Ecuador 'analysing' Snowden asylum request: FM

[FDog]

I am afraid that I might have missed something. Where does it say that he must be in the country or on the soil of the country to claim asylum. Some countries might want that, but surely not all.

Just curious.

No he doesn't need to be in the country, it may be domestic policy to do so but no international law. Any govt can give asylum from anywhere.

[FDog]

I am afraid that I might have missed something. Where does it say that he must be in the country or on the soil of the country to claim asylum. Some countries might want that, but surely not all.

Just curious.

Same same.

I've read in more sources I can count at this point that almost all countries, perhaps virtually all governments, require an asylum seeker to be present in the country by the definition I've related in the above post in order to apply for asylum. The idea is that, in such a serious matter as asylum, you can't make inquiries from outside the country where you seek asylum as if you might be shopping around. One needs to be in the country as proof that you seriously want asylum in the country to which you are applying and that you have a serious reason to apply.

Likewise one can't request an advisory opinion from abroad concerning whether one qualifies or might qualify for asylum. You have to be present in the country in order to have standing to apply for asylum. I started to research the question but there's so much about asylum, and so little specifically about standing, that I easily quit the search to try to find something to show you specifically.

The UK requires one's presence, the US requires presence, other countries mentioned in the Snowden search require physical presence etc etc. It's clear that physical presence in the country is broadly required by many if not all governments.

No that is incorrect

[FDog]

I am afraid that I might have missed something. Where does it say that he must be in the country or on the soil of the country to claim asylum. Some countries might want that, but surely not all.

Just curious.

No he doesn't need to be in the country, it may be domestic policy to do so but no international law. Any govt can give asylum from anywhere.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/07/us-attempts-block-snowden-bolster-case-asylum

That link should give you the correct answer.

[SinglePot]

Guardian have nailed their colours to the mast a long time ago.

They lose face if their hero stumbles.

[SinglePot]

did the us nail the rat Gadaffi in the sewer pipe?

did the us nail Bin Laden?

did people jump out of windows from the twin towers?

Let's get some f****** perspective before I bang on about an emerging nation in the east.

what?

don't you mean yes.

[Publicus]

I am afraid that I might have missed something. Where does it say that he must be in the country or on the soil of the country to claim asylum. Some countries might want that, but surely not all.

Just curious.

No he doesn't need to be in the country, it may be domestic policy to do so but no international law. Any govt can give asylum from anywhere.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/07/us-attempts-block-snowden-bolster-case-asylum

That link should give you the correct answer.

Check the UK requirements as stated by Amnesty International and the UK Government.

Maybe some of you should do the research that will give you the accurate information, instead of leaving to me to do every time. Do some actual research instead of going directly and only to the left wing Guardian every time. I keep seeing the Guardian repeatedly at these threads, as if it were gospel and the only publication of the world.

[keemapoot]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/07/us-attempts-block-snowden-bolster-case-asylum

That link should give you the correct answer.

Check the UK requirements as stated by Amnesty International and the UK Government.

Maybe some of you should do the research that will give you the accurate information, instead of leaving to me to do every time. Do some actual research instead of going directly and only to the left wing Guardian every time. I keep seeing the Guardian repeatedly at these threads, as if it were gospel and the only publication of the world.

There is no established International Public Law on whether an asylum applicant needs to be present on the soil of the granting state. There are indeed conventions or treaties between and among various nations on this, but the precise issue is whether there is a treaty between Russia and the state where Snowden is seeking Asylum. Typically, this falls into a gray area of the oldest form of International Law known as Diplomatic Law. Indeed the issue is left to the granting state. Most states do have their own internal laws concerning this, and that is why we've seen some say he must be on their soil first.

Interestingly, the area with the most developed International Asylum Law is in fact, Latin America.

Where treaties exist regarding the grant of asylum, the question will arise

as to the respective competences of the sending and receiving state or the

state granting asylum and the territorial state.While the diplomats of the

sending state may provisionally determine whether a refugee meets any

condition laid down for the grant of asylum under an applicable treaty

this would not bind the receiving state, for ‘the principles of international

law do not recognise any rule of unilateral and definitive qualification by the state granting asylum’.334 It may be that in law a right of asylum will arise for ‘urgent and compelling reasons of humanity’,335 but the nature and scope of this is unclear.

source: Shaw, Int'l Law 6th Ed. (Int'l Law textbook)

[Scott]

Again, thanks. I was getting a little confused with refugee status versus asylum applications. It makes sense that most countries would expect you to be personally present before granting asylum.

I don't think we need to debate the issue too much. My guess is that the head of state of most countries could waive that condition, if he/she wanted to.

[keemapoot]

Again, thanks. I was getting a little confused with refugee status versus asylum applications. It makes sense that most countries would expect you to be personally present before granting asylum.

I don't think we need to debate the issue too much. My guess is that the head of state of most countries could waive that condition, if he/she wanted to.

Yeah, I think the equivocating we've been seeing from sympathetic (to Snowden's cause) states may not arise so much from their internal laws, but rather that the existing internal policy of requiring the applicant to be present gives them an excuse to humhaw so as not to piss off the U.S. too early. Having said that, opposition leaders could use a leader's breach of it's internal laws as an excuse to unseat the leader, so there may be domestic political reasons as well in these banana republics.

[antfish]

Again, thanks. I was getting a little confused with refugee status versus asylum applications. It makes sense that most countries would expect you to be personally present before granting asylum.

I don't think we need to debate the issue too much. My guess is that the head of state of most countries could waive that condition, if he/she wanted to.

I think that in the states with a functional judicial system and separation of powers makes it impossible for a head of state to make decision that are contrary to the existing laws in that country.

[Scott]

The situation in the states is a little more complicated, however, a president does have the power to grant asylum to someone. There are a number of programs and processes that would protect someone in such a situation.

But that is off-topic.

In many countries the Head of the country, as well as others may very well have the power to waive certain conditions for asylum/refugee claims.

For obvious reasons, they may not want to discuss this publicly.

[antfish]

To clarify with "in the states with a functional judicial system and separation of powers" i didn't mean specific the United States Of America with its president as head of states.

Maybe i should have said with "in the COUNTRIES with a functional judicial system and separation of powers ..."

like for example in those European states countries that said they could not give Snowden Aslyum because for that he must apply while being in the country. In germany the head of state for example has not such a power as the president of the USA however may have.
There is a big pro-snowden feeling in Europe, and citizens are now somewhat angry at their government because they didn't make an exemption and grant Snowden that asylum he requested. but even if their governments shared the same pro-snoden sentiments they just can't grant Snowden that Asylum and shortcut the existing laws.

Edited July 9, 2013 by antfish

[keemapoot]

To clarify with "in the states with a functional judicial system and separation of powers" i didn't mean specific the United States Of America with its president as head of states.

Maybe i should have said with "in the COUNTRIES with a functional judicial system and separation of powers ..."

like for example in those European states countries that said they could not give Snowden Aslyum because for that he must apply while being in the country. In germany the head of state for example has not such a power as the president of the USA however may have.

There is a big pro-snowden feeling in Europe, and citizens are now somewhat angry at their government because they didn't make an exemption and grant Snowden that asylum he requested. but even if their governments shared the same pro-snoden sentiments they just can't grant Snowden that Asylum and shortcut the existing laws.

Yes, good post. The point is that in more transparent countries such as in Europe, the head of state does not have such an easy power to circumvent existing domestic laws on the matter. In some banana republics in S.America, it may be more doable, but even in those cases, there may be political obstacles. And, in all cases, they will incur the wrath of the U.S. on this matter and for what? Is Snowden worth it for them? What exactly are the benefits for any country?

These issues are larger than any international law issues on asylum.

[antfish]

To clarify with "in the states with a functional judicial system and separation of powers" i didn't mean specific the United States Of America with its president as head of states.

Maybe i should have said with "in the COUNTRIES with a functional judicial system and separation of powers ..."

like for example in those European states countries that said they could not give Snowden Aslyum because for that he must apply while being in the country. In germany the head of state for example has not such a power as the president of the USA however may have.

There is a big pro-snowden feeling in Europe, and citizens are now somewhat angry at their government because they didn't make an exemption and grant Snowden that asylum he requested. but even if their governments shared the same pro-snoden sentiments they just can't grant Snowden that Asylum and shortcut the existing laws.

Yes, good post. The point is that in more transparent countries such as in Europe, the head of state does not have such an easy power to circumvent existing domestic laws on the matter. In some banana republics in S.America, it may be more doable, but even in those cases, there may be political obstacles. And, in all cases, they will incur the wrath of the U.S. on this matter and for what? Is Snowden worth it for them? What exactly are the benefits for any country?

These issues are larger than any international law issues on asylum.

Why calling them banana republics?

[keemapoot]

To clarify with "in the states with a functional judicial system and separation of powers" i didn't mean specific the United States Of America with its president as head of states.

Maybe i should have said with "in the COUNTRIES with a functional judicial system and separation of powers ..."

like for example in those European states countries that said they could not give Snowden Aslyum because for that he must apply while being in the country. In germany the head of state for example has not such a power as the president of the USA however may have.

There is a big pro-snowden feeling in Europe, and citizens are now somewhat angry at their government because they didn't make an exemption and grant Snowden that asylum he requested. but even if their governments shared the same pro-snoden sentiments they just can't grant Snowden that Asylum and shortcut the existing laws.

Yes, good post. The point is that in more transparent countries such as in Europe, the head of state does not have such an easy power to circumvent existing domestic laws on the matter. In some banana republics in S.America, it may be more doable, but even in those cases, there may be political obstacles. And, in all cases, they will incur the wrath of the U.S. on this matter and for what? Is Snowden worth it for them? What exactly are the benefits for any country?

These issues are larger than any international law issues on asylum.

Why calling them banana republics?

I'm using that term to describe these L. Amer. places where the leader rules, maybe not by fiat, but with clear authority and under perhaps authoritarian regimes or similar. Some of them don't like the U.S., and many of them also happen to grow bananas.

Banana republic is a political science term for a politically unstable country whose economy is largely dependent on the export of a single limited-resource product, such as bananas. It typically has stratified social classes, including a large, impoverished working class and a rulingplutocracy that comprises the elites of business, politics, and the military.^[1] This politico-economic oligarchy controls the primary-sector productions and thereby exploits the country's economy.^[2]

Edited July 9, 2013 by keemapoot

[Credo]

Most of the countries are being disingenuous in their claim. It will take a little bending of rules here and there and Mr. Snowden will arrive in any one of a number of countries. They simply do not want him.

[antfish]

Most of the countries are being disingenuous in their claim. It will take a little bending of rules here and there and Mr. Snowden will arrive in any one of a number of countries. They simply do not want him.

I read a couple of editorials in different newspapers and the conclusion there was there is no legal workaround, no loophole that allows to bend those existing rules.

Look at an other topic in worldnews for example. How long it took for the legal system in the Kingdom of Great Britain to get rid of that Abu Qatada. The Prime Minister said that he was "delighted" at his removal and so were other officials.

In countries with a good judicial system bending the law this way is not possible.

Edited July 9, 2013 by antfish

[Credo]

I believe you are wrong. A plane flies into Moscow and lands at the airport. Snowden gets on the airplane and it flies to the destination country. Once it lands, he applies for asylum/refugee status and he is under the protection of the country until his claim is processed. No one needs to declare he is on board.

Everyday probably a thousand people get on an airplane and make their way to another country. Commercial airlines are very careful because they must accept the burden of returning undocumented people should they be refused entry to a country.

Wikileaks should have the connections to put this flight together. Putin has said he doesn't want him in Russia, so the Russians aren't going to stop him.

At a minimum, an embassy vehicle could pick him up and take him to the embassy in Russia and grant him asylum. They haven't done that.

It's quite simple, really, these countries don't want him. Nobody is doing much to try and get him out of Russia.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Credo

[SinglePot]

He won't be getting a flight through ebookers.com. That's for sure.

[antfish]

He won't be getting a flight through ebookers.com. That's for sure.

the prosecution probably also ask credit card companies were he has an account to block the use of his credit cards.

[Scott]

New topic:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/652568-snowden-agrees-to-asylum-in-venezuela-russian-lawmaker/

//Closed//