and his wife protests. The officer on examination finds nothing on the Ambassador’s suitcase apart from his clothing and personal effects. In the analysis of the scenario above, it is important to note that Saudi Arabia as a country attaches so much importance to the relationship that exist between the two countries. Since time immemorial, many nations have always recognized the status of diplomatic agents. This is done out of concern for the sovereign equality of nations, to foster international security and peace and to enhance friendly relations among nations (United Nations, 2005). By the junior customs officer behaving the way he did, he disregarded the international laws and conventions that dictate how members of a diplomatic mission should be handled. Both Brigadoon (sending state) and Saudi Arabia (receiving state) are party of the Vienna Convention and hence any matters regarding diplomatic mission should be handled in accordance to the set rules. It is the responsibility of our country therefore to ensure that the diplomatic mission of the Brigadoon is accorded all the cooperation and securities to enable him perform his activities without any restrictions whatsoever. This is very important because it fosters good relations between the two countries. According to Vienna Conventions, handling of diplomatic mission is given a lot of consideration. It is believed that in order to develop friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their constitutional and social differences, it is important that an international convention on diplomatic course, immunities, and privileges be provided. The immunities and privileges are to be accorded to members of diplomatic mission to enable them perform their duties of diplomat mission as representing States efficiently but not for their personal gains (United Nations, 2005) . According to Vienna Convention Article 29, any diplomatic agent is inviolable and should not be detained and arrested. It is the responsibility of the receiving state to ensure that a diplomatic agent is treated with respect and should always be protected from nay attack on his person, freedom, or dignity This means that the junior customs officer disobeyed the set rules on how to handle a diplomatic agent. From the given scenario the customs officer did not know the identity of the Ambassador and thought that the Ambassador and his wife were just a normal couple. He intercepted as they were leaving and asked them to go with him so that he could examine their luggage acting on a suspicion that the drug detector dog reacted to one of the luggage they were carrying. Up to this point, the officer had behaved appropriately just like any other good customs officer would do since he did not have prior knowledge of who he was dealing with. However, the Ambassador politely introduced himself but the officer detained the Ambassador and his wife. This means that the customs officer contravened Article 29, which requires that a diplomatic agent be treated with respect. The officer not only humiliated the Ambassador by detaining him but also going ahead to search his luggage only to find that it did not have any illegal substance. It was also disrespectful of the officer to deny the Ambassador to speak to a superior officer and making whatever decisions he made without seeking advice from his superiors According to provisions of the Vienna Convention Article 36 paragraph 2, personal luggage of a diplomatic agent or that of his family members forming part of his household shall be exempt from any form of inspection, unless there are serious grounds for presuming that they contain something that is prohibited by the law or controlled by the quarantine regulation of the receiving nation (United Nations, 2005). If the inspection is to be conducted, it must be done in presence of the diplomatic agent or one of his authorized representatives. In the scenario under discussion, the junior customs officer violated this provision in that there was no enough reason to go ahead and inspect the Ambassadors luggage. . It is important to note that the Ambassador had already served in our country for 18 months, during which time neither him nor his wife had been of any interest to Customs. There had never been any form of suspicion that they have ever been involved in breaching our customs or quarantine laws before. In addition, both the Ambassador and his wife used the green channel when exiting the baggage hall, which means that they had nothing to declare which is in total agreement to our local laws. The officer acted just from a mere suspicion that the drug detection dog reacted to the samsonite suitcase that was similar to those used for smuggling drugs. The dog may have reacted out of experience that such suitcases are synonymous in ferrying drugs. The claims by the customs officer that the suitcase did not have a label showing that it was a diplomatic bag is not valid at all, in that even the personal baggage of a diplomatic agent and his family members should not be subjected to any form of inspection. In addition, the customs officer did not have any grounds to inspect the Ambassador’s wife suitcase because the dog did not react to it at all. According to Denza (2008) Article 37 of Vienna Convention, the wife being a family member of a diplomatic agent is entitled to enjoy the privileges and immunity as specified in Articles 29 to 36. The case is made even worse by the fact that the junior officer even after inspection did not find anything that was prohibited by law. Article 39 further explains that any member entitled to the privileges and immunity shall enjoy them from the time he enter the territory of the receiving state on proceeding to take his post or, if already in its territory, from the moment that the Ministry for Foreign Affairs has notified of his appointment (United Nations, 2005). The Ambassador of Brigadoon was at the time of the incident served in his capacity for 18 months, which means that he is entitled to all privileges as stipulated by the provisions in the