NICCO B.

ACAYLAR, LLB II Subject: Public International Law

“A Reaction Paper on the movie Argo”

Clinching the Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Achievement in Film Editing

awards in the 2013 Oscars, Argo was indeed a remarkable movie which focused on a lot of international

law issues. The movie was said to be a combination of real and fictional stories. Its plot was based on

Iranian Revolution, when Islamist students took most of the American embassy personnel hostage,

demanding the return of the US-backed Shah of Iran for trial. First of all, I would like to discuss the

international law concepts that were present in the movie and to be followed by the violations of

international law.

Firstly, the crux of the matter in the movie was the American diplomats working in the consular

office located in Tehran, Iran and the intricacies of their rescue by the joint efforts of American and

Canadian government. Ben Affleck portrayed the role of Tony Mendez who was joining the six

diplomats in Tehran to form a fake film crew. It was purportedly made up of six Canadians, one

Irishman and one Latin American, who were finishing scouting for an appropriate location to shoot a

scene for the nominal science-fiction film Argo.

The six American diplomats had evaded capture during the seizure of the United States embassy

in Tehran, Iran during the Iranian Revolution. Under public international law, diplomats are afforded

with several degrees of privileges in a foreign country. International law discusses that a head of mission

or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission may act as representative of the sending State to

any international organization. Diplomats enjoy diplomatic immunity which means that they are beyond
the ambit of jurisdiction of the country in which they are present. The inviolability of diplomatic envoys

has been recognized by most civilizations and states throughout history.

Secondly, the movie also emphasized an international law concept of diplomatic asylum.

Diplomatic asylum is anchored on the basis of humanity wherein if there is an imminent danger to life

of an alien, the embassy can grant temporary asylum. The word ‘asylum’ comes from the Greek asylos,

that which may not be seized or violated, usually a place that was sacred or magical, such as a temple.

Asylum is the power of the State to allow an alien who has sought refuge from prosecution or

persecution to remain within the territory and under its protection. It can be seen that the Canadian

Embassy granted diplomatic asylum to the American diplomats who escaped from the hostage taking

that happened in the American Embassy during the Iranian revolution. To be specific, the

accommodations by the Canadian ambassador to the Americans were luxurious. There were books,

English-language newspapers but their movement were limited. The guests could never leave their

quarters. In public international law, diplomatic asylum is granted only if stipulated in a treaty or where

established usage allows it but within narrowest limits or when life or liberty of the person is threatened

by imminent violence.

Thirdly, the concept of personal inviolability of diplomatic agents, diplomatic officials and

attaché can be seen on the movie. Since the Americans were diplomats they were expected to be

afforded of the privileges vis-à-vis personal inviolability. As discussed in public international law, there

are several categories of privileges enjoyed by diplomatic officials. Diplomatic agents enjoy the highest

degree of privileges and immunities. They enjoy complete personal inviolability, which means that they

may not be handcuffed (except in extraordinary circumstances), arrested, or detained; and neither their

property (including vehicles) nor residences may be entered or searched. Diplomatic agents also enjoy

complete immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the host country’s courts and thus cannot be
prosecuted no matter how serious the offense unless their immunity is waived by the sending state.

While it is not ordinarily of concern to police authorities, they also have immunity from civil suits

except in four very limited circumstances: (a) in connection with real property transactions not

conducted on behalf of the mission; (b) in connection with any role they may play as executor for or heir

to an estate being distributed in the host country;(c) in connection with the performance of professional

or commercial activities outside the scope of their official duties; or (d) in respect of counterclaims on

the same subject matter when they have been the initiating party in a suit. Finally, they enjoy complete

immunity from the obligation to provide evidence as witnesses and cannot be required to testify even,

for example, if they have been the victim of a crime.

Fourthly, the movie showed that the American diplomats should enjoy another privilege relative

to the inviolability of their premises and archives. Being on the American Embassy in Tehran, the

premises should be inviolable for any forcible entry by the receiving state unless if there is fire on the

premises or if it is a matter of life and death or if the diplomats waive it and request for the entry of

police officers. The American embassy is akin to an extension of territory of the United States. It

logically follows that the archives should also be inviolable and must be free from search and unlawful

taking.

Fifthly, the movie showed exceptions to the state’s right of sovereignty. The Iranian state cannot

invoke their right to independent sovereignty when the US and Canada launched a covert rescue

operation to rescue and extract US diplomats. The argument here is that under the international law, an

intervention in order to protect one’s nationals is not an attempt on the territorial or political integrity of

the invaded State. Sovereignty means that the states are in complete and exclusive control of all the

people and property within their territory. State sovereignty also includes the idea that all states are
equal as states. Practically, sovereignty means that one state cannot demand that another state take any

particular internal action but subject to exceptions.

