Hostage diplomacy'-a contemporary state practice outside the reach of international law?

• Author: Beatrice Lau
• Position: Humanitarian professional and an international lawyer from Hong Kong
• Pages: 343-398

ARTICLES

“HOSTAGE DIPLOMACY”—A CONTEMPORARY

STATE PRACTICE OUTSIDE THE REACH OF

INTERNATIONAL LAW?

BEATRICE LAU*

ABSTRACT

“Hostage diplomacy” loosely describes a phenomenon where states detain foreign

nationals under the guise of national law as a means to coerce the foreign policy of

another state. The practice violates the human rights of the individual victim and

the right of sovereign states to decide their affairs free from any coercive interference.

However, “hostage diplomacy” currently seems to be operating in a legal lacuna for

two reasons. First, the practice is mischaracterized as if it was a form of “diplo-

macy,” which distracts stakeholders from recognizing its true nature: an act of state-

to-state hostage-taking. Second, the convoluted design of the operation renders such

determination difficult: the human pawn may have the function of a hostage; how-

ever, he or she is officially a “prisoner” convicted and sentenced according to the

domestic legal system of the detaining state. Without a proper framework to “pierce

the veil” and qualify the situation as state-to-state hostage-taking, states may have

limited legal avenues to sanction the issue without being perceived as, ironically, tres-

passing on the sovereign matter of the perpetrating state. Legal rights that are based

on nationality, such as consular assistance and diplomatic protection, are also per-

ceived to be limited for victims who have dual or multiple nationalities, including

that of the perpetrating states, due to the doctrine of non-responsibility. This Article

aims to identify the contours of “hostage diplomacy” and search for possible legal

avenues in international law to address and sanction the practice.

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

II. HOSTAGESHIP—A HISTORICAL VIEW: FROM DIPLOMATIC GIFTS TO

CRIME IN WARFARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346

A. Usage of Hostages in Ancient History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347

1. Surety for Peace Negotiation and Implementation 347

* Beatrice Lau is a humanitarian professional and an international lawyer from Hong Kong.

She has worked in Niger, Haiti, Tajikistan, Malaysia, Libya, Tunisia, and Belarus, specialising in

humanitarian actions for refugees and migrants in detention facilities. She holds an LL.M in

Advanced Studies in Public International Law from Leiden University, and an LL.B in England

and Wales. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily

reflect those of any institution with which the author was or is affiliated. V

C 2022, Beatrice Lau.

343

2. Mode of Communication of Trust and Goodwill . 348

3. Pledge of Allegiance and Friendly Relations. . . . . 349

4. “Neutralization” for Sustainable Control . . . . . . . 350

B. Public Utility and Collective Responsibility—Formalization

in the 12

th

Century. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350

C. From Gifts to Means of Warfare—Emerging Laws of War in

17

th

Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352

1. Legality of the Practice of Hostage-Taking

Continued—1863 Lieber Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353

2. The Silence in the Hague Regulations and the First

World War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354

D. Criminalization of Hostage-taking in Warfare—Post Second

World War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355

1. International Military Tribunal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355

2. US Military Tribunal—Hostages Trial and High

Command Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356

3. Other Post-War Tribunals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

4. Watershed Moment—Geneva Conventions and the

Additional Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358

III. “HOSTAGE DIPLOMACY”—CONTEMPORARY STATE PRACTICES OF

HOSTAGESHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359

A. State Practices in Cold War Era. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360

1. Soviet Union and the United States . . . . . . . . . . . 360

2. China and Britain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361

B. Contemporary Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362

1. China and Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362

2. Iran and the U.K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365

C. The Muddy Contours—Criminals, Political Prisoners, or

Hostages? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368

D. Other Salient Features of “Hostage Diplomacy”. . . . . . . . . . 370

E. Defining Criteria of State-to-State Hostage-Taking . . . . . . . . 372

IV. EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORKS AND THEIR LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . 375

A. Human Rights Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375

B. Consular Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377

1. Consular Assistance to Persons with Dual

Nationality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378

C. Diplomatic Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381

1. Contours of Diplomatic Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . 381

2. Application in the context of “hostage diplomacy” 382

a. Internationally Wrongful Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382

b. Exhaustion of local remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382

GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

344 [Vol. 53

3. Question of Dual Nationality in Diplomatic

Protection: Doctrine of Non-Responsibility?. . . . . 383

4. A Development towards a Duty to Exercise

Diplomatic Protection? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385

D. The International Convention against the Taking of

Hostages (ICATH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386

1. Applicability in “Hostage Diplomacy”. . . . . . . . . . 387

a. Definition of “Hostages” for the Purpose of the

Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387

b. State of Non-State Actor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389

c. Application to Dual-Nationals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391

2. Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392

V. OPPORTUNITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393

A. Proper Characterization as Hostage-Taking . . . . . . . . . . . . 394

B. Framework of Diplomatic Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395

1. An Obligation to Grant Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . 396

2. Removal of the Exhaustion of Local Remedies

Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396

3. Unequivocal Right to Invoke Protection against the

State of Nationality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396

C. Safeguards in Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396

VI. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397

I. INTRODUCTION

“Hostage diplomacy” is a problematic term. It is problematic because

the oxymoron is a composite of “diplomacy”—an instrument of foreign

policy governed by well-established legal norms, rules and principles

through international law, and “hostage”—whereby the conduct of

hostage-taking has been outlawed since the middle of 20

th

century.

“Hostage diplomacy” loosely describes a phenomenon where states

detain foreign nationals as a means to coerce the foreign policy of another

state. Unfortunately, this mischaracterization as a form of “diplomacy” dis-

tracts the responses of stakeholders: the detained individual may be recog-

nized as an unfortunate victim, but not more than a “bargaining chip” in

international relations; states have been addressing the issue only through

political means. This approach too conveniently overlooks the fact that a

person who is detained in order to compel a third party to do or not do any

act as a condition for release is, in fact, a hostage.

1

The phenomenon of

1. See International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages art. 1, Dec. 18, 1979, 1316

U.N.T.S. 205.

HOSTAGE DIPLOMACY

2022] 345