Talk:Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

message: * I think it is important to note which countries have not signed this convention (there are some, as is written in the Diplomatic immunity article). does anybody know what they are, or where to find them? Jdcooper 13:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Signatories

message: pretty sure israel signed the treaty. why is it on the maybe list?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.30.29 (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: * The map used to show which countries have and haven't ratified the treaty is out of date. South Sudan, one of the countries who hasn't signed or ratified the convention, isn't even shown on the map, the previous borders of Sudan are still shown so this needs to be changed, I'll see what I can do but maps aren't my strong point. SamWilson989 (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this look better  :File:Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.svg?  TDL (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: According to www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=2666&ArticleID=9010 South Sudan signed the treaty in early 2012, not long after becoming independent (and before the above update). (Update: the title of the press release is confusing, but the information is in the first paragraph) Mverleg (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  That press release is referring to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, and its Montreal Protocol, not the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.  See that it is listed at  but not .  TDL (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok thanks Mverleg (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: There have been many breaches of this, and attacks on the inviolability of embassies. Can these countries be added as a separate category both textually and graphically to the image in the top left? <!//–  ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 07:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Great question.  If Iran is still considered to be an active signatory to this under its current government, rife with people who took the U.S. Embassy in Teheran in 1979, then their presence on that roster is little more than some sort of ironic joke.  2600:1004:B128:7CAD:91F7:6A72:9D14:3210 (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaches. 

message: A) No diplomat has immunity for an act considered a War Act Crime, and that includes War Profiteering.
B) Civil and penal courts are civilian courts, military court is quite distinct, for which a diplomat does not have functional immunities.
C) Even though a diplomat might be immune from prosecution, the embassy (even when unviolate), could very well not be.
For A),
the known example is the tardy declaration of the Japanese Diplomat to the United States President/envoy, just before Pearl Harbour.
Defacto the Japaneese ambassador became guilty of a War Crime and Treason against the host, and that is not covered in this convention, that leading to a militay tribunal, for which an ambassador has no immunities.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.39.100.132 (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complicated instrument, not for what it states, but for that what it omits. 

message: taiwan is gray on the map .. but seems should be green? - at least from the position of switzerland .. Chinesisches Taipei (Taiwan) 19. Dezember 1969 18. Januar 1970 .. https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1964/435_431_431/de - as is in the revision of 2020 -- Ebricca (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  taiwan should be green - not gray ?