Vienna Convention. These privileges and immunities only cease to exist when a person enjoying them leaves the country or on expiry of his period and in the scenario under the consideration, none of the above has happened. In addition, Article 27 states that it is the responsibility of the receiving state to permit and protect free communication to any diplomatic agent (Denza, 2008). In this scenario, the customs officer denied the Ambassador the right to speak to his superior officer. Diplomatic agents are usually accorded this privilege because most of the time they deal with sensitive matters concerning nations. For this reason, they have the power to employ any means of communication with the Government or other consulates and missions of the sending state. The Ambassador may have used his suitcase to carry some information despite it lacking a tag to show that it was a diplomatic suitcase. It is in his right to decide the means of communication to use and the way to carry information he may be in possession with. For this reason the customs officer should not have examined the Ambassadors luggage According to Article 41, all persons enjoying the privileges and immunities should respect regulations and laws used in the receiving State. This should not interfere with the internal affairs of the receiving State at any given time (United Nations, 2005). The Ambassador and his wife for the time he had served in his capacity always respected the laws of our country and that is why bad record with our customs department. Additionally, even after his luggage being subjected to examination by the customs officer, nothing to incriminate him was found which means he did not misuse the privileges accorded to him. Conclusion Our country has always been in good relationship with Brigadoon, it places a lot of importance on how maters between the two nations are handled. Respect for diplomatic relations between two countries goes a very long way in fostering peace and that is why the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is one of the most successful instruments in international law. The officer in question violated the provisions in the Vienna convention and hence the Ambassador of Brigadoon deserves an apology. It is the responsibility of our government to ensure that nothing like that happen in future by making sure that their officers understand the Vienna Convention provisions. Incident 2 Incident 2 relates to issues regarding customs jurisdiction in territorial water. In this scenario the foreign- registered vessel under detention had been identified as a high risk vessel for narcotics importation by the WCO’s Regional Intelligence Liaison Office (RILO). In addition, the Customs administration in the last port of departure had notified the Customs that there might be some narcotics on board in the vessel when it left its last port. The question of terrestrial water jurisdiction has always been raised debates in matters concerning international law. According to international laws, terrestrial waters refer to that part of the ocean, which is immediately adjacent to, the shores of a nation and subject to its territorial jurisdiction. Our country has jurisdiction rights to adjudicate, regulate and police the territorial waters and the also the right to exploit the natural resources in those waters. According to Article 2 of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea that deals with terrestrial sea and the contiguous zone, the sovereignty of any coastal State extends, beyond its land territory and internal waters. It also extends to the airspace over the territorial sea as well as to its subsoil and bed. However, the sovereignty over the terrestrial sea is exercised by a State subject to Convention on the Law of Sea and to other rules of international law. Since 18th century, international law has set a width of territorial waters, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; the width should be 12 nautical miles. Article 7 and 47 on the Convention gives the methods used to determine boundaries in different states (United Nations, 2005). Custom jurisdiction in terrestrial waters is imperative because seawater can be used for a variety of reasons. Unfortunately, it has served as one of the hub for illegal traders mostly those dealing with illegal weapons and drug trafficking like in the case under consideration. For this reason, different States, our country being one of them have had to enforce strict laws in order to curb illegal drug trafficking as required by the international law. International laws also demand that different nations respect each other’s sovereignty in order to avoid any confrontation. It is for this reason that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was ratified to create harmony in the manner in which different States exercise their territorial powers. In this scenario however, a the foreign vessel had not touched our territorial boundary since it was 15 nautical miles into the sea meaning that it had not breached our States territorial integrity. This scenario is rather complex in that the foreign vessel was already in our contiguous zone and was observed to stop and drop an object with a marker buoy attached. After dropping the object, the vessel turned away from the contiguous zone and headed out of the sea. It was also observed that a local fishing boat that had been fishing throughout the night approached the buoy and retrieved the object. According to Article 33 of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a coastal state has the right to exercise control over its contiguous zone. The control includes preventing of customs infringement, immigration, fiscal or sanitary laws and regulation within its territorial sea. A state also has the right to punish nay one who infringes on the stated laws and regulations within its territorial sea (United Nations, 2005). The foreign vessel dropped an object within the contagious zone and hence the customs official had all the rights to take action against the vessel for