What is the jurisdiction of the Khashoggi murder case?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Today, I read that Turkish president Erdogan wants the Saudi hit squad that killed journalist Jamal Khashoggi to face justice in Turkey for their role in the murder.



There seems little doubt that a murder occurred; there seems little doubt that the murder occurred inside the Saudi consulate in Turkey. If that is the case, then the murder occurred on Saudi soil, and thus the perpetrators should be facing Saudi justice - not Turkish.



I'm not at all interested in the politics of the case, only the legal jurisdiction of a case like this. Since the case is ongoing and facts may change, for purposes of this question, assume that it is the case that a murder occurred in the Saudi consulate, and the perpetrators were Saudi nationals.



Is it true that consuls are territories of the countries they represent, and not of the area they take up? Where do crimes get adjudicated in cases like this? Are there different protocols to handle certain kinds of crimes? Does it depend on a treaty between two countries, or is this standard international law?










share|improve this question

















  • 1




    Consulates & embassies are not "foreign soil". 'The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961' says that they should be inviolable", but they're still the territory of the host country.
    – brhans
    3 hours ago














up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Today, I read that Turkish president Erdogan wants the Saudi hit squad that killed journalist Jamal Khashoggi to face justice in Turkey for their role in the murder.



There seems little doubt that a murder occurred; there seems little doubt that the murder occurred inside the Saudi consulate in Turkey. If that is the case, then the murder occurred on Saudi soil, and thus the perpetrators should be facing Saudi justice - not Turkish.



I'm not at all interested in the politics of the case, only the legal jurisdiction of a case like this. Since the case is ongoing and facts may change, for purposes of this question, assume that it is the case that a murder occurred in the Saudi consulate, and the perpetrators were Saudi nationals.



Is it true that consuls are territories of the countries they represent, and not of the area they take up? Where do crimes get adjudicated in cases like this? Are there different protocols to handle certain kinds of crimes? Does it depend on a treaty between two countries, or is this standard international law?










share|improve this question

















  • 1




    Consulates & embassies are not "foreign soil". 'The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961' says that they should be inviolable", but they're still the territory of the host country.
    – brhans
    3 hours ago












up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











Today, I read that Turkish president Erdogan wants the Saudi hit squad that killed journalist Jamal Khashoggi to face justice in Turkey for their role in the murder.



There seems little doubt that a murder occurred; there seems little doubt that the murder occurred inside the Saudi consulate in Turkey. If that is the case, then the murder occurred on Saudi soil, and thus the perpetrators should be facing Saudi justice - not Turkish.



I'm not at all interested in the politics of the case, only the legal jurisdiction of a case like this. Since the case is ongoing and facts may change, for purposes of this question, assume that it is the case that a murder occurred in the Saudi consulate, and the perpetrators were Saudi nationals.



Is it true that consuls are territories of the countries they represent, and not of the area they take up? Where do crimes get adjudicated in cases like this? Are there different protocols to handle certain kinds of crimes? Does it depend on a treaty between two countries, or is this standard international law?










share|improve this question













Today, I read that Turkish president Erdogan wants the Saudi hit squad that killed journalist Jamal Khashoggi to face justice in Turkey for their role in the murder.



There seems little doubt that a murder occurred; there seems little doubt that the murder occurred inside the Saudi consulate in Turkey. If that is the case, then the murder occurred on Saudi soil, and thus the perpetrators should be facing Saudi justice - not Turkish.



I'm not at all interested in the politics of the case, only the legal jurisdiction of a case like this. Since the case is ongoing and facts may change, for purposes of this question, assume that it is the case that a murder occurred in the Saudi consulate, and the perpetrators were Saudi nationals.



