Abstract
Man’s search for a place of refuge is an old one. The primitive man needed an escape from the storms and avalanches of nature, and he found it in shelters built for the purpose ages ago. 1 He needed to escape the ferocity of the furious animals, and there were shelters for that, too. 2 He, in turn, gave shelter to the beast of the field, pursued by the hounds, in his cave or tent. 3
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Such shelters have been found, for example, in Switzerland. See T J d’Mazzinghi, Sanctuaries, 3 (1887).
For example, in the campagna of Rome are found “small pieces of ground staked in, and forming squares, strongly fenced on all sides with huge logs of wood, some shaped and some unhewn, resembling, indeed, pens for cattle, permitting entry, however, through uprights to a body of human dimensions.” d’Mazzinghi, Sanctuaries,3–4.
C. Recht, The Right of Asylum, 4 (1935).
In one of the tragedies of the Greek dramatist Euripides, the choir leader, Coryphaes, cries to implore the pity of Theseus that “La bête fauve a l’antre pour refuge, l’esclave, les autels des dieux; quand vient l’orage, la cité cherche asile auprès d’une cité. Rien n’est stable, en effet, dans la fortune humaine.” Euripide, Les Suppliantes,267–270.
E. Reale, “Le droit d’asile,” 63 Recueil des Cours 469, 473 (1938); L. B. Koziebrodzki, Le droit d’asile,30 (1962); d’Mazzinghi, Sanctuaries,1.
C. L. Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois, Vol. II, Book XXV, Chapter III (1763). See also H. Wallon, Du droit d’asyle, 1, 2 (1837).
For example, such places have been found in Australia, the South Seas, Africa, and the Americas. A. Hellwig, Das Asylrecht der Naturvölker (1903). They also have been found among the Hindus on the Malabar Coast of India and among the Kâfies of the Hindukush. S. Robertson, Kâfies of the Hindu-Kush, 44 (1896). There are accounts of cities of refuge almost exclusively inhabited by persons guilty of homicide and by their descendants, such as, for example, in Chibsha in Colombia. Criminals of various types lived under a religious discipline in Suesca. Krickeberg, Buschan’s Völkerkunde, 354 (2nd ed., 1922). Mothers of twins, widows, thieves, and slaves lived in asylum in Oman in the Kalabor district of Congo. Kingsley, Travels in West Africa, 466 (1897). Similar places were found in old Ysambara. Krapff, Reise in Africa, Vol. II, 132 (1858). Five cities of asylum were found on the Hawaiian Islands. A. Hellwig, Das Asylrecht, 10. Cities of peace existed among the Creek and the Cherokee tribes of the North American Indians. J. Adair, History of the American Indians, 158 (1775). There were places of asylum for war captives among the Creek Indians and in Hawaii. Schoolcraft, Information Respecting the Historical Conditions and Prospects of the Indian Tribes, 279 (1851). The cities of asylum in Hawaii gave protection to the defeated in the war who sought to escape persecution. They had to remain in asylum until peace was restored. The refugee was secure when he reached the gates of the place of asylum, which were widely opened in time of war and were made easily recognizable. J. J. Jarves, History of the Hawaiian Islands or Sandwich Islands, 33 (1843).
It is on the basis of this observation that Koziebrodzki disagree with the viewpoint that the practice of asylum prevailed among the ancient civilizations of Asia and Africa. Koziebrodzki, d’Asile,30–31. A similar point was made earlier by Wallon. See Wallon, d’Asyle, 3–4.
According to the laws of Manu, “Le châtiment gouverne le genre humaine, le châtiment le protège, le châtiment veille pendant que tout dort, le châtiment est la justice.” And, “la justice est le seul ami qui accompagne les hommes après le trépas, car toute autre affection est soumise à la même destruction que le corps.” Manu, Lois de Manous, annotated in French by L. Deslongchamps, Vol. I, Book VII, 18, 23–24, Book VIII, 17 (1830).
E. Revillout, Précis de droit égyptien comparé aux autres droits de l’antiquité, (1899–1903); Brassloff, Zu den Quellen der Byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, IV, Das Kirchliche Asylrecht in Aegypten, 2. s. St., R.A., Vol. 25, 312–316 (1904); Roussel, Revue des Etudes Grecques, 173–180 (1916); Lefebvre, “Egypte gréco-romaine,” 19 Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte (Le Caire) 37–65 (1920); F. von Woess, Das Asylwesen Aegyptens in der Ptolemäerzeit und die spätere Entwicklung, Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, Heft V (1923).
S. Ohlenburg, Die Biblischen Asyle in Talmudischem Gewande, 5 (1895).
P. Bernard, Traité théorique et pratique de l’extradition, Vol. I, 10 (1883).
M. Thonissen, Etudes sur !’organization judiciaire de l’ancienne Egypte (1868).
A. P. Bissel, The Law of Asylum in Israel, 4 (1884).
M. Koschaker, in 27 Orientalische Literatur, 197 (1924).
P. Timbal Duclaux de Martin, Le droit d’asile, 13 (1939).
A. Bouché-Leclerc, Histoire des Lagides, Vol. III, 122, 318 (1906).
Lefebvre, supra note 11, at 38–39; von Woess, Das Asylwesen,7 ff.
Grimme, Orientalische Literaturzeitung,nr. 5, 257 (1906).
See, for example, Simon, Des acyles, Histoire de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres, (1746); I. A. Osiander, De asylis gentilium dissertatio, Thesaurus Graecorum antiquitatum, Vol. V I (1735).
As Wallon observes, “La doctrine de deux principes donnait aux Perses une manière de supplier: `Le suppliant prenait du feu et descendait dans le fleuve, menaçant, en cas de refus, de plonger le feu dans l’eau, il obtenait ce qu’il voulait, mais il était puni.” Wallon, d’Asyle,3–4.
Wallon, d’Asyle,3; Koziebrodzki, d’Asile,31.