infringement. This however does not mean that a foreign vessel is not permitted to enter into another States contagious zone. Under Article 17, foreign vessels have a right to innocent passage through territorial sea. However, the vessel must be traversing the sea without entering internal waters or calling at a port facility outside internal waters, the passage should also be continuous and expeditious. A passage is said to be innocent under Article 19 if it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state. The passage should also be characterized by adherence to Convention on the Law of Sea and other international law (United Nations, 2005). The foreign vessel in this scenario could not be said to be on an innocent passage because it was believed to be ferrying narcotics that are against the international laws Based on the prior information they had received from RILO regarding the vessel, the custom officials had every reason to pursue the vessel. On realizing this, the Customs vessel conveyed this information to the Customs Headquarter, to seek further guidance on the issue. They were given a go ahead to radio the foreign vessel to order it to stop and search the local fishing vessel. Their efforts however to contact the foreign vessel were fruitless since the vessel failed to acknowledge their calls and continued to move out of the sea. They were able to intercept the fishing boat but did not find any drugs. During this time, the custom officials had not violated any of the Convention on Law of the Sea. Later that afternoon a see going vessel pursued the foreign registered vessel and intercepted it at around 50 nautical miles off the shore way beyond the contagious zone where the custom official had the jurisdiction to prevent infringement of our States territory. According to Article 57, this area follows under exclusive economic zone that should not extend beyond 200 nautical miles and under Article 56, a coastal State has some rights, duties and jurisdiction in this area. A coastal state has sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve, and manage the natural resources whether living or non-living in the exclusive economic zone (Treves, 2008). It is within the powers of a coastal state to protect and preserve the marine environment under this area. The question therefore lies in whether the customs vessel was acting in accordance with the set provisions in the laws of the sea. The answer is yes, this is because their action falls under Article 111 of these provisions. According to this Article, a costal State has the right to pursue a foreign vessel if the competent authorities have a good reason to believe that the vessel has violated the laws of the State. Such pursuit should only be done when the vessel is within the internal waters, contiguous zone of the pursuing State or terrestrial sea and can only be continued outside the terrestrial sea or the contiguous zone if the pursuit has not been interrupted. In this scenario the customs vessel had reasons to believe that the vessel was involved in trafficking of narcotics, their previous efforts to stop the vessel had not been successful. Our country being a member state of United Nations Convention on Illicit Drug Traffic is obligated by law to prohibit the trafficking of drugs at all cost. Article 17 of this Convention requires that the member States cooperate as much as possible to suppress illicit traffic by sea, in conformity with the international law of the sea. It goes ahead to explain that a party that has reasonable grounds to believe that a vessel with or without flying its flag is engaged in illicit traffic may request the help from other parties so as to suppress its use for that purpose (United Nations, 1988). In addition, the hot pursuit did not reach the territorial waters of another State hence the Custom vessel acted with the provisions of the sea laws. The only mistake that the customs officials made was to boarding the ship without seeking permission from the flag State as stipulated in Article 1, and detaining it. They did not find any illegal substance on board but only some residual traces of heroin in the cabins of both the crewmembers. Conclusion The Customs official from the beginning of the events acted in accordance to the Convention on the Law of Sea and other international laws, their pursuit for the foreign vessel was also justified because they had reasonable grounds to suspect that the vessel was involved in trafficking narcotics. This was after the Intel they had gotten from RILO and seeing the vessel drop an object which was later picked up by the crew of a local fishing boat who were later confirmed to have been involved in drug trafficking. They however would have sought permission from the flag State to board the vessel; they did not, which is a breach to the set international sea laws and this amount to violation of territorial integrity of the flag State. For this reason, the flag State would be justified to lodge a formal protest against our nation considering that no illicit substance was confisticated. It would be therefore wise to apologize to the flag State and release the vessel and the crew with immediate effect References Denza, E. (2008). Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations: Viena, 18 April 1961. Retrieved from http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/vcdr/vcdr.html Treves, T. (2008).United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Montego Bay, 10 December 1982. Retrieved from http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/uncls/uncls.html United Nations. (2005). Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Retrieved from http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/7F83006DA90AAE7FC1256F260034B806/$file/Vienna Convention (1961) - E.pdf United nations. (2005).United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf United Nations. (2005). Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone 1958. Retrieved from http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdf Read More