State sovereignty and diplomatic asylum

Magistrsko diplomsko delo obravnava tematiko s področja mednarodnega prava, zlasti diplomatskega in konzularnega prava. Preučuje namreč odnos med redko, a obstoječo prakso podeljevanja diplomatskega azila in suverenostjo držav sprejemnic (tj. držav, v katerih se nahajajo diplomatski prostori držav pošiljateljic, ki se odločijo za podelitev diplomatskega azila). Hipoteza tega dela je, da podelitev diplomatskega azila s strani države pošiljateljice lahko pomeni poseg v izvajanje pristojnosti države sprejemnice na njenem ozemlju in s tem v njeno suverenost. Na začetku je kratko predstavljeno relevantno zgodovinsko ozadje instituta diplomatskega azila ter pojmovanja suverenosti držav v mednarodnem pravu. V nadaljevanju sledi nekaj primerov, v katerih se je diplomatski azil (v sodobnem času) dejansko podelil, s prikazom reakcije (ali pomanjkanja reakcije) držav sprejemnic ob podelitvi tovrstnega azila. Prikazane so tudi pravne možnosti za nadaljnja ravnanja, ki jih imata država pošiljateljica in država sprejemnica v primeru, ko pride do podelitve diplomatskega azila. V zaključku ugotavljam, da podelitev diplomatskega azila sicer res predstavlja poseg v suverenost države sprejemnice, vendar da ta poseg ni vedno neupravičen.This Master’s thesis deals with a topic of international law, especially diplomatic and consular law. It researches the relationship between the rare but nonetheless existing practice of granting diplomatic asylum and the sovereignty of the receiving states (the states in which the diplomatic premises of the sending states that granted diplomatic asylum are located). The hypothesis of this work is that the granting of diplomatic asylum by the sending state can present an interference with the receiving state’s exercising of jurisdiction in its territory and thus also its sovereignty. The beginning of the thesis briefly presents the relevant historical background of diplomatic asylum and state sovereignty in international law. In the next section, a few cases in which diplomatic asylum was actually granted (in modern times) are mentioned, presenting the reactions (or lack thereof) of the receiving state when diplomatic asylum was granted. The thesis also illustrates the legal options for further action for both receiving and sending states in cases when the diplomatic asylum is granted. Lastly, I explain that while the granting of diplomatic asylum presents an interference with the receiving state’s sovereignty, this interference is not always unjustified