A. P. Bissel, The Law of Asylum in Israel, (1884); Baek, “Die Asyle der Griechen und Römer, verglichen mit den Zufluchtsstätten des Pentateuchischen Gesetzes,” 18 Monatsschrift für die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 567 (1869);
F. V. Ries, De asylis sive urbibus refugii, (1753); Osiander, De asylis Hebraeorum, (1672);
S. Ohlenburg, Die Biblischen Asyle in Talmudischem Gewande, (1895);
Foerster, Das Mosaïsche Strafrecht,46 (1900);
Hamburger, Realencyclopädie des Judentums,1088 (1896);
A. Hellwig, “Die Judischen Freistädte in ethnologischer Beleuchtung,” 87 Globus (1905);
P. Smith, The Origin and History of Hebrew Law, (1931);
A. Causse, Du groupe ethnique à la communauté religieuse. Le problème sociologique de la religion d’Israël, (1937).
Jhering, in 51 Deutsche Rundschau 357, 397 (1887), advances a thesis that the institution of asylum was taken to the Phoenicians by the Jews. However, there does not appear much support for this view. It is rejected by some writers. See, for example, E. Reale, supra note 5, at 478.
In the Book of Kings of the Bible, there is a mention of Adonija who, suspected of conspiring against Solomon, flees and finds refuge at the foot of the altar and leaves it when the king promises to spare his life. I, Rois, 1, 50–53. On the other hand, Ioab, having murdered the Army Generals of Israel and Juda, namely, Abner and Amasa, took refuge on the altar, but, having refused to leave the altar, was killed there by Banajas upon Solomon’s order. I, Rois,2, 28–34.
C. H. Toy, “Asylum,” 2 The Jewish Encyclopaedia 256 (1925);
G. F. Moore, “Asylum,” in T. K. Cheyne and I. S. Black (eds.), 1 Encyclopaedia Biblica 377 (1899).
Thonissen, “Le Goël ou vengeance du sang en droit mosaïque,” 20 (2e série) Bulletin de l’Académie Royale de Belgique 780 (1865).
That is why the capture and execution of Ioab was justified. See supra note 27.
See Timbal Duclaux de Martin, d’Asile,9.
Timbal Duclaux de Martin, d’Asile,10.
C. L. Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois, 163 (3rd ed., 1877 ).
Moore, supra note 28, at 377; L. Ginzberg, “Asylum in Rabbinical Literature,” 2 Jewish Encyclopaedia 257–259; Maimonide, De Homicidiis,ch. 8.
I. A. Osiander, De asylis gentilium, Vol. V I (1735);
P. Foerster, De Asylis Graecorum, (1847);
L. Jafnisch, De Graecorum Asylis, (1868);
G. F. Schoemann, Antiquités Grecques,translated by Galusky, (1884–1885);
E. Caillemer, “Asylia,” in C. Darenberg and E. Saglio (eds.) Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines, (1873);
A. Bléteau, De l’asile et du droit d’expulsion en droit français, 177 ff. (1886);
Barth, De Graecorum Asylis,(1888); V. Chapot, La province romaine proconsulaire d’Asie,150 (1904).
The Greek temples of Cadmus at Thebes, of Zeus, Olympia, and Minerva at Athens, of Diana at Ephesus, of Apollo at Miletus, of Ceres and Proserpine at Eleusis, of Minerva at Sparta, of Neptune at Taenarum, of Juno at Argos, and of Aesculapius at Epidaurus and at Pergamum were among those known for giving asylum. See E. Caillemer, supra note 37; Chapot, La province,409 ff.
C. Phillipson, The International Law and Custom of the Greeks and the Romans, Vol. I, 347 (1911).
Polybe, Histoire,(ed. by Dindorf), Vol. IV, 35, 43–44 (1866).
E. Caillemer, supra note 37, at 509. For example, when a reign of terror followed an oligarchic revolution in Athens, the city of Thebes decreed in 404 B.C. that “every house and city in Boeotia should be open to such Athenians as needed succor; and that whosoever did not help a fugitive should be fined one talent.” Plutarch, Lysander,s. 27.
N. M. Trenholme, The Right of Sanctuary in England; A Study in Institutional History, 5 (1903).
Andocides, De mysteriis,translated as Sur les mystères,c. 71, coll. Budé, ed. by Dalmeyda, (1930).
This was particularly true of the amphictyony dedicated to the protection of the temple of Delphi, the most holy sanctuary of the Greeks. A. Nussbaum, A Concise History of the Law of Nations, 7 (rev. ed., 1958 ).
Much evidence of this abuse comes from the ancient Greek literature. For example, see Eschyle, Les Suppliants, 82–84, coll. Budé, éd. Mazon, Vol. I, 16 (1920); Cicéron, In Verrum II, I, 33, coll. Budé, éd. de la Ville de Mirmont, Vol. II, 166 (1922); Euripide, (“Il convenait de ne point laisser l’impie s’asseoir à l’autel, fait-il dire à Ion, mais de l’en chasser. Il n’est pas bien qu’une main souillée touche ainsi les dieux. Il fallait réserver l’asile au juste persécuté, afin qu’on vit pas l’innocent et le coupable se rencontrer ici dans la même faveur des dieux.”), Ion, 1312–1319, coll. Budé, éds. Parmentier et Grégoire, 235 (1923).
For example, the Ilotes, who were refugees in the temple of Neptune at Taenarum, were massacred by the Lacaedemonians. Thucydide, I, 128, éd. Poppo, Vol. I, 329–331; Hérodote, V, 46, and VI, 91, éd. Stein, Vol. II, 22 and 99; Pausanias, I, 20, 7, and VII, 2, 4, 6, éd. Hitzig, Vol. I, 45, and Vol. II, 746.
For example, the temple would be surrounded by logs of wood which would be set afire, or its roof would be broken, thereby forcing the refugees to abandon the temple, or the gates of the temple would be bricked up, thereby forcing them to starve to death, and so on. Timbal Duclaux de Martin, d’Asile,21.
