Italy and India international dispute

[Deleted]

I would be glad to hear few unbiased opinions on the international affair that recently involved Italy and India.

I will try to report facts for the few that didnt heard about it.


about 1 years ago in the indian ocean but in international waters a shooting happened between 2 civil ships (lets call them A and B) resulting in 2 deads.
Ship A was carrying as escort a couple of members of a italian military well trained corp called "marò". Marò are the equivalent of US Marines.
Reason for the civil ship to carry militaries on it is that in that area, several ship are being raided by pirates, often approaching the designed victims disguised as small fishermen vessels.
What happened is that for some reason a shooting happened between the 2 ships resulting in 2 deads which were laters apparently identified as simple fishermen.

After that the ship A was contacted by radio from indian authorities and invited to approach the indian coast ( and thus entering the indian territorial sea and jurisdiction) just to proceeed at the identification of the 2 deads on ship B.

As Ship A docked in the 2 italian militaries were arrested, jailed and put on waiting for a judgement from the indian local court.

I'm going to skip a bit here and there about the process but online there are plenty of infos for those hungry about them.

Few months laters still under indian judgement the 2 italian militaries were allowed to fly back to italy for X-mas and spend there a couple of weeks.
After X-mas the 2 militaries were sent back to India.
Last month the 2 militaries were again sent back to Italy for allowing them to vote for the nationa elections.
At that point the italian minister of defense said they werent going back to India, because India isnt entitled to judge what happened in international waters and that they are going to be judged in Italy.

As a reprisal Indian government said that Italian embassador in India was going to be detained and not allowed to leave the country.

What your view on this? I'd like an external unbiased one because i am italian and i have my own view, i am really curious to know how its this affair is looked at from the rest of the world.

Thanks and sorry for my not perfect english.

[solvexx]

Regardless of actions of the two Italian men, you should not be allowed to detain an ambassador in my opinion.

[Jeleh]

I agree with solve that this is a bad move on the part of the Indian government. Regardless of what is happening when you start imprisoning/punishing ambassadors you set a precedent for your own in every country around the world.

[Deleted]

Regardless of actions of the two Italian men, you should not be allowed to detain an ambassador in my opinion.

Agreed. The ambassador has nothing to do with this incident, and should not be detained for something he/she did not do...

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Can't really say whether Italy's actions were stupid, but India jailing the ambassador was pretty dumb.

[tiger1234]

Can't really say whether Italy's actions were stupid, but India jailing the ambassador was pretty dumb.

You guys are pretty ignorant about the case. India hasn't jailed the ambassador.

A solemn unconditional undertaking was given to the Supreme Court in the affidavit dated February 9, 2013, by the Italian ambassador on behalf of the Republic of Italy to ensure the production of the marines on dates prescribed by the Supreme Court despite Italy’s contention about jurisdiction.

An undertaking by a party is qualitatively different from a party’s agreement or assurance to do certain acts. An undertaking is a commitment, a promise made by a party to the court for obtaining some concession from the court on the faith of its undertaking. The Supreme Court granted the concession of permitting the Italian marines to leave India for a temporary period. If a party, after obtaining benefit from the court, fails to honour its undertaking that is tantamount to playing a serious fraud on the court itself and the party is guilty of contempt. The court in contempt proceedings is not concerned with determining the rights of the rival parties. The matter is between the court and the contemnor.

Basically, the diplomat has waived his rights by initiating the legal proceedings. Having obtained benefit from the Supreme Court because of his undertaking, the ambassador cannot turn around and now be permitted to raise contention about the jurisdiction of the court on any ground.

In plain language, the ambassador cannot blow hot and cold and be permitted to have his cake and eat it too.

The Italians have committed serious perfidy here and must not now lecture the world on semantics and technicalities when they have shown wanton disregard for the laws and regulations of a nation.

[Scabb]

India is being heavy handed no doubt and catering to public opinion in India regarding the killings.

As the deaths occurred in international waters (this much is not in dispute it seems) then the Indian courts do not have jurisdiction under international maritime law and they should respect this.

The only questionable action by Italy in the matter is the decision to not return the accused to India after they were allowed to leave on the condition they return. This breaks the Ambassador's legal undertaking and sets a precedent that may effect future cases. That being said, they would undoubtedly not have done so if they had not been either convinced that India would not or could not settle the matter of jurisdiction favourably. Call me a cynic, but it is even possible that they were encouraged to take this course by India itself as the diplomatic incident over the Marò will surely last less this way than if they had been tried and convicted of the killings. India gets to save face and avoid a lengthy and locally sensitive issue.

