The Doctrine of Amān and Diplomatic Immunity: A Comparative Study of Contemporary International Law

Abstract

The objective of this article is to compare Contemporary International Law(CIL) relating to Diplomatic Immunity with Muslim International Law (MIL). This paper investigates the theory and practice of CIL for its compatibility and viability with MIL. This paper sums up that Muslim International Law (MIL) as well as Contemporary International Law (CIL) recognize and promote diplomacy for peaceful relations among nation states. Both of the laws, to some extent, are compatible in awarding rights to diplomats in Receiving State. MIL gives protection to ambassadors on the basis of a bilateral contract of Amān, which differentiates private rights from public rights. If diplomats violate private rights of any inhabitant, in that case they will be held accountable, otherwise not. On the other hand, CIL gives limited immunity to diplomats against all criminal and civil jurisdiction of the Receiving State. Such immunity will be availed only if the laws of the Receiving State do not repugnant to the Vienna Convention. In case of conflict between the domestic law of Receiving State and Vienna Convention, the domestic law of the Receiving State shall prevail. In case of violation of domestic law, the diplomats will face the consequences of the receiving and sending states’ laws.