Thus, Neoptolemus, who had killed Priam on the altar of Apollo, died, his throat cut at Delphi under the altar of this god. Sparta was destroyed by an earthquake shortly after the massacre of the Ilotes in the temple of Neptune at Taenarum. Sylla was killed by a horrible disease dispensed by Minerva in punishment, whose altar had been violated by the killing of Aristion. Thucidyde, I, 128, éd. Poppo, Vol. I, 317; Pausanias, I, 20, 7, and VII, 24–25, éd. Hitzig, Vol. I, 45, and Vol. II, 745 ff.
Thus, Wallon remarks that “Si le réfugié n’était pas toujours sous la sauvegaerd de l’asyle, le droit d’asyle fut toujours, en Grèce, sous la sauvegarde de la foi des peuples.” Wallon, d’Asyle,26.
Thus, after the massacre of the supporters of Cylon in the temple of Minerva, the desecraters of the temple were condemned, and the city remained dishonored in their proper eyes and full of fear until the day they got Epimenides and the seven sages of Greece to Athens for purification. Plutarch, Solon,VII.
Plutarch, Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans,(ed. by J. and W. Lang-home), 16 (1875).
Timbal Duclaux de Martin, d’Asile,25; Trenholme, Right of Sanctuary,7.
As Tacitus writes, “Neque quemquam in Capitolinum aliave Urbis tempia profugere, ut eo subsidio ad flagitia utatur.” Tacitus, Annales,III, 36. See also d’Mazzinghi, Sanctuaries,110.
According to a decree of Emperor Antoninus Pius, if a slave in any Roman province fled to a temple or a statue of an Emperor to escape his master’s ill treatment, the governor of the province could order him sold as if he were not a fugitive. Trenholme, Right of Sanctuary,6–7.
Phillipson, Greeks and Romans,356.
Timbal Duclaux de Martin, d’Asile,27.
E. Loening, Geschichte des Deutschen Kirchenrechts, Vol. I, 317 (1878);
P. Hinschius, Das Kirchenrecht der Katholiken und Protestanten in Deutschland, Vol. IV, 380 (1888);
Timbal Duclaux de Martin, d’Asile,32.
E. Reale, supra note 5, at 483; Koziebrodzki, d’Asile,33.
Trenholme, Right of Sanctuary,7.
According to the 8th canon, “ceux qui sont en butte à des injustices, ou qui, ayant commis quelque crime, sont condamnés à vivre soit en exil, soit dans les îles, ou à subir quelque autre peine, se confient à la miséricorde de l’Eglise: nous devons leur venir en aide, et, sans nulle hesitation, intercéder pour eux.” Quoted in E. Reale, supra note 5, at 485.
The Isaurian robbers were excepted from the privilege.
Schaff-Herzog, Cyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge,Vol. I (1891).
J. Bingham, Antiquities of the Christian Church and Other Works, Vol. III. 214 (1855).
Witutzky, Vorgeschichte des Rechts,107 (1903).
Thus, in 398 A.D., Emperor Arcadius, at the instigation of his courtier Eutrope, abolished the right of asylum and meted capital punishment to those who had conspired against his life or had failed to reveal the plot to him. However, this did not last long. Ironically enough, the same Eutrope came to the doors of the church and sought asylum when he was overpowered by his adversaries. See Wallon, d’Asyle,47–48.
Saint Augustus, Civitas Dei, I, ch. 34, cited in E. Reale, supra note 5, at 486.
Taine writes that “Au moment de violer un sanctuaire, le Germain converti se demande s’il ne va pas tomber sur le seuil, frappé de vertige et le col tordu. Convaincu par son propre trouble il s’arrête, épargne la terre, le village, la cité qui vit sous la sauvegarde du prêtre.” H. A. Taine, Origines de la France contemporaine,Vol. I, ch. I, 4, 11 (1920–22).
This, for example, was done at the second council of Mâcon in 585. See E. Reale, supra note 5, at 487.
C. de Beaurepaire, “Essai sur l’asile religieux dans l’Empire romain et la monarchie française,” 4 and 5 Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes (3e série) 573 (1853–1854).
E. Magnin, “Immunités ecclésiastiques,” in A. Vacant, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, Vol. III, 1257–1258 (1922).
P. van der Haeghen, Le droit d’asile,26–27 (1858).
Const. Ad. Apost.,18 June 1712; and Non Sine ingenti,5 January 1720.
Article 166 of this ordinance in effect abolished asylum in civil matters and subordinated the penal asylum to the decision of the judge. Néron, Ordonnances des rois de France, Vol. I, 254.
W. Blackstone, The Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. IV, 347 (1765–1769); L. O. Pike, A History of Crime in England, Vol. II, 253 (1873–1876).
C. de Beaurepaire, “Essai sur l’asile religieux dans l’Empire romain et la monarchie française,” 4 Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes (3e série) 351, 573, and 5 id. 151, 341 (1853–1854).
For a similar conclusion, see R. Robin, “Le droit d’asile dans les légations et les consulats étrangers et les négociations pour sa suppression en Haiti,” 15 Revue générale de droit international public 461, 465–466 (1908).
P. Colletta, Histoire du Royaume de Naples, Vol. I, 89 (1834).
Canon 1179, Codex juris canonici, reads, “Ecclesia jure asyli gaudet ita ut rei, qui ad illam confugerint, inde non sint extrahendi, nisi necessitas urgeat, sine assensu ordinarii, vel saltem rectoris ecclesiae.” Quoted in Koziebrodzki, d’Asile, 33–35.
For a similar view, see Koziebrodzki, d’Asile, 33–35.
Trenholme, Right of Sanctuary, 307.
See B. Thorpe, Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, Vol. I, 3 (1840).
For a survey of asylum under Anglo-Saxon laws, see C. H. Riggs, Jr., Criminal Asylum in Anglo-Saxon Law(1963). See also d’Mazzinghi Sanctuaries; Trenholme Right of Sanctuary.
See entry on “Asylrecht” in Strupp-Schlochauer, Wörterbuch des Völkerrechts,Vol. I (1960).
F. Hélie, Traité de l’instruction criminelle,Vol. II, ch. V (1866). See also Villefort, Privilèges diplomatiques,(1858); Merlin, Répertoire,V. Asile.
Thus, Thebes protested when Sparta declared after the occupation of Athens by Lysander that all the Athenians would be seized wherever found and be brought back to their native land by force. Athens defied those who would lay hands on its refugees. Theos, a small city in Asia Minor, was able to obtain recognition of its right of asylum from several states. Rome permitted Theos to retain its right of giving asylum when Roman supremacy was established over Greece after the Roman consul Flaminius defeated Philip, the king of Macedonia, at the battle of Cynocephalae. See Plutarch, Lysandre, ch. XXVII; P. Bernard, Traité théorique et pratique de l’extradition, Vol. I, 14 (1883); E. Egger, Etudes historiques sur les traités publics chez les Grecs et chez les Romains, 260 ff. (1866).
As Grivaz states, “L’élément matériel de l’extradition le fait de livrer, existe, mais l’élément moral, le caractère de continuité, de regularité fait défault.” F. Grivaz, Nature et effets du principe de l’asile politique, 46 (1895).
For example, the tribe of Benjamin, having refused to deliver or punish the guilty, was attacked and exterminated by the provoked nation. Juges, ch. XX. The Lacedaemonians declared war against the Messenians when the latter refused to deliver an assassin to them. Pausanias, Book IV. The Achaeans threatened to break their alliance with the Spartiatae when the latter refused to deliver a refugee who had taken to arms against the former. P. Fiore, Droit pénal international,Vol. I, 215 (1885–1886).
For example, Delos, by giving asylum to the Corinthians persecuted by Rome, drew all the commerce which the flourishing city of Corinth had.
Thus, the Prince of Condé, denounced by Henry IV, took refuge first in Bruxelles, then in Cologne. The counsellors of the King of Spain, when invited to pronounce upon the request to deliver him, denied the request, recalled him to Bruxelles, and received him with great honors. E. Reale, supra note 5, at 504.
See C. Weiss, Histoire de réfugiés de France depuis la révocation de l’Edit de Nantes jusqu’à nos jours, (1853). The emigration of the Protestants from France began in 1585 when Henry III issued an edict ordering them to embrace Catholicism or leave the country. As a measure to soothe the religious hatred, Henri IV issued the edict of Nantes in 1598, granting both Protestants and Catholics equality of practicing their religions. However, this edict was revoked by Louis XIV through an edict signed at Fontainebleau on 18 October 1685.
E. Reale, supra note 5, at 505.
J. Bodin, De la République,Book III, ch. 6.
J. B. Moore, A Digest of International Law, Vol. II, 757 (1906).
Examples include Dumoulin, Grotius, and others.
Grotius wrote his treatise De jure belli ac pacis in France, where he had taken refuge after his romantic flight from the fortress of Louvestein. He regarded political asylum not only a right, but also a duty of the state of refuge. H. Grotius, De jure belli ac pacis,Book II, ch. II, XVI, translated by J. Barbeyrac, 156 (1738).
For example, such was the case with the Swiss cantons. Thus, Charles II. the King of England, claimed in vain for twenty years the murderers of his father who had found asylum in Berne. E. Reale, supra note 5, at 510.
He wrote, “Dans toute l’étendue d’un Etat politique, il ne doit y avoir aucun lieu indépendant des lois. Leur force doit suivre tout citoyen comme l’ombre suit le corps. L’asile et l’impunité ne diffèrent que du plus au moins; les asiles invitent plus au crime, que les peines n’en détournent… Je sais bien que la persuasion de ne pouvoir trouver un lieu sur la terre où les crimes puissent demeurer impunis, serait un moyen efficace de les prévenir. Cependant, je ne puis approuver l’usage de rendre les criminels jusqu’à ce que les lois devenues plus conformes aux besoins et aux droits de l’humanité, les peines rendues plus douces, l’affaiblissement du pouvoir arbitraire et de celui de l’opinion donnent une entière sûreté à la vertu haïe et à l’innocence opprimée; et jusqu’à ce que la tyrannie asiatique demeurant confinée dans les plaines de l’Orient, l’Europe ne connaisse plus que l’empire de la raison universelle, qui unit toujours de plus en plus les intérêts des peuples et des souverainetés.” C. Beccaria, Traité des délits et des peines, s. 21 (1797).
For example, Cardinal Alberoni was disgraced and chased in Spain by Philip V. He left Spain and found asylum in the Republic of Genoa. The Republic refused to deliver him, in spite of protests from Clement XI and the King of Spain. The Republic justified its refusal by asserting that it could not be disrespectful to the laws, to the law of nations, and to the public liberty, to which the Cardinal must have appealed when he had been received in the states of the Republic. Bernard, de L’extradition, Vol. I, 344.
Thus, when the Senate of the City of Hamburg delivered three Irishmen to England in 1801, Napoleon Bonaparte protested strongly against it. However, he used both treaties and threats to obtain the French refugees. E. Reale, supra note 5, at 544.
See, for example, L. G. V. de Bonald, Législation primitive, Book II, ch. 17, s. 6 (1812);
T. Schmalz, Europ. Völkerrecht, Book IV, ch. III, 160 (1817);
H. P. Kluti, De deditione profugorum, (1829).
Even such strong supporters of asylum as Switzerland concluded treaties which expressly provided for extradition of political offenders. See, for example, the treaty with Austria, 14 July 1828, and the treaty with France, 18 July 1828. E. Reale, supra note 5, at 548.
For example, the governments of the Holy Alliance had sent out numerous notes since 1815, demanding severe measures against political refugees. At the Congress of Troppau in November 1820, the Powers had decided to approach the authorities of the Swiss Federation to limit the actions of the German refugees in Grisons. In 1821, a joint note from the Minister of Austria and the Chargé d’Affaires of Russia and Prussia demanded expulsion of all those who had been involved in the revolution of Piemonte. The Powers of the Holy Alliance issued a circular on 14 December 1822 quashing the instigators of revolts. By a protocol of 24 December 1822, adopted in spite of the opposition of the United Kingdom, they assured all the European states to lend their good offices in obtaining expulsion from Switzerland and other countries of those refugees who had been condemned of political crimes. E. Reale, supra note 5, at 548.
For example, in 1829 the government of Naples demanded and obtained from the government of Paris the extradition of Antonio Galotti for crimes of theft and robbery. Thereafter, it proceeded to accuse and execute him for certain political crimes arising from his participation in the revolution of 1820. The government of France protested with a threat of war, whereupon the government of Naples renounced his execution. Finally, in October 1830, the government of France was able to obtain his liberation. H. Lammasch, Das Recht der Auslieferung wegen politischer Verbrechen, 26–27 (1884).
Lord Palmerston wrote in a note addressed to the Powers that “S’il est actuellement une règle qui, plus que toute autre, ait été observée dans les temps modernes par tous les Etats indépendants, grands ou petits, du monde civilisé, c’est la règle de ne pas livrer les réfugiés politiques, à moins d’y être contraints par les stipulations positives d’un traité; et le gouvernement de Sa Majesté croit qu’il y a peu d’engagements de ce genre, si même il en existe. Les lois de l’hospitalité, les exigences de l’humanité, les sentiments naturels à l’homme se réunissent pour écarter de telles extraditions, et tout gouvernement indépendant, qui, de lui-même, en accorderait une de ce genre, serait à juste titre et universellement stigmatisé comme s’étant déshonoré.” See Correspondence respecting refugees from Hungary within the Turkish dominions, presented to Parliament, 28 February 1851, Nos. 19, 20, in Lammasch, Auslieferung,33.
E. Reale, supra note 5, at 552.
A. Baschet, La diplomatie vénitienne, 299–300 (1862).
C. G. Picavet, La diplomatie française au temps de Louis XIV (1661–1715), 9 (1930);
C. S. Blaga, L’évolution de la diplomatie,17.
Thus, Charles V, the King of Spain and Emperor of Germany, recognized it in one of his two declarations establishing the privileges of the public ministers. G. de Réal, La science du gouvernement, Vol. V, 129–137 (1764).
P. A. N. L. Daru, Histoire de la république de Venise,Vol. VI, 83 (3rd ed., (1826)).
Thus, in 1540 the French ambassador to Venice, Guillaume Pellisier, engaged certain Venetian magistrates to his service, namely, Constantin and Nicolas Cavazza, Maffeo Leone, Augustin Abondio, and Jean-François Valério, among others. These magistrates delivered the ambassador certain state secrets, which had enabled Turkey to conclude a certain treaty of peace. Nicolas Cavazza, Abondio, and Valério were discovered by a Venetian gentleman by the name of Matteloso, who was also the lover of Abondio’s wife. Thereupon, these magistrates secured asylum in the mansion of the French ambassador. The Council of Ten demanded delivery of the refugees, refusing to admit a right of asylum for the crime of high treason. Having denied the delivery, the Council placed two cannons in front of the French Embassy. As a consequence of this threat, the refugees were delivered, and they were hanged on the place of Saint-Marc. Annoyed by this, François ler, the King of France, refused audience to the Venetian ambassador Antoine Venier. Nevertheless, Venice was firm in maintaining its position that, although it respected the ambassador of France, the ambassador could not provide asylum to those guilty of treason. François ler refused audience to the Venetian ambassador for two months. When he finally granted it, he asked the ambassador what he would do if treated like the French ambassador. The Venetian ambassador replied, “Sire, if rebellious subjects of Your Majesty had sought refuge in my house, I would have delivered them up to the judges; and if I had done otherwise, I should have been severely punished by my Republic.” The King was satisfied by the answer. See A. van Wicquefort, L’ambassadeur et ses fonctions,873–874 (1681); C. de Martens, Causes célèbres du droit des gens,Vol. I, s. 1 (1858); Moore, Digest,Vol. II, 764. A few years later, in 1609, the Court of England invoked this precedent against the Republic of Venice and obtained the delivery of a chaplain who, having written a libel against Queen Elizabeth, had found refuge at the premises of the Venetian ambassador at London, Marc-Antoine Correr.
The dispute arose from an incident in July 1601. Certain Frenchmen in Spain had been insulted by certain Spanish soldiers and they attacked the soldiers, killing two and wounding the others. Thereafter, they secured refuge in the French Embassy at Madrid. In the wake of the uproar by the people, who threatened to burn the ambassador’s residence, the Spanish authorities arrested the culprits in the embassy, ignoring the ambassador’s protests. Henry IV, the King of France, claimed reparations for violation of the embassy. Spain refused to make any. The dispute was submitted by the two Courts to Pope Clement VIII. He found a violation of asylum and decided in favor of France. The prisoners were delivered to the Pope, who, in turn, handed them to the French ambassador in Rome. E. R. Adair, The Exterritoriality of Ambassadors, The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, 337–340 (1661); C. M. Tobar y Borgoïïo, L’asile interne devant le droit international, 118119 (1911).
In his work De legationibvs libri Ires,published in 1548.
In his work De legibus, ac Deo Legislatore,published in 1612.
He wrote, “Est-ce que pour l’honneur de l’Ambassade? Il serait ridicule de le dire. On a voulu plutôt proposer et fournir effectivement l’impunité aux crimes, que l’on provoque à commettre dans l’espérance de ce refuge, où un scélérat peut, non seulement être en sûreté, mais encore se moquer de tous les gens du magistrat (magistratus cohortem), ou les injurier même et les menacer, à la faveur du nom et de l’autorité de l’Ambassadeur. Si l’on peut dire la vérité, c’est une chose d’un très mauvais exemple.” C. Pasquali, Legatus, ch. LXVIII (1598).
See in E. Reale, supra note 5, at 516.
H. Grotius, De jure belli ac pacis, 1625, Book II, ch. XVIII, s. 8 (2), translated by F. W. Kelsey with the collaboration of A. E. R. Boak, H. A. Sanders, J. S. Reeves, and H. F. Wright, (1925).
As Grotius wrote, “Ita et iam fictione simili constituerentur quasi extra territorium unde et civile jure populi apud quem vivunt non tenentur.” De jure belli ac pacis,Book II, ch. XVIII, s. 4, art. 5.
For example, Laurent (1810–1887) found it to be a “étrange fiction la plus absurde que les légistes aient jamais inventée, car elle aboutit à réputer les ambassadeurs absents là où ils doivent être présents pour remplir leurs fonctions, et présents là où leur ministère serait un non-sens, puisque le représentant n’a plus rien à faire là où se trouve le représenté.” L. F. Laurent, Droit civil international, Vol. II, 14 (1878).
A. de Heyking, L’exterritorialité,16 (2nd ed., 1895).
C. de Martens, Le guide diplomatique: Précis des droits et des fonctions des agents diplomatiques et consulaires,ss. 33, 34 (5th ed., 1866).
Thus, in 1655 the French ambassador at Rome, the Marquis de Fonteney, gave asylum to certain Neapolitan exiles and rebels and, unprepared to incur expenses of keeping them, decided to ship them back to Naples by water. While the ambassador’s coach was taking them to the place of embarkation, the Pope’s guards captured 17 of them. The ambassador demanded release of the captives and reparation for the insult suffered by the violation of his coach. The Pope contended that the ambassadorial privileges ought not to extend so far as granting protection to profligates and criminals of the ecclesiastical state. The ambassador replied that he had not harboured the Pope’s subjects, but had lawfully protected some Neapolitans from the persecution of the Spaniards. Finally, it was agreed that (a) the Pope should release those named by the ambassador, and (b) the Papal nuncio at Paris should determine with the King the reparation to be made on account of the violation of the ambassador’s coach. See A. van Wicquefort, The Ambassador and His Functions, translated by J. Digby, 272, 273 (2nd ed., 1740 ).
Thus, in 1680 the French ambassador at Madrid, the Marquis de Villars, sought and procured satisfaction from the Spanish government for the fact that Madrid’s mayor and his bailiffs had traversed the ambassador’s districts without his permission. The Spanish government, however, made a protest based on lack of reciprocity, since franchise des quartiers was not accorded in Paris; the King of Spain had made a declaration earlier in 1671 to the effect that he would treat an ambassador of a prince as that prince would treat the Spanish ambassador. De Martens, Causes célèbres, Vol. I, 340. In 1684, the government of Spain notified the ambassadors in Madrid that, in the future, the exclusion of local jurisdiction would apply only to their houses. R. Wildman, Institutes of International Law, 127 (1850).
P. Fauchille, Traité de droit international, Vol. I, 699 (8th ed., 1922 ); Moore, Digest, Vol. II, s. 292.
J. Lorimer, The Institutes of the Law of Nations,250 (1883–1884).
A. von Bulmerincq, Das Asylrecht und die Auslieferung flüchtiger Verbrecher. 128 (1853); de Heyking, l’Exterritorialité,17.
The pontiffs Julius III, Pius IV, Gregory XIII, and Sixtus V repeatedly published bulls denouncing the privilege of the quartiers, but the ambassadors either refused to accept the pontifical ordinances or found ways to evade them. Pope Innocent XI renewed the efforts of his predecessors and was able to persuade, successively, the Emperor, the kings of Spain, Poland, England, and the Republic of Venice to suppress the privilege. When he approached the King of France and asked him to follow the example of the others, Louis XIV declined to go along and said, “I have never ruled by the example of others.” The Pope then notified all the Courts that he would decline to admit an ambassador who had not renounced his franchise des quartiers. The French ambassador to Rome, the Duke d’Estrées, died on 30 January 1687, and Innocent XI asked the Court of France not to send any ambassador before the dispute concerning the quartiers was resolved. In spite of this, Louis XIV sent Henri-Charles de Beaumanoir, the Marquis de Lavardin, to Rome as an ambassador extraordinary, along with 800 armed men, declaring his wish to maintain the franchise des quartiers. The Pope, in turn, refused audience to the new ambassador, prevented his ministers to confer with the ambassador, and, finally, excommunicated him by the Bull of 12 May 1687. On the night of Christmas 1687, the Marquis de Lavardin went to the Church of Saint-Louis-des-Français for his devotions. Thereupon, the Pope put the church under interdict. The Parliament of Paris, having met and accepted a request of the Advocate General concerning the matter, asked the King to use all his authority to conserve the privileges and immunities of the quartiers at Rome. Louis XIV, then, informed the Papal Nuncio that he would not receive him until his ambassador was received by the Pope. He seized Avignon and Comtat Venaissin, and equipped a fleet to proceed to Italy. The Pope, for his part, threatened to join the League being formed against Louis XIV. The Republic of Venice and King James II of England offered to mediate, but Innocent XI refused the offer. For the rights of the church could not be submitted to arbitration. He decided not to recognize the French ambassador. The Marquis de Lavardin was recalled toward the middle of 1689, and he left Rome. The dispute was not resolved until after the death of Innocent XI on 12 August 1689. Louis XIV consented to a reduction of the privileges of quartiers and the right of according asylum, and ordered the restitution of Avignon and Comtat Venaissin on 3 November 1689. By an agreement in 1693 between the Court of France and the Holy See, the King of France renounced the franchise des quartiers. de Martens, Causes célèbres, Vol. II, 380–385 (2nd ed., 1861); F. de Hassan, Histoire générale de la diplomatie française, Vol. IV, Book V.
