Diplomatic Immunities Abuses and Possible Remedies
Some of the general provisions of diplomatic immunity guarantee that the diplomats and their immediate families: "may not be arrested or detained, may not have their residences entered or searched, may not be subpoenaed as witnesses, and may not be prosecuted." (eDiplomat, 2006)
The 1958 Yearbook of International Law Commission, as cited in Vrk (2003), mentions three theories about the legal bases of diplomatic immunity. .
natives of a sending state, the diplomats should also be given the same independence as a receiving state would have negotiated with the sending state itself. These two theories, of course, have long been deduced to legal fictions with all the faulty assumptions. The accepted theory behind diplomatic immunity now lies in the "theory of functional necessity." This theory is based on the need for diplomatic missions and diplomats to efficiently perform their duties and responsibilities according to what their country requires from them, without apprehensions of being criminally charged by the receiving state. For instance, diplomats are able to initiate unfounded penal proceedings without hindrances from the receiving state because of diplomatic immunity.
According to eDiplomat (2006), "Diplomatic immunity is not meant to benefit individuals personally. it is meant to ensure that foreign officials can do their jobs. Under the concept of reciprocity, diplomats assigned to any country in the world benefit equally from diplomatic immunity." This assumption that diplomatic immunity would be reciprocally observed between sovereign states justifies the seemingly biased scales of justice. The rationale why countries agree to be dependent on a foreign country’s decision before prosecuting a diplomat in their own territory is based on the fact that these countries are both receiving and sending diplomats. This means that they also have their own diplomats’ immunity at stake in different countries across the globe. .