Lawyer Rafik Oreh Walid Ghraizi

Since the beginning of recorded history, the first forms of diplomacy never treated immunity as a title of ownership, but rather as a bridge for exchanging interests. From the Vienna Protocols of 1815 to the 1961 Convention, the world has sought a framework that preserves the dignity of the sending state while protecting the sovereignty of the host. Yet what we witness today—the Iranian ambassador’s defiance of Lebanon’s decision to expel him—creates a precedent that undermines the logic of law, turning diplomacy from a shield for dialogue into a dagger in the side of sovereignty.

Immunity Ends with Consent

As jurist Charles Rousseau said, international law is a coordination between sovereigns, not submission to wills. Accordingly, immunity relies on mutual consent. If the host state withdraws its consent under Article 9 of the Vienna Convention, the ambassador’s continued presence becomes a material violation of the state’s will. Here, the reasoning of Louis Cavaré is relevant: immunity is granted so that the ambassador can perform his functions. When that function ends by a sovereign decision, the justification for immunity disappears immediately, and the envoy becomes an aggressor against sovereignty, subject to the sovereign response endorsed by Judge Gilbert Guillaume.

Former French judge at the International Court of Justice, Gilbert Guillaume, emphasized that the Vienna Convention is not a shield for impunity. A host state that tolerates the presence of a diplomat retains the right to end that tolerance at any moment. Refusal to leave grants the host state the right to exercise sovereign deterrence.

Implications of the Iranian Ambassador’s Defiance

The questions that arise are: What are the personal consequences for the Iranian ambassador in violating Lebanon’s decision to leave, given his status as persona non grata under Lebanese domestic law? And what are the implications of this violation for the Islamic Republic of Iran?

No Immunity Above Sovereignty

The case of the American staff in Tehran (1980) serves as the constitutional interpretation of the Vienna Convention. The International Court of Justice confirmed that the diplomatic system is self-contained, granting Article 9 absolute discretion to the host state to terminate any envoy’s immunity immediately and without explanation. In the case of Equatorial Guinea versus France (2020), the court affirmed the host state’s right to refuse diplomatic status to individuals or properties that it does not approve. British courts also confirmed in the case of Empson versus Smith that losing official status immediately removes protection from non-official acts.

Historical precedents illustrate this principle. In 1984, following a shooting inside the Libyan embassy in London that killed a British police officer, the UK declared the entire embassy staff persona non grata. When the Libyan diplomats refused to leave and staged a sit-in, London gave them a one-week deadline. Upon its expiration, British authorities surrounded the embassy, cut off all services, and ultimately removed the diplomats under heavy security, conducting body searches before expelling them. Their claim to immunity was considered void the moment the deadline ended.

In 1986, at the height of the Cold War, the United States expelled 25 Soviet diplomats from the United Nations mission for espionage. The Soviet Union questioned the legality of the decision and attempted to delay compliance. The US administration made it clear that forced expulsion would be used if the diplomats did not leave on time. The Department of Justice emphasized that the President has constitutional authority to remove expelled diplomats forcibly, as they no longer enjoyed any legal status protecting them from local immigration laws.

Criminal Liability

Under Lebanese law, the ambassador’s insistence on staying moves beyond the cover of diplomacy and enters the realm of criminality. His actions fall under Article 288 of the Penal Code, as they expose Lebanon to hostile acts and disrupt its relations with the international community. They also touch on the crimes of abuse of authority under Article 306 and impersonation under Articles 392 and 393. The expelled ambassador is therefore considered an ordinary citizen before the judicial authorities. Additionally, the 1962 Law on the Entry and Residence of Foreigners gives the Director General of General Security the authority to enforce administrative expulsion without a judicial ruling, considering the individual a threat to national security under Article 17 of the same law.

International Litigation

Iran’s decision to keep its ambassador in Lebanon constitutes an internationally unlawful act. Lebanon may appeal to the International Court of Justice under the Optional Protocol to hold Iran internationally responsible for violating Article 9 and to claim moral damages for the harm caused to the state’s dignity. Lebanon can also demand that Tehran withdraw any protection afforded to the rebellious individual.

The Sword of Sovereignty

Courts agree that diplomatic immunity is not an eternal right, but a sovereign grant that ends at the host country’s discretion. An envoy declared persona non grata who refuses to leave after the deadline ceases to be a protected diplomat and becomes a transgressing foreigner, against whom General Security has the authority to act directly.

Lebanese sovereignty is neither a matter for debate nor a gift to be granted. It is the natural right of the land and its people. Article 9 of the Vienna Convention is the sword of sovereignty that cuts off interference. Our message today is clear: no immunity above the dignity of the nation, no diplomacy above the authority of the law. The period for diplomatic courtesy has ended, and the period for national sovereignty has begun. Lebanon must be respected as a state, or we must declare that international law has died at the gates of its embassies.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar