Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Diplomacy is necessary?

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 5:33:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Diplomacy as in the used of government officer with degree of immunity and privilege of local law and regulation, is still necessary in this age of information where massage can be send in with a few click?
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 9:04:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I know a few ambassadors and high commissioners and their jobs seem pretty important from a governments point of view.
There is information and there is spin.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 8:34:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Of course it's necessary, and will always be so. There are delicate nuances with face-to-face diplomacy and interaction that are very important.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 4:35:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2013 8:34:22 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Of course it's necessary, and will always be so. There are delicate nuances with face-to-face diplomacy and interaction that are very important.

Problem is there are more than face-to-face talking that the diplomat often came to be associated with. Among that is espionage because a diplomat is immune to law and regulation in the country they are operated in and so they are in the best position to exploit this advantage, because after all, the worst thing that could happen is simply to be return to their country of origin.

Perhaps my OP is a little mislead, the purpose of this topic is to discuss whether the legally immune government officer operated within foreign soil is still important in modern world environment.

Certainly, an important meeting to discuss economic, politic, or legal tied of the two countries, can be and should be done face-to-face. However, doing so shouldn't grant the officer in question a privilege to ignore the regulation of the host country. Why do you need this privilege any way if you do not plan to do anything bad? This sound more like a thievery than friendship to me.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 6:40:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 4:35:23 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 6/7/2013 8:34:22 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Of course it's necessary, and will always be so. There are delicate nuances with face-to-face diplomacy and interaction that are very important.

Problem is there are more than face-to-face talking that the diplomat often came to be associated with. Among that is espionage because a diplomat is immune to law and regulation in the country they are operated in and so they are in the best position to exploit this advantage, because after all, the worst thing that could happen is simply to be return to their country of origin.

Perhaps my OP is a little mislead, the purpose of this topic is to discuss whether the legally immune government officer operated within foreign soil is still important in modern world environment.

Certainly, an important meeting to discuss economic, politic, or legal tied of the two countries, can be and should be done face-to-face. However, doing so shouldn't grant the officer in question a privilege to ignore the regulation of the host country. Why do you need this privilege any way if you do not plan to do anything bad? This sound more like a thievery than friendship to me.

Ah, you take issue with diplomatic immunity. Well, first of all, diplomatic immunity is not complete immunity. Although some people like ambassadors usually are immune to all prosecution, usually any rank below is susceptible to other laws, such as traffic violations. Further, a diplomat may be declared a persona non gratis, and expelled back to their home country--as such, immunity is not completely immune.

Second, one of the the very purposes of diplomatic immunity is to ensure that diplomacy can be effectively carried out. For instance, when there is a state of war between two countries, diplomats may still work effectively because they are immune to any legal action taken against people of either country (ie, expulsion of citizens of that country). Further, although you take issue on the grounds of espionage, it must be admitted that there is information which would not be accessible to ordinary citizenry that a diplomat needs access to to conduct his/her business effectively.

However, diplomatic immunity is often given as a symbolic extension of friendship and trust. Diplomacy is traditionally seen as, secondarily, a symbolic practice. What this means is that diplomats are usually expected to be treated well by the receiving country, as well as the sending country too: diplomats are put up in the swankiest living spaces, paid high salaries, and given many privileges and immunities, such as diplomatic immunity. So, to put it in other words: the third reason why diplomatic immunity is necessary is because it's simply part of the "game" of showmanship and symbology that diplomatic affairs entail.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 6:45:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, fourth, when a diplomat is legally immune, the host country can't make up a charge and arrest a diplomat for political reasons.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 7:26:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2013 8:34:22 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Of course it's necessary, and will always be so. There are delicate nuances with face-to-face diplomacy and interaction that are very important.

I think you should have read this over before you posted it.

Is democracy still necessary in a modern society?

Of course it's necessary! There are details and important people that do stuff that's very important!
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 8:00:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 6:40:00 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/8/2013 4:35:23 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 6/7/2013 8:34:22 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Of course it's necessary, and will always be so. There are delicate nuances with face-to-face diplomacy and interaction that are very important.

Problem is there are more than face-to-face talking that the diplomat often came to be associated with. Among that is espionage because a diplomat is immune to law and regulation in the country they are operated in and so they are in the best position to exploit this advantage, because after all, the worst thing that could happen is simply to be return to their country of origin.

Perhaps my OP is a little mislead, the purpose of this topic is to discuss whether the legally immune government officer operated within foreign soil is still important in modern world environment.

Certainly, an important meeting to discuss economic, politic, or legal tied of the two countries, can be and should be done face-to-face. However, doing so shouldn't grant the officer in question a privilege to ignore the regulation of the host country. Why do you need this privilege any way if you do not plan to do anything bad? This sound more like a thievery than friendship to me.

Ah, you take issue with diplomatic immunity. Well, first of all, diplomatic immunity is not complete immunity. Although some people like ambassadors usually are immune to all prosecution, usually any rank below is susceptible to other laws, such as traffic violations. Further, a diplomat may be declared a persona non gratis, and expelled back to their home country--as such, immunity is not completely immune.

True but that is a problem, the worst thing that can happen to the crime committed under diplomacy is simply to be expelled back to their country of origin instead of being tired and judged.

From my understanding diplomat as in a career diplomat not an officer send by home nation to assist in diplomatic mission, is immune to great deal of law, with many more privilege which doesn't seem necessary for a simple, peacetime negotiation.

Second, one of the the very purposes of diplomatic immunity is to ensure that diplomacy can be effectively carried out. For instance, when there is a state of war between two countries, diplomats may still work effectively because they are immune to any legal action taken against people of either country (ie, expulsion of citizens of that country). Further, although you take issue on the grounds of espionage, it must be admitted that there is information which would not be accessible to ordinary citizenry that a diplomat needs access to to conduct his/her business effectively.

Agree and disagree. Diplomat should be excepted from prosecution as an agent of hostile nation. However tat should be made exception as oppose to general immunity they've now enjoy.

Information that is inaccessible to ordinary citizen, and illegal to posses by agent of other nation by local law, should not be touched, regardless of whether it is necessary for a diplomat to conduct his/her mission effectively. That's a stealing,and if you are intend to use this immunity to execute your stealing mission, it should not be granted at the first place.

However, diplomatic immunity is often given as a symbolic extension of friendship and trust. Diplomacy is traditionally seen as, secondarily, a symbolic practice. What this means is that diplomats are usually expected to be treated well by the receiving country, as well as the sending country too: diplomats are put up in the swankiest living spaces, paid high salaries, and given many privileges and immunities, such as diplomatic immunity. So, to put it in other words: the third reason why diplomatic immunity is necessary is because it's simply part of the "game" of showmanship and symbology that diplomatic affairs entail.

Also true. But on the other hands, extravagant living space enjoy by most diplomat and diplomatic officer can be understood as one of the necessity required for their mission. If the diplomats are poorly paid, and live in poor, unsecured space, there are expose themselves to a possible hostile parties (state and non-state) to take action. If they are kidnapped for example, the matter will be dealt with in a state level which is far more costly and complicated than a simple crime. So I can understand why they were well paid and well live.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 1:31:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 7:26:02 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/7/2013 8:34:22 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Of course it's necessary, and will always be so. There are delicate nuances with face-to-face diplomacy and interaction that are very important.

I think you should have read this over before you posted it.

Is democracy still necessary in a modern society?

Of course it's necessary! There are details and important people that do stuff that's very important!

Admittedly I should have. However, I didn't have the luxury of time when I went to make that post. I was going to elaborate on it, though.

That being said, let's just say that that important aspect is ineffable. kthnx.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus