<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=141836.msg6568983#msg6568983">Quote from: Chrystal on 10-07-2012, 20:41:35</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Fair enough - although I think my theory about the embassy's of the slave nations having slaves in them is valid. After all, a country's embassy is, under international law, a part of that nation's sovereign territory, and the slaves would be brought in to the host nation in the "diplomatic bag". As long as the slaves remained within the embassy compound, there would be no case to answer as the diplomats all have immunity from prosecution. <br/></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>Embassies are not the sovereign territory of the country whose embassies they are, that's a legal myth. In actual fact, they remain under the jurisdiction of the country they're in.<br/><br/>The reason they enjoy immunity from local laws, is because of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. That convention establishes what immunities diplomatic missions have from laws, and how it functions, along with diplomatic immunity. This means that, while the missions do enjoy some immunities, they don't enjoy the full immunity of sovereign territory. In some cases, the country on which a diplomatic mission sits, could justifiably enter the mission or dissolve it.<br/><br/>This doesn't change the accurate statement that they could, given their legal immunities, get away with having slaves in their embassies.