Why does the U.S. government allow visiting diplomats to obtain this protective status? Do U.S. diplomats serving in foreign nations receive the...

The U.S. grants visiting diplomats and consuls what is called "diplomatic immunity," or freedom from prosecution by local laws, partly because this type of immunity has been a tradition throughout history. In 1708, Great Britain first granted diplomatic immunity to foreign emissaries, and this tradition was adopted by the U.S. in 1790. This type of immunity is also granted to U.S. diplomats abroad, as part of the international code of law that was developed by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in 1961. The idea behind the law is that countries grant foreign emissaries the immunity that they want for their own emissaries abroad.

The protective status is not conferred directly on an individual but on an individual who represents a state. The Vienna Convention (see the link below for the complete document) states the following:

"the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing States."

A diplomat's home country can revoke the diplomat's immunity and allow the country where the diplomat is living to proceed with a prosecution. The home country can also declare a diplomat a persona non grata, or unwanted person, and that person is usually recalled home in such cases.

It should be noted that, following the stipulations of 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, most diplomats follow the rules of their host country. Some people, however, feel that diplomatic status is not always fair. For example, police officers can arrest or detain a person with protective status, but that person can not be prosecuted under the laws of the host country. People with diplomatic status also cannot have their homes searched, so they are treated differently under these laws than other foreign nationals or citizens of their host country. Many diplomats in New York City, for example, do not pay parking tickets or fines, so they owe the city a great deal of money. This could be considered an unfair application of diplomatic immunity, but not a serious one.

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

nouns - what do you call the person who passes the trophies to the prize giver/presenter?

The person who gives out the trophies to the winners are called award presenters. So what do u call the person who passes the trophies to the presenter? Thanks!

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.

Notes

Search This Blog