Is it true that consuls are territories of the countries they represent, and not of the area they take up? Where do crimes get adjudicated in cases like this? Are there different protocols to handle certain kinds of crimes? Does it depend on a treaty between two countries, or is this standard international law?







international jurisdiction murder






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 4 hours ago









Wigwam

1362




1362







  • 1




    Consulates & embassies are not "foreign soil". 'The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961' says that they should be inviolable", but they're still the territory of the host country.
    – brhans
    3 hours ago












  • 1




    Consulates & embassies are not "foreign soil". 'The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961' says that they should be inviolable", but they're still the territory of the host country.
    – brhans
    3 hours ago







1




1




Consulates & embassies are not "foreign soil". 'The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961' says that they should be inviolable", but they're still the territory of the host country.
– brhans
3 hours ago




Consulates & embassies are not "foreign soil". 'The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961' says that they should be inviolable", but they're still the territory of the host country.
– brhans
3 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote













According to Wikipedia's article Diplomatic Mission:




Contrary to popular belief, most diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and – in those cases – are not sovereign territory of the represented state. Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions usually remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomats themselves still retain full diplomatic immunity, and (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country, even to put out a fire.




(Supporting citations omitted)



According to its article on Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations key provisions include:




Article 22. The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolable and must not be entered by the host country except by permission of the head of the mission. Furthermore, the host country must protect the mission from intrusion or damage. The host country must never search the premises, nor seize its documents or property.



Article 29. Diplomats must not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. They are immune from civil or criminal prosecution, though the sending country may waive this right under Article 32.




However, people who are not diplomats do not have automatic protection from arrest, and the idea that an embasy is the "soil" of the country it represents is largely obsolete. See This stack exchange politics question.



So if Turkey were to obtain custody of people it accused of doing the killing, and if those people were not accredited diplomats, it could try them under Turkish law. Whether any of that is likely to happen is another question.






share|improve this answer



























    up vote
    1
    down vote













    The answer of @David Siegel is correct as far as it goes.



    I would further venture the opinion that it is very likely that even though the Saudi Arabian embassy is not the territory of Saudi Arabia, that diplomatic immunity would very likely pose a bar to the prosecution of at least some of the defendants in a case if one was brought in Turkish courts and would make prosecution of a criminal case in the Turkish courts as a practical matter very difficult. It is possible that some of the defendants, however, would lack diplomatic immunity.



    His answer does not address the further question of whether Saudi Arabia would have jurisdiction to try and criminally punish Saudi Arabian officials who committed a murder at a Saudi Arabian diplomatic complex in Turkey. The answer is that it would have jurisdiction to do so.



    But, there are strong indications that the murder was committed by Saudi Arabian officials under official lawful orders from the superiors of those officials with the authority to give those orders (e.g. someone in the Crown Prince's office with whom there were at least four phone communications with the presumed murderers that day):




    The Saudi entourage who went to the embassy in Turkey to cut off
    journalist Jamal Khashoggi's fingers, inject him with a drug to
    silence him, and dismember him with a bone saw made four calls that
    day to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's office, according to
    Turkish media reports. The Crown Prince denies knowing anything about
    the gruesome torture/murder of Khashoggi, who was a US resident. Three
    of Khashoggi’s children are US citizens.




    Those official orders provide provide a valid legal defense under Saudi Arabian law (to the extent that Saudi Arabia as an absolute monarchy can even be said to have rule of law in a complete and meaningful sense) to charges under Saudi Arabian jurisdiction that those officials engaged in murder.



    Outside the criminal justice process, there are a variety of diplomatic and military options available to the Turkish government.



    The most obvious is that it could (and likely will) expel the diplomats involved from Saudi Arabia and possibly the entire diplomatic mission from Saudi Arabia from Turkey. It could also withdraw its own diplomats from Saudi Arabia.



    Turkey would also very likely be considered justified in its actions by the community of nations if it authorized the used of military force including summary assassination against the Saudi Arabian individuals it finds to have been involved, outside the criminal justice process as a political determination, although this justification would likely not extent to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia even if Turkey founds that he gave an order lawful under Saudi Arabian law directing the torture and murder of this individual.



    The Turkish government could also probably have a basis for pushing a war crime type prosecution of at least some of the people involved.



    More extremely, Turkey could declare war on Saudi Arabia generally in retaliation for this action, although this level of escalation would be considered disproportionate by most international observers standing alone.



    Also, because the victim was a lawful U.S. resident, employee of a U.S. newspaper, and parent of U.S. children, it isn't inconceivable that the United States government, as well as the Turkish government, would have standing to take diplomatic or legal action against the Saudi Arabian government, although again, diplomatic immunity might bar a criminal prosecution against some of the defendants. (The issue of whether diplomatic immunity protects diplomats from prosecutions under the laws of countries other than the host country is to the best of my knowledge not a question governed by clear precedent.)






    share|improve this answer




















      Your Answer







      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "617"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: false,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f32863%2fwhat-is-the-jurisdiction-of-the-khashoggi-murder-case%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest






























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      3
      down vote













      According to Wikipedia's article Diplomatic Mission:




      Contrary to popular belief, most diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and – in those cases – are not sovereign territory of the represented state. Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions usually remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomats themselves still retain full diplomatic immunity, and (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country, even to put out a fire.




      (Supporting citations omitted)



      According to its article on Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations key provisions include:




      Article 22. The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolable and must not be entered by the host country except by permission of the head of the mission. Furthermore, the host country must protect the mission from intrusion or damage. The host country must never search the premises, nor seize its documents or property.



      Article 29. Diplomats must not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. They are immune from civil or criminal prosecution, though the sending country may waive this right under Article 32.




      However, people who are not diplomats do not have automatic protection from arrest, and the idea that an embasy is the "soil" of the country it represents is largely obsolete. See This stack exchange politics question.



      So if Turkey were to obtain custody of people it accused of doing the killing, and if those people were not accredited diplomats, it could try them under Turkish law. Whether any of that is likely to happen is another question.






      share|improve this answer
























        up vote
        3
        down vote













        According to Wikipedia's article Diplomatic Mission:




        Contrary to popular belief, most diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and – in those cases – are not sovereign territory of the represented state. Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions usually remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomats themselves still retain full diplomatic immunity, and (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country, even to put out a fire.




        (Supporting citations omitted)



        According to its article on Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations key provisions include:




        Article 22. The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolable and must not be entered by the host country except by permission of the head of the mission. Furthermore, the host country must protect the mission from intrusion or damage. The host country must never search the premises, nor seize its documents or property.



        Article 29. Diplomats must not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. They are immune from civil or criminal prosecution, though the sending country may waive this right under Article 32.




        However, people who are not diplomats do not have automatic protection from arrest, and the idea that an embasy is the "soil" of the country it represents is largely obsolete. See This stack exchange politics question.



        So if Turkey were to obtain custody of people it accused of doing the killing, and if those people were not accredited diplomats, it could try them under Turkish law. Whether any of that is likely to happen is another question.






        share|improve this answer






















          up vote
          3
          down vote










          up vote
          3
          down vote









          According to Wikipedia's article Diplomatic Mission:




          Contrary to popular belief, most diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and – in those cases – are not sovereign territory of the represented state. Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions usually remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomats themselves still retain full diplomatic immunity, and (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country, even to put out a fire.




          (Supporting citations omitted)



          According to its article on Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations key provisions include:




          Article 22. The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolable and must not be entered by the host country except by permission of the head of the mission. Furthermore, the host country must protect the mission from intrusion or damage. The host country must never search the premises, nor seize its documents or property.



          Article 29. Diplomats must not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. They are immune from civil or criminal prosecution, though the sending country may waive this right under Article 32.




          However, people who are not diplomats do not have automatic protection from arrest, and the idea that an embasy is the "soil" of the country it represents is largely obsolete. See This stack exchange politics question.



          So if Turkey were to obtain custody of people it accused of doing the killing, and if those people were not accredited diplomats, it could try them under Turkish law. Whether any of that is likely to happen is another question.






          share|improve this answer












          According to Wikipedia's article Diplomatic Mission:




          Contrary to popular belief, most diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and – in those cases – are not sovereign territory of the represented state. Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions usually remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Diplomats themselves still retain full diplomatic immunity, and (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country, even to put out a fire.




          (Supporting citations omitted)



          According to its article on Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations key provisions include:




          Article 22. The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolable and must not be entered by the host country except by permission of the head of the mission. Furthermore, the host country must protect the mission from intrusion or damage. The host country must never search the premises, nor seize its documents or property.



          Article 29. Diplomats must not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. They are immune from civil or criminal prosecution, though the sending country may waive this right under Article 32.




          However, people who are not diplomats do not have automatic protection from arrest, and the idea that an embasy is the "soil" of the country it represents is largely obsolete. See This stack exchange politics question.



          So if Turkey were to obtain custody of people it accused of doing the killing, and if those people were not accredited diplomats, it could try them under Turkish law. Whether any of that is likely to happen is another question.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 3 hours ago









          David Siegel

          1,10613




          1,10613




















              up vote
              1
              down vote













              The answer of @David Siegel is correct as far as it goes.



              I would further venture the opinion that it is very likely that even though the Saudi Arabian embassy is not the territory of Saudi Arabia, that diplomatic immunity would very likely pose a bar to the prosecution of at least some of the defendants in a case if one was brought in Turkish courts and would make prosecution of a criminal case in the Turkish courts as a practical matter very difficult. It is possible that some of the defendants, however, would lack diplomatic immunity.



              His answer does not address the further question of whether Saudi Arabia would have jurisdiction to try and criminally punish Saudi Arabian officials who committed a murder at a Saudi Arabian diplomatic complex in Turkey. The answer is that it would have jurisdiction to do so.



              But, there are strong indications that the murder was committed by Saudi Arabian officials under official lawful orders from the superiors of those officials with the authority to give those orders (e.g. someone in the Crown Prince's office with whom there were at least four phone communications with the presumed murderers that day):




              The Saudi entourage who went to the embassy in Turkey to cut off
              journalist Jamal Khashoggi's fingers, inject him with a drug to
              silence him, and dismember him with a bone saw made four calls that
              day to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's office, according to
              Turkish media reports. The Crown Prince denies knowing anything about
              the gruesome torture/murder of Khashoggi, who was a US resident. Three
              of Khashoggi’s children are US citizens.




              Those official orders provide provide a valid legal defense under Saudi Arabian law (to the extent that Saudi Arabia as an absolute monarchy can even be said to have rule of law in a complete and meaningful sense) to charges under Saudi Arabian jurisdiction that those officials engaged in murder.



              Outside the criminal justice process, there are a variety of diplomatic and military options available to the Turkish government.



              The most obvious is that it could (and likely will) expel the diplomats involved from Saudi Arabia and possibly the entire diplomatic mission from Saudi Arabia from Turkey. It could also withdraw its own diplomats from Saudi Arabia.



              Turkey would also very likely be considered justified in its actions by the community of nations if it authorized the used of military force including summary assassination against the Saudi Arabian individuals it finds to have been involved, outside the criminal justice process as a political determination, although this justification would likely not extent to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia even if Turkey founds that he gave an order lawful under Saudi Arabian law directing the torture and murder of this individual.



              The Turkish government could also probably have a basis for pushing a war crime type prosecution of at least some of the people involved.



              More extremely, Turkey could declare war on Saudi Arabia generally in retaliation for this action, although this level of escalation would be considered disproportionate by most international observers standing alone.



              Also, because the victim was a lawful U.S. resident, employee of a U.S. newspaper, and parent of U.S. children, it isn't inconceivable that the United States government, as well as the Turkish government, would have standing to take diplomatic or legal action against the Saudi Arabian government, although again, diplomatic immunity might bar a criminal prosecution against some of the defendants. (The issue of whether diplomatic immunity protects diplomats from prosecutions under the laws of countries other than the host country is to the best of my knowledge not a question governed by clear precedent.)






              share|improve this answer
























                up vote
                1
                down vote













                The answer of @David Siegel is correct as far as it goes.



                I would further venture the opinion that it is very likely that even though the Saudi Arabian embassy is not the territory of Saudi Arabia, that diplomatic immunity would very likely pose a bar to the prosecution of at least some of the defendants in a case if one was brought in Turkish courts and would make prosecution of a criminal case in the Turkish courts as a practical matter very difficult. It is possible that some of the defendants, however, would lack diplomatic immunity.



                His answer does not address the further question of whether Saudi Arabia would have jurisdiction to try and criminally punish Saudi Arabian officials who committed a murder at a Saudi Arabian diplomatic complex in Turkey. The answer is that it would have jurisdiction to do so.



                But, there are strong indications that the murder was committed by Saudi Arabian officials under official lawful orders from the superiors of those officials with the authority to give those orders (e.g. someone in the Crown Prince's office with whom there were at least four phone communications with the presumed murderers that day):




                The Saudi entourage who went to the embassy in Turkey to cut off
                journalist Jamal Khashoggi's fingers, inject him with a drug to
                silence him, and dismember him with a bone saw made four calls that
                day to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's office, according to
                Turkish media reports. The Crown Prince denies knowing anything about
                the gruesome torture/murder of Khashoggi, who was a US resident. Three
                of Khashoggi’s children are US citizens.




                Those official orders provide provide a valid legal defense under Saudi Arabian law (to the extent that Saudi Arabia as an absolute monarchy can even be said to have rule of law in a complete and meaningful sense) to charges under Saudi Arabian jurisdiction that those officials engaged in murder.



                Outside the criminal justice process, there are a variety of diplomatic and military options available to the Turkish government.



                The most obvious is that it could (and likely will) expel the diplomats involved from Saudi Arabia and possibly the entire diplomatic mission from Saudi Arabia from Turkey. It could also withdraw its own diplomats from Saudi Arabia.



                Turkey would also very likely be considered justified in its actions by the community of nations if it authorized the used of military force including summary assassination against the Saudi Arabian individuals it finds to have been involved, outside the criminal justice process as a political determination, although this justification would likely not extent to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia even if Turkey founds that he gave an order lawful under Saudi Arabian law directing the torture and murder of this individual.



                The Turkish government could also probably have a basis for pushing a war crime type prosecution of at least some of the people involved.



                More extremely, Turkey could declare war on Saudi Arabia generally in retaliation for this action, although this level of escalation would be considered disproportionate by most international observers standing alone.



                Also, because the victim was a lawful U.S. resident, employee of a U.S. newspaper, and parent of U.S. children, it isn't inconceivable that the United States government, as well as the Turkish government, would have standing to take diplomatic or legal action against the Saudi Arabian government, although again, diplomatic immunity might bar a criminal prosecution against some of the defendants. (The issue of whether diplomatic immunity protects diplomats from prosecutions under the laws of countries other than the host country is to the best of my knowledge not a question governed by clear precedent.)






                share|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote









                  The answer of @David Siegel is correct as far as it goes.



                  I would further venture the opinion that it is very likely that even though the Saudi Arabian embassy is not the territory of Saudi Arabia, that diplomatic immunity would very likely pose a bar to the prosecution of at least some of the defendants in a case if one was brought in Turkish courts and would make prosecution of a criminal case in the Turkish courts as a practical matter very difficult. It is possible that some of the defendants, however, would lack diplomatic immunity.



                  His answer does not address the further question of whether Saudi Arabia would have jurisdiction to try and criminally punish Saudi Arabian officials who committed a murder at a Saudi Arabian diplomatic complex in Turkey. The answer is that it would have jurisdiction to do so.



                  But, there are strong indications that the murder was committed by Saudi Arabian officials under official lawful orders from the superiors of those officials with the authority to give those orders (e.g. someone in the Crown Prince's office with whom there were at least four phone communications with the presumed murderers that day):




                  The Saudi entourage who went to the embassy in Turkey to cut off
                  journalist Jamal Khashoggi's fingers, inject him with a drug to
                  silence him, and dismember him with a bone saw made four calls that
                  day to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's office, according to
                  Turkish media reports. The Crown Prince denies knowing anything about
                  the gruesome torture/murder of Khashoggi, who was a US resident. Three
                  of Khashoggi’s children are US citizens.




                  Those official orders provide provide a valid legal defense under Saudi Arabian law (to the extent that Saudi Arabia as an absolute monarchy can even be said to have rule of law in a complete and meaningful sense) to charges under Saudi Arabian jurisdiction that those officials engaged in murder.



                  Outside the criminal justice process, there are a variety of diplomatic and military options available to the Turkish government.



                  The most obvious is that it could (and likely will) expel the diplomats involved from Saudi Arabia and possibly the entire diplomatic mission from Saudi Arabia from Turkey. It could also withdraw its own diplomats from Saudi Arabia.



                  Turkey would also very likely be considered justified in its actions by the community of nations if it authorized the used of military force including summary assassination against the Saudi Arabian individuals it finds to have been involved, outside the criminal justice process as a political determination, although this justification would likely not extent to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia even if Turkey founds that he gave an order lawful under Saudi Arabian law directing the torture and murder of this individual.



                  The Turkish government could also probably have a basis for pushing a war crime type prosecution of at least some of the people involved.



                  More extremely, Turkey could declare war on Saudi Arabia generally in retaliation for this action, although this level of escalation would be considered disproportionate by most international observers standing alone.



                  Also, because the victim was a lawful U.S. resident, employee of a U.S. newspaper, and parent of U.S. children, it isn't inconceivable that the United States government, as well as the Turkish government, would have standing to take diplomatic or legal action against the Saudi Arabian government, although again, diplomatic immunity might bar a criminal prosecution against some of the defendants. (The issue of whether diplomatic immunity protects diplomats from prosecutions under the laws of countries other than the host country is to the best of my knowledge not a question governed by clear precedent.)






                  share|improve this answer












                  The answer of @David Siegel is correct as far as it goes.



                  I would further venture the opinion that it is very likely that even though the Saudi Arabian embassy is not the territory of Saudi Arabia, that diplomatic immunity would very likely pose a bar to the prosecution of at least some of the defendants in a case if one was brought in Turkish courts and would make prosecution of a criminal case in the Turkish courts as a practical matter very difficult. It is possible that some of the defendants, however, would lack diplomatic immunity.



                  His answer does not address the further question of whether Saudi Arabia would have jurisdiction to try and criminally punish Saudi Arabian officials who committed a murder at a Saudi Arabian diplomatic complex in Turkey. The answer is that it would have jurisdiction to do so.



                  But, there are strong indications that the murder was committed by Saudi Arabian officials under official lawful orders from the superiors of those officials with the authority to give those orders (e.g. someone in the Crown Prince's office with whom there were at least four phone communications with the presumed murderers that day):




                  The Saudi entourage who went to the embassy in Turkey to cut off
                  journalist Jamal Khashoggi's fingers, inject him with a drug to
                  silence him, and dismember him with a bone saw made four calls that
                  day to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's office, according to
                  Turkish media reports. The Crown Prince denies knowing anything about
                  the gruesome torture/murder of Khashoggi, who was a US resident. Three
                  of Khashoggi’s children are US citizens.




                  Those official orders provide provide a valid legal defense under Saudi Arabian law (to the extent that Saudi Arabia as an absolute monarchy can even be said to have rule of law in a complete and meaningful sense) to charges under Saudi Arabian jurisdiction that those officials engaged in murder.



                  Outside the criminal justice process, there are a variety of diplomatic and military options available to the Turkish government.



                  The most obvious is that it could (and likely will) expel the diplomats involved from Saudi Arabia and possibly the entire diplomatic mission from Saudi Arabia from Turkey. It could also withdraw its own diplomats from Saudi Arabia.



                  Turkey would also very likely be considered justified in its actions by the community of nations if it authorized the used of military force including summary assassination against the Saudi Arabian individuals it finds to have been involved, outside the criminal justice process as a political determination, although this justification would likely not extent to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia even if Turkey founds that he gave an order lawful under Saudi Arabian law directing the torture and murder of this individual.



                  The Turkish government could also probably have a basis for pushing a war crime type prosecution of at least some of the people involved.



                  More extremely, Turkey could declare war on Saudi Arabia generally in retaliation for this action, although this level of escalation would be considered disproportionate by most international observers standing alone.



                  Also, because the victim was a lawful U.S. resident, employee of a U.S. newspaper, and parent of U.S. children, it isn't inconceivable that the United States government, as well as the Turkish government, would have standing to take diplomatic or legal action against the Saudi Arabian government, although again, diplomatic immunity might bar a criminal prosecution against some of the defendants. (The issue of whether diplomatic immunity protects diplomats from prosecutions under the laws of countries other than the host country is to the best of my knowledge not a question governed by clear precedent.)







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 18 mins ago









                  ohwilleke

                  45k252113




                  45k252113



























                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f32863%2fwhat-is-the-jurisdiction-of-the-khashoggi-murder-case%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest













































































                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                      Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                      How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?