![]() ![]() ![]() The 1999 Agreement on Consular Relations Between Australia and the People’s Republic of China (Agreement) builds upon the Vienna Convention in several important ways and should guide all bilateral consular relations between the two countries, especially concerning the detention and trial of foreign nationals. ![]() Consular officers have the right to visit a national of their State who is imprisoned, or otherwise detained, and to arrange for their legal representation. The receiving State is to notify consular officers of the sending State “without delay,” if a national is arrested or held in custody pending trial or otherwise detained. It is the fundamental starting point in consular affairs and the treatment of foreign nationals.Īrticle 36, Communication and contact with national of the sending State, establishes that consular officers should be free to communicate with their nationals and to have access to them. The 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations establishes international customary norms on such matters. Violations of these obligations should be treated the same way as the violation of other bilateral treaties and should, arguably, also inform “in good faith” negotiations with the offending country for future bilateral agreements or shape an understanding on relevant fair trial and treatment of foreign nationals in detention. Because it is increasingly common in China to deny such consular rights to foreign nationals, Safeguard Defenders has taken a deeper dive into the China-Australia consular agreement to point out exactly where China has broken its diplomatic promises.Ĭonsular relations between China and Australia are codified in a bilateral treaty and shaped by customary international norms. Last week, on 27 May, Australian national Yang Hengjun suffered the same denial of consular access at his trial. While the March trial of the two Canadians generated international attention at the denial of even Canadian diplomatic access, they are sadly far from the only foreign nationals to be detained in China, and to have their rights under consular agreements wholly flaunted by the Chinse Government. ![]() But, acknowledging the denial of accountability under even this most basic set of agreements between sovereign nations should raise particular concern for any “good faith” negotiations with China on other bilateral matters. Arguably, that China feels so empowered to simply ignore its commitments under this body of international law should come as no surprise in light of its frequent disregard of other fundamental human rights norms. And as part of what has become known as hostage diplomacy this has meant a total disregard for China’s commitments under bi-lateral consular agreements.Ī relatively lesser known set of international treaties, consular agreements may not be widely known about instruments but they are in place to establish, among other things, necessary procedural safeguards for detained foreign nationals, regardless of their crimes. Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig’s trial, and their lengthy arbitrary detention, has generated increasing international awareness of China’s wanton disregard of international treaties to which it has agreed. Despite our repeated requests for access to this trial, we are being denied.” Jim Nickel, the Canadian Embassy’s deputy chief of mission told foreign media at the time, “The host government is obliged to give us access under international conventions and our bilateral consular agreement. Canadian diplomats were included among those barred from attending the trial. In March of 2021, authorities in China prevented over a dozen foreign diplomats from attending the trials of Canadian citizens Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |