Diplomatic Asylum: Jullian Assange Case

The aim of this study is to trace the historical development of diplomatic asylum and to observe the inconsistencies and legal implications that appear in relation to the practice in order to find out whether such practice is justified in international law. Subsequently the case of Julian Assange will be investigated in order to fully understand the relation between diplomatic asylum and international law. The approach used in this context is based on reviewing primary sources of international law and international human rights law as well as secondary sources assessing previous findings regarding the institution of diplomatic asylum. The result of this study will reveal, among other things, that deriving legitimacy of diplomatic asylum from international law can be concluded as perplex as both the state granting diplomatic asylum and the state opposing the grant can uphold its claim in both the Vienna Conventions. Though diplomatic asylum is not universally recognized, the study finds that several states that do not recognize the practice still apply the practice on humanitarian grounds when considered necessary. In the case of Assange, the legitimacy of his individual claim to diplomatic asylum appears to be weak in relation to general international law as well as international human rights law.