Lastly, India's Supreme court's decision to strip the Italian Ambassador of his diplomatic immunity is illegal and will never hold up given the ramifications for breaking this critical international protocol.

All in all a lot of noise will be made over this and die down eventually with the Ambassador returning to Italy (or being expelled) when India accepts it cannot detain him.

[tiger1234]

I can't see my reply? o.0

[Deleted]

I don't know how reliable that account is, but whenever you have foreign nationals imprisioned in your country and you let them go back to their country, you shouldn't expect them back. I am astounded that Italy returned them the first time.

I have no idea what is the international legislation regarding international waters, but what Italy says seems pretty reasonable.

Can't really say whether Italy's actions were stupid, but India jailing the ambassador was pretty dumb.

I sure hope that by "detained" they didn't mean "jailed". The only rationale i can find to this is that the ambassador is suspecting of preparing the sequence of events that allowed the marós to remain in Italy. This could be seen as an interference in the Indian justice system and his diplomatic immunity could be revoked, not allowing him to leave the country.

Again, this is just a conjencture i'm making up with the info provided.

---------- Post added 2013-03-20 at 09:19 AM ----------

Call me a cynic, but it is even possible that they were encouraged to take this course by India itself as the diplomatic incident over the Marò will surely last less this way than if they had been tried and convicted of the killings. India gets to save face and avoid a lengthy and locally sensitive issue.

Yes, this seems very reasonable. It's suspicious they allowed them to return for Christmas and for an election vote (that can be done by mail), if they were so bent on putting them on trial.

[Mandible]

From my experience it would seem there are a few of these cases around, and India have issues respecting the laws of individual countries and expect their own to overrule all. Or at the very least disregards them.

[Deleted]

Can't really say whether Italy's actions were stupid, but India jailing the ambassador was pretty dumb.

Well they didn't really put him in jail -according to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...335109138.html

...an order issued last week by the Supreme Court of India that seeks to prevent Daniele Mancini, the Italian ambassador, from traveling outside India without its permission.

Apparently the ambassador approached the court earlier to request the marines temporary visit to Italy promising their return, which complicates the matter a bit according to the same article:

There are exceptions to diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention. For instance, if diplomats approach the courts, they can no longer claim immunity. In this case, Mr. Mancini was acting on behalf of the Italian government so it's unclear whether the exception applies.

So India has at least some basis for their actions, although I don't think it's justified in this case..

[solvexx]

From my experience it would seem there are a few of these cases around, and India have issues respecting the laws of individual countries and expect their own to overrule all. Or at the very least disregards them.

My partner is Indian and her parents are very much the same as the Government over there.
Rule with an iron fist even if it is wrong and not allowed in Australia. But that's a whole other story for another day.

OT: It is really a shame to see them detain a foreign Ambassador.
I hope he returns home safely.

[Valerean]

In all but the most extreme circumstances, detaining an Ambassador is a gigantic no-no.

[Ryuukon]

Detaining an ambassador because of the actions of his country men is about the same as jailing a school principle because a school crossing guard fell asleep at the crosswalk.

It's ridiculous, and sets a precedent where no other country can trust India in regards to the rights of their ambassadors.

It's going to backfire on them, and I can't say that I really see that as a bad thing.

[Zecora]

Agreed. The ambassador has nothing to do with this incident, and should not be detained for something he/she did not do...

I believe the Italian ambassador formally guarranteed that the two prisoners in question would return to India after their trip to Italy. Which of course does not allow India to detain the ambassador. They can however declare him an unwanted person and break diplomatic ties with Italy.

[Deleted]

If India isn't supposed to judge them since international waters that means italy can have ambassador say anything and India can't claim they would be right on the matter.

[Ashnazg]

I don't believe the host country can "revoke" a diplomatic immunity from an ambassador.

The host country can expel the ambassador (which is something that is done semi frequently in war time, or when relations get strained), but revoking diplomatic immunity is something that is done by the home country of the ambassador.

TLR, India erred gravely. Even if you treat his proclamation to "vouch for the Maros" as directly putting himself under the court jurisdiction, I don't know if the ambassador can voluntarily put himself under the jurisdiction of the host country courts, because I don't think it is in his power to do so.

An interesting legal precedent in any case.

[Zangeiti]

yeah all hell tis gonna come out