For example, during the middle of the 18th century the ministers of France at Genoa enjoyed the right of not permitting the local police to pass in front of their house. During the early part of the 19th century, certain legations at Rome had jurisdiction even outside their residence, and the Spanish ambassador would not allow police surveillance at his embassy or quarters, placing the police under the guards attached to the mission. C. de Martens, Manuel diplomatique ou Précis des droits et des fonctions des agents diplomatiques, s. 30 (1822).
H. J. S. Maine, Ancient Law; Its Connection with Early History of Society and Its Relation to Modern Ideas, 103 (15th ed., 1894 ).
Moore, Digest,Vol. II, 762.
Thus, the treaty of Utrecht of 1713 between France and England reserved to the French subjects fishing rights in the territory ceded by France to England. Similarly, a treaty of peace in 1783 between the United Kingdom and the United States gave the Americans fishing rights in the British territory. See Moore, Digest, Vol. II, 762.
W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England,Book I, 117, Book III, 63 (1765–1769).
It is on this account,“ writes van Wicquefort, ”that in several courts of Europe the ambassadors set up the arms of their master over the gate of their palace; and almost everywhere they have a chair of state, which denotes the presence of the master of the house. At the Congress of Westphalia, the houses of the ambassadors and plenipotentiaries were known by the arms of the sovereign whom they represented; not only those of crowned heads, of republics and the electors, but also those of the princes of Germany and Italy. The ambassadors of the United Provinces, writing the States General, do not fail to date their letters, “From the House of Their High Mightiness,” not so much because they defray the expenses of the embassy, and pay the rent of the house, as chiefly because it is their representative that lodges there.“ van Wicquefort, Ambassador,266. See also id.,at 260; de Martens, Guide diplomatique,s. 29.
See H. Hallam, View of the State of Europe During the Middle Ages, Vol. I, 242 (8th ed., 1841 ).
Thus, in 1729, the Duke of Riperda, who was the Prime Minister of Spain’s King Philip V, fell in disgrace, sought refuge, and found it with the British Ambassador, Lord Harrington. The ambassador refused to deliver him. Thereupon, the Council of Castile decided to remove the Duke even by force and arrested him Similarly, in 1747, a Swedish merchant named Springer sought asylum at the British Embassy after having been accused of high treason. The Swedish authorities surrounded the place by troops and forced the ambassador to surrender the fugitive. Such violations of diplomatic asylum are not surprising in an era when a state did not hesitate to seize its criminals even in foreign countries. R. Robin, supra note 88, at 471.
Tobar y Borgoíïo, L’asile interne,126.
Wicquefort, L’ambassadeur,Vol. I, 876. “La maison de l’ambassadeur ne doit point protéger des gens qui, par leurs crimes, troublent ou détruisent la société civile.” Id.,at 875.
He declared that “Certainement si on consulte les lumières de la raison, je doute qu’on ait jamais inventé rien de plus ridicule que ce droit d’asile attaché aux maisons des Ambassadeurs. Il y a peu de choses si absurdes qu’elles n’aient été établies pour quelques raisons, du moins apparentes; mais en peut-on ici alléguer aucune?” C. van Bynkershoek, De foro competente legatorum tam in causa civili quam criminali, 1721,translated in French by Barbeyrac under the title Traité du Juge compétent des Ambassadeurs,247 (1723).
See, for example, G. de Réal, La science du gouvernement,Vol. V, 195–196 (1764); J. de Marselaer, Legatus,Book II, diss. XV.
For example, see A. Germonius, De legatis Principum et Populorum, Book III, ch. X IV (1627);
H. de Prefixe, Histoire de Roy Henry le Grand,328–329 (1661);
I. de Villiers Hotman, De la charge et dignité de l’Ambassadeur,(1604).
He writes, “L’indépendence de l’Ambassadeur serait fort imparfaite et sa sûreté mal établie, si la maison où il loge ne jouissait d’une entière franchise, et si elle n’était pas inaccessible aux ministres ordinaires de la justice.” E. de Vattel, Le Droit des Gens ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle, 1758, Book IV, ch. IX, s. 117, reproduced in the Classics of International Law, ed., by J. B. Scott, (1916).
He recognizes that a sovereign is not obliged to let a foreign ambassador “faire de sa maison un asile dans lequel il admet les ennemis du Prince et de l’Etat, les malfaiteurs de toute espèce, et les soustrait aux peines qu’ils auront méritées.” de Vattel, Droit des Gens,Book IV, ch. IX, s. 118.
de Vattel, Droit des Gens,Book IV, ch. IX, s. 118.
de Vattel, Droit des Gens,Book IV, ch. IX, s. 118.
de Vattel, Droit des Gens,Book IV, ch. IX, s. 118.
For example, see A. de Heyking, L’exterritorialité,20 (2nd ed., 1895).
Hélie, l’Instruction criminelle,Vol. II, s. 127.
J. K. Bluntschli, Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilisierten Staaten, translated in French as Le droit international codifié, art. 151 and 200 (1870).
De Martens, Guide diplomatique,Vol. I, 12.
Ramón de Dalmau y de Olivart (Marquis de Olivart), Tratado de Derecho Internacional Pdblico,Vol. II, s. 75 (1903).
J. B. Moore, A Treatise on Extradition and Interstate Rendition, Vol. I, s. 205 (1891).
For example, the civil war, following the abrogation of the Salic law by Ferdinand VII, between the conservatives or the Carlistes and the liberals or the Christinos for taking away the throne from his brother don Carlos and putting there his daughter Isabelle; the régime of military pronunciamentos; the revolution of 1868 and the establishment of the Republic; the restoration of the Royalty, etc.
For example, in 1841, the Knight of Alborgo, who was Chargé d’Affaires of Denmark, gave refuge in his house to a number of Spaniards accused of having conspired in a plot to overthrow the government of General Espartero. In 1843, the Marquis of Casa-Trujo, later to become the Duke of Sotomayor, and other rebels were accorded a similar asylum. On coming to power in 1846, the rebels of 1841 conferred the title of Baron d’Asile upon the Knight of Alborgo. But the Duke of Sotomayor, who became minister of foreign affairs following the insurrection of 26 March 1848, invaded the house of the Knight of Alborgo in order to arrest his adversaries. In an interview with the British Ambassador, Sir Henry Buwler, the Duke of Sotomayor recognized a diplomatic agent’s right to accord asylum, provided the agent did not permit the refugees to continue their activities against public order. 38 British and Foreign State Papers 928–1050 (1849). In 1873, after the abdication of King Amadeus, Marshal Serrano was pursued by the throng and found refuge at the house of the British ambassador at Madrid. 1873 Annual Register 226. In October 1875, the United States legation in Madrid was faced with requests of asylum and, although the U.S. Secretary of State deplored the practice of diplomatic asylum, he allowed the U.S. Ambassador in Spain the discretion to grant it. U.S. Department of State, MS. Inst. Spain, Vol 17, at 317. With respect to the Spanish practice, see also E. Satow, A Guide to Diplomatic Practice, ss. 330–338 (2nd ed., 1922 ).
For example, on the night of 16/17 August 1881, Midhat Pacha, the author of the Constitution of 1876, found asylum at the French Consulate in Smyrna, and the consular corps refused to deliver him to the Turkish authorities. Similarly, Mavrogéni-Pacha, special physician of the Sultan, was accused of high treason and found asylum at the Russian Embassy. On 4 December 1895, Kioutschouk-SaïdPacha, the former grand Vizir (prime minister), and his four sons found asylum at the British Embassy in Constantinople. He returned to his place on December 9, after formal and official assurance had been given by the Turkish government that his life would not be endangered and that he would have freedom to live wherever he pleased. See Chronique des faits internationaux, 3 Revue générale de droit international public 375 (1896). During the movement of the Young Turks in 1908, the functionaries, who were pursued by the revolutionaries, found asylum in the German and Italian embassies. E. Reale, supra note 5, at 527–529.
R. Robin, supra note 88, at 485.
E. Reale, supra note 5, at 527–529.
See, for example, the opinion of Lord Palmerston of England and the United States Secretary of State Fish. For Palmerston’s opinion, see supra note 121. Fish declared in 1875, in the context of asylum accorded to Spanish revolutionaries in U.S. legations, that the practice was a cause of worry for the ministers and a pity for the countries where it existed. F. Wharton, A Digest of International Law of the United States, Vol. I, s. 104, 685–686 (2nd ed., 1887 ).
Thus, Saïd-Khaled found asylum at the German Consulate in August 1896. Chronique des faits internationaux, 3 Revue générale de droit international public 697 (1896).
A Persian found refuge at the house of an American missionary named James Hawkes. The local authorities invaded the place and captured the fugitive. The U.S. Secretary of State Gresham acknowledged that the Shah of Iran had not surpassed his rights in capturing the fugitive and he wrote to the U.S. Minister in Persia on 18 August 1894 that “The domiciliary rights of citizens of the United States in Persia may not be expanded to embrace the protection by them of Persian subjects, when such protection is explicitly disclaimed by the Government of the United States, and when its assertion by their diplomatic and consular representatives is positively inhibited.” 1894 Foreign Relations 497. The Persian custom of “bast” may be mentioned here. According to a Memorandum on `Bast’ at the British Legation and Consulate in Persia, dated 4 August 1926, “the idea of bast or sanctuary seems to have a threefold localization. (1) in sacred buildings or mosques… (2) in the stables or at the tails of the horses belonging to the sovereign or members of the Royal family (3) in the neighbourhood of artillery… The Persians have in the past invested the offices of the Indo-European Telegraph Department with the sanctuary of a bast, and cases have occurred at Meshed and elsewhere where the premises have been so claimed by fugitives from pursuit or persecution, the underlying idea being that the wire ran directly from the Shah’s palace at Teheran. The house and grounds of any foreign ambassador, minister or consul in Persia constitutes an asylum or sanctuary from which the persons seeking it cannot be removed by the police.” Cited in C. Parry (ed.), A British Digest of International Law, Vol. 7, 923–927 (1965). However, Iran terminated the practice of diplomatic asylum at the time of the abolition of Capitulations in 1928. See statement of the Permanent Delegate of Iran to the League of Nations, League of Nations Document D.C. 123.M.75, 1937, V II.
L. E. Albertini, Derecho diplomatico en sus aplicaciones especiales a las repúblicas sud-americanas, 143 (1866).
For example, C. Calvo, Le droit international théorique et pratique Vol. III, s. 1521 (1888). He writes, “Nous admettons qu’au milieu des troubles civils qui surviennent dans un pays, l’hôtel d’une légation puisse et doive même offrir un abri assuré aux hommes politiques qu’un danger de vie force à s’y réfugier momentanément.” Ibid.
Colonization, capitulation, or establishment of sphere of influence. See in this connection S. P. Sinha, New Nations and the Law of Nations, 19–24 (1967).
Estimates very high. According to the Chilean representative to the Council of the League of Nations, Senor Edwards, the number was 3 to 4 thousand. League of Nations, Official Journal, February 1937, 64–69, 98, 135–136. According to Padelford, the number at one time was in excess of 5 thousand. N. J. Padelford, International Law and Diplomacy in the Spanish Civil Strife, 161 (1939). Koziebrodzki estimates the number in the neighborhood of 7 to 8 thousand. Koziebrodzki, d’Asile, 239. Morgado believes the number to be as high as 15 thousand. A. N. Morgado, Sucesos de Espana vistos por un diplomatico, 388 (1941).
The 17 legations were of Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Chile, China, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Rumania, and Turkey. The United States of America and the United Kingdom provided diplomatic asylum for only non-Spanish persