Page 103 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

be the Minister of the embassy and is given a letter on official Iranian there Wig no error concerning the trial, the convictions are
stationery asking the local police to disregard, for this one instance, the Affied.
diplomatic rule of inviolability of the embassy and to lend aid in the ejec-
b. Title IV of the 1972 U.S. Protection of Diplomats
tion of violators. * *
+ I Act 36 provides specific protection to the property of
Accordingly, we rule that the arrest of the appellants was neither ar- foreign governments and in~~rnational organizations in
bitrary nor illegal but orderly and proper under the circumstances, and the United States.
TITLE IV-PROTECTION OF PROPERTY OF FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
SEC.401. Chapter 45 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 62 stat 743
end thereof the following new section: 18 USC 951
''5 970. Protection of Property Occupied by Foreign Governments
"(a) Whoever willfully injures, damages, or destroys, or attempts to injure, OlTensesmd
damage, or destroy, any property, real or personal, located within the United States and w*uw
belonging to or utilized or occupied by any foreign government or international
organization, by a foreign official or official guest, shall be fined not more than
$10,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 86 STAT 1073
"(b) For the purpose of this section 'foreign official', 'foreign government', 'inter- Defiiu,,
national organization', and 'official guest' shall have the same meanings as those pro-
vided in sections 11 16 @) and (c) of this title." Ante, P. 1071.
SEC.402. The analysis of chapter 45 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
addii at the end thereof the following new item:
"970. Protection of property occupied by foreign governments."
SEC.3.Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to indicate an intent on the
part of Congress to occupy the field in which its provisions operate to the exclusion of
the laws of any State, Commonwealth, territory, possession, or the District of Colum-
bia on the same subject matter, nor to relieve any person of any obligation imposed by
any law of any State, Commonwealth, territory, possession, or the District of Colum-
bia.
5-16. Counsular Immunity. a. The consular function. munities. Despite the growing similarity of oficial func-
The institution of the consul derives from the practice in tions, however, the distinction between these two catego-
medieval Italy of electing a representative from among the ries of state representatives continues to exist. This fact iS
foreign merchants resident in a city. Thus, until very re- demonstrated by the following case.
cently, consular functions were principally commercial ANDERSON v. VILLELA
and not diplomatic, though judicial jurisdiction over na- United States District Court, D. Massachusetts, 1962.
tionals of the consul's state was sometimes vested in con- 210 F.Supp. 791.
suls, especially in undeveloped countries. Today, FORD, DISTRICT JUDGE. This is an action for damages for personal
however, the distinction between commercial and diplo- injuries in which one of the two defendants moves for judgment dis-
matic activity is difXcult to maintain. Much formal diplo- missing the action as to him on the ground that the court is without ju-
risdiction as to him.
matic negotiation is in fact trade promotion, and much
The sole basis for jurisdiction set forth in the complaint is 28 U.S.C.A.
trade promotion leads to diplomatic overtures. This fusion 5 1351, which provides: "The district courts shall have original jurisdic-
of functions has led inevitably to a fusion of the diplomatic tion, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all actions and proceedings
and consular services, so that a career officer may be against consuls or vice consuls of foreign states." The defendants here
posted on one tour to an embassy secretariat, on the next are Vasco A. Villela, the owner of the motor vehicle alleged to have
caused plaintWs injuries, and his son Ruy Viela, who is alleged to
to a trade mission, and on the next to a consulate proper. have been the driver of the vehicle. The complaint alleges that Vasco is
Some embassies make no pretence of keeping the consul- a consul, and he does not appear to challenge the court's jurisdiction as
ar service distinct and house it in the same building, and to to the action against him.The sole issue raised by Ruy Viela's motion
to dismiss is whether 5 1351 gives this court jurisdiction over the action
some extent, with the same personnel.
as against him, since no other basis of jurisdiction is alleged in the com-
b. In recent times, consuls have come to represent all plaint.
manner of governmental activity, such as supervising Ruy Viela is not hiilf a consul or vice consul. However, plaintiff
contends that 5 1351 should be interpreted as applying to members of
treaty and performing duties with the family of a consul as weU as to the consul personally. He atgues that
to government-owned ITErchant ships. T~~ functions just as the diplomatic immunity from suit of ambassadors and other en-
are not very distinguishable from those of diplomats. 37 voys extends to members of their families, so the immunity of a consul
Accordingly, some consuls and diplomatic representatives 36. 86 Stat. 1070 (1972).
should be accorded the same degree of jurisdictional irn- 37. 2 D. O'Comell, InternationaI Law, 914 (1965).