Hot water. Possibly tomorrow because there be happy to do without the hot water. He was one of the hostages who when there wished stronger action had been taken but when they got back realize that very strict economic sanctions had been made on iran and no concessions would be made to get them back and that they all can back alive. What we found over the years is that the hostages come to appreciate the approach that was taken and president carter was very thankful they all got out alive. Next, hostage the abridgment of International Law. This program examines the United Nations response to the crisis in the history of laws pertaining to diplomatic immunity. [chanting] iran, 1979. Demonstrators invaded the American Embassy in iran. They took hostages in violation of International Law. Treaties signed by the countrys states that both countries will observe the principle of diplomatic immunity. A principle which protects foreign representatives and embassy property. Demonstratorsall appeals to fres were denied by the government of iran. The refusal constituted an unprecedented breach of the rules of normal diplomatic behavior. Societies, nations have always formulated laws to maintain order to prevent anarchy and chaos. In similar fashions, they have created International Laws. Immunity is a widely accepted principle that ensures protection for Embassy Personnel even when the sending and receiving do not enjoy friendly relations. A violation is extremely rare. The taking of american diplomatic representatives as hostages by a radiant students with the acquiescence of a radiant government is a situation to be examined for the meeting it has for the rest of the world. From the beginning of the crisis the United States has acted with restraint. Speaking from the white house, president jimmy carter. The actions of a ran have shocked of iran have the civilized world. For our government to applaud mob violence and terrorism. For a government to support and participate in the taking and holding of hostages is unprecedented in human history. This violates not only the fundamental precepts of International Law, but the common ethical and religious heritage a few vanity of humanity. There is no recognized religious faith on earth which condones kidnapping. There is no recognized religious faith on earth which condones blackmail. There is certainly no religious faith on earth which condones the sustained abuse of innocent people. We are deeply concerned about the inhuman and degrading conditions imposed on the hostages. From every corner of the world, nations and people have forged a strong revulsion and condemnation of iran. They have joined us in calling for the release of the hostages. Last night, a statement of support was released, and issued by the president of the United NationsGeneral Assembly on behalf of of all its members. We expect the further Security Council meeting saturday night of which more firm and official action may be taken. To help in obtaining the release of the american hostages. At the Security Council, the statement of ambassador Dominic Mchenry was moderate but firm. There is in United States a unity of purpose, a discipline sensitivity to the needs of peace. To search outn for a means to bring this dispute to a just conclusion and also a determination to do what must be done to protect our fellow citizens and the rule of law. Purpose is shared by all americans. Mr. President , the hostages must be freed. From the beginning of the debate, there was an impressive display of unanimity among the delegates. The delegate from the us, frank flagrant violations of International Laws and diplomatic practice dating from time immemorial cannot and must not be tolerated by the international community. While supporting the United States in its demand for the release of the hostages, delegates were deeply concerned with the conduct of International Affairs. The need to protect diplomatic status. The government from the federal republic of germany. Inviolability of members of Diplomatic Missions is indispensable for peaceful communication among nations. This is a longstanding rentable which has stood the test of time and which is respected by all states, regardless of cultural traditions, religion or ideology. This principle of International Law is embodied in the Vienna Convention on diplomatic iran too hasch ratified. The delegate from japan. In addition to the humanitarian considerations, the present situation regardless of the reasons involves constitutes a deviation from the wellestablished norms of International Law. Concerning the inviolability of Diplomatic Trust and property. Dr. Sergio, the delegate from bolivia spoke for the entire Latin American Group. The Latin American Group reiterates its firm support for the standards of International Law that guarantee the inviolability of diplomatic personnel and premises as well as respect and protection for diplomatic agents. Because his lives and safety are of greater value than his fellow human beings, but because his protection of human person is a essential prerequisite for the conduct of international life. It would be sad and dangerous if this tradition were to be broken. My government has already appropriatethe authorities. We are acting on two premises. In the we believe respect of the International Law and this particular case is inept sloot necessity if we want to preserve international order. The preservation of international order, a tradition that might be broken. It has its basis in history and in the customary laws of western and islamic peoples. Also, specific laws have been agreed upon in treaty signed by the nations of the world. Lewis g field junior is a lecturer and writer on International Law. The basic convention that applies in iran, a takeover of the American Embassy and holding the members of its Mission Staff hostage is the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations. Wasas a conviction which promulgated in 1961 for the codification of customary International Law in the field of diplomatic immunity and it regulation of diplomatic commerce among the nations. I think its important to note that the first line of the preamble which was adopted by the convention itself says that the people, the planners the developers of this convention would call that peoples of all nations from ancient times have recognized the status of diplomatic agents. This is a principle a fundamental principle of International Law that has its antecedents back to the first recorded period in civilized history. The one nation would send emissaries to another nation to conduct diplomatic dialogue. To establish treaties, to regulate commerce and to do a variety of things. These emissaries were sent from one sovereign to another to receive and protect it well he is under the jurisdiction of the receiving sovereign. This has biblical antecedents. It comes in to the greek city states who sent emissaries the roman law. Alter the period of recorded history there has been this sanctity of the diplomatic ms and the Diplomatic Mission and its people. Articles, iecific would like to refer to three which are primarily involved. The first is article 22 of the Vienna Convention which holds that diplomatic emesis shall be inviolable. Let me read specifically from article 22 which states that the premises of the nation shall be inviolable. Agents of the receiving state may not enter them except with the consent of the head of the mission. The receiving state is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the mission. Against any intrusion or damage and to present any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its cigna t. This means that the physical premises under which our mission functions is immune from anyone in the host nation from penetrating that mission. Extraterritorial as historically many embassies were regarded, but rather it is inviolable, free of any penetration by officials or persons in the host state. Obviously the premises themselves have been penetrated by persons, perhaps with the consent and encouragement of the government. And therefore, they have certainly breached the application of article 22. The government of iran had a special duty to prevent this. Even if you assume that the students have entered the embassy proper and taken it over without the consent, or the official sanction of the government, that government owed a very special duty to protect those premises and that duty has been neglected. When you talk in terms of the members of individuals, article 29 says that the person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of the rest or detention. The receiving state shall treat him with due respect and shall take all steps to prevent any attacks upon his person, freedom or dignity. It is true that the states have quarrels. They may disagree, they may even go to war. Even in our process Diplomatic Community does not break down. An ambassador who can go commit a crime. All that happens is the receiving state tells his government to please remove this man. But the process of diplomatic protection of teams even in that clear case it cannot say the ambassador has committed a crime so his immunity is no longer retained. That is not for the state to say. Once this happens, the receiving state is told, you have to remove this man because he has violated his persona non grata. But the receiving state cannot take it upon himself and say he committed a crime and therefore immunities which he would otherwise be entitled to have passed. This cannot happen. This is against the law. The laws that present diplomatic premises and diplomatic personnel are from time to time breached. When breaches occur, they usually occur because of the of privateions individuals which are not sanctioned by the receiving state. Where very rare case these breaches of International Law occur either with the consent or the blessing of the receiving state, nec a serious challenge to the whole structure of international relations. And i say this because without the universally accepted principle of inviolability of diplomatic premises and the diplomatic agent, it would be impossible for countries to conduct normal relations with each other, to facilitate intercourse or promote negotiations and the peaceful resolution of conflict between them. Any breach of this particular law would be regarded as a very serious challenge to the framework of the International Society and one which i would argue is contrary to the interests of all of us because our diplomatic premises and agents can be the victim of such outrage. Nation. Is an islamic does it islamic law cover questions of diplomatic immunity . Hopkins from john university. It does. Practiceipals at and was diplomatic, they called in emissaries are used to being received, protected until they deliver their message, then they leave. Often, they are taken to the border to ensure they are in safety. They are thought of as being messengers whether they deliver a message agreeable or disagreeable is immaterial. Liablee regarded as not to be tried. Law theyid violate the are dismissed. But they are not to be hurt. As the meetings of the Security Council continued, rivalries were put aside. Adherence to rules of International Law were allimportant. [indiscernible] we are for the strict of diplomatic relations. This position has been asked blamed repeatedly by the delegations at the Security Council. Accordingly, the soviet delegation cooperating with the other members of the council has supported the statement of the president of the Security Council regarding the observance of the principles of immunity of the diplomatic staff and establishments and the Immediate Release of the american diplomatic personnel detained in iran. This position of ours remains one of principle and is immutable. Then i say the following. Firstly, the reaffirmation of the principal of the resolution of dispute i peaceful means and refraining from military threats or use of force in settling disputes among nations. Second, for the principle of noninterference in Domestic Affairs of states and observance of the territorial integrity of all nations. Third, the adherence to International Law and to the rules that regulate diplomatic immunity. Four, a call for Immediate Release of hostages on humanitarian and legal crowns. Mr. President , iran is a party to the 1961 Vienna Convention. Consequently, after extensive consultations in Public Meetings on what was called the most serious threat to presince the cuban missile crisis, the Security Council met in a final session. The president of the council, of china. It is my understanding that the council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before it. There being no objection, it is so decided. I put to the vote the draft resolution contained in document s13677. [speaking foreign language] the result of the vote is as follows. Received 15solution votes in favor and has been adopted unanimously. I now call upon the secretarygeneral. Mr. President. In the past weeks, we have all recognize that we are dealing with a situation which is as unusual as it is dangerous. We have all recognized that the release of the hostages is a primary and of urgent importance. Recognized that there are many other aspects of this problem which needs to be seriously considered. , which theion council has unanimously adopted reflects the concern of the council and the immediate demands of the situation. Hope that this unanimous decision of the council will provide the basis on which we reach a peaceful solution which is unquestionably in the interest of all concerned. Position was ignore list by ambassador mchenry. President , and their action today the members of the Security Council have given unanimous expression once more theheir urgent call to government of iran for the immediate and unconditional release of the American Embassy personnel being held hostage in our embassy in tehran. They have called on the government to provide the hostages with protection and to allow them to leave the country. It is clear from this vote from the debate of the last four days in which representatives from all parts of the world have participated at the family of nations speaks with one voice in calling for the Immediate Release of the hostages. We are deeply appreciative. The Security Council debate would unquestionably have been of greater value if the iranian government had followed through on its original decision to take part. Revealed the it true meaning of the council. It was a reaffirmation of faith and International Law as essential for conducting foreign affairs. Ambassador cole of singapore. Serves theional law interest of all members of the international community. In between those whose interest it serves more than others, i would argue the contrary proposition that it serves the interest of the small countries more than answers the interest of major countries. The reason i would argue that is quite obvious. Major countries can look after their interests even in the absence of International Law. You can rely on their national strength, economic and military strength. But countries like my own which and which in politics terms do not have very much invoke the moral and legal force of law to back our resiston others and to unreasonable demands by bigger nations. I would argue therefore that International Law tends to serve the interests of third world even more than the interest of the strong and mighty nations. Most of the countries of the there have been admitted members of the United Nations and signed off on other international agreements. Inlowing the same procedure the same network. We all know that International Law often needs sanctions. And effective sanctions have not yet been fully developed between these foes in International Law. But there are some states who feel compelled by domestic fullyres not to observe the rules of International Law. Iran is one example. Once small states come into being, they have all the rights and duties under International Law even as the bigger states and here in the United Nations we see this all the time. Nowadays we are having states with relations in 100,000. The General A