Sixthly, there were violations of humanitarian law or peremptory norms of international law in

the Argo movie which should merit an international law consequence. The Iranian revolutionists took

Americans as hostages, depriving the latter of their liberty and property. There was mental torture,

physical torture and someone was shown to have been hanged to death using a backhoe. Article 3 of the

Geneva Conventions prohibits the taking of hostages. It is also prohibited by the Fourth Geneva

Convention and is considered a grave breach thereof. However, in addition to the provisions in the

Geneva Conventions, practice since then shows that the prohibition of hostage-taking is now firmly

entrenched in customary international law and is considered a war crime. Under the Statute of the

International Criminal Court, the “taking of hostages” constitutes a war crime in both international and

non-international armed conflicts. The UN Commission on Human Rights has stated that hostage-

taking, wherever and by whoever committed, is an illegal act aimed at the destruction of human rights

and is never justifiable. In its General Comment on Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights (concerning states of emergency), the UN Human Rights Committee stated that States

parties may in no circumstances invoke a state of emergency as justification for acting in violation of

humanitarian law or peremptory norms of international law, for instance by taking hostages.

Lastly, it has been said that the United States imposed hostile methods to sanction Iran after the

seizure of the American Embassy in order to finally release the hostages. Hostile methods are modes of

dispute settlement when the pacific methods of settlement have failed. The US imposed sanctions such

as reprisals and trade embargo. It has been said that the sanctions by the US under the Executive Order

12170 included freezing about $12 billion in Iranian assets, including bank deposits, gold and other
properties, and a trade embargo. These sanctions were lifted in January 1981 as part of the Algiers

Accords, which was a negotiated settlement of the hostages’ release.

On the other hand, I believe that these are the violations of international law that are present in

the movie. There are violations of diplomatic immunity and privileges of the American diplomats in Iran

such as violation of personal inviolability of the diplomats, violation of the inviolability of premises and

archives. There was also a violation of humanitarian law or peremptory norms of international law

committed by the Iranian Islamists against the aliens residing on their country. There was also a

violation of diplomatic immunity and privileges of the Canadian Ambassador and violation of their

premises and archives after the Iranians ransacked the former’s embassy.

As discussed above, the American diplomatic officials should be afforded with diplomatic

immunity. Public international law tells us that the inviolability of their premises and archives should

be given a high amount of respect. The diplomatic officials should be immune from any criminal and

civil cases during their official duties. They should not be subjected to the domestic law of the foreign

country while performing their official functions. The principle of diplomatic immunity does not apply

to all foreign government or international organization officials and employees. When it does apply, it

applies differently to different categories and subcategories of such persons and their families,

dependent on circumstances.

Diplomatic agents—that is, high ranking embassy officials (ambassadors, for example) who

serve the function of dealing directly with their host country's officials on behalf of their home country

—enjoy the highest degree of immunity. The same applies to their family members.
 Consular officers (career consuls and other foreign government officials responsible for issuing

travel documents, promoting commerce or tourism, and similar functions) enjoy full immunity for acts

performed in connection with their official function. However, they are otherwise fully subject to

criminal prosecution, except that they may be detained only in felony cases. Their property can be

searched by police officers. They can also be sued like private citizens—although they are prohibited

(by international law) from engaging in commercial or professional activities outside their official

functions.

Consulates' administrative and technical staff are not prohibited from engaging in commercial or

professional activities outside their official functions. However, they enjoy immunity only for acts

performed in connection with their official functions.

Other consular employees enjoy almost no immunity, except that they cannot be forced to appear

as witnesses in court for purposes of providing evidence about official consular affairs. Here again, there

are exceptions. Consular personnel may acquire almost as much immunity as diplomatic agents based

on a special treaty between their home country and their host country. No immunity applies to consular

personnel who are nationals or permanent residents of the host country, except that honorary consuls

enjoy immunity for acts performed in connection with their official functions.

In conclusion, the movie “Argo” talked about the significance of adhering and following public

international law in order to attain peace, harmony and to preserve the national security of states. Iran

should respect the United States and it behooves upon the latter to also respect the former.

The essence of public international law is that it governs the relations between nations. Without a

coherent body of laws in place at an international level there will be an anarchic international system. It
governs diplomatic relations, lays rules on the conduct of war, international protection of human rights,

protection of civilian spaces, cultural symbols in conflict times. It also lays down treaties for countries to

abide by in various areas of international cooperation.

It is crystal clear that abiding with international law helps nations understand the merits and

demerits of their actions and the interrelationships between themselves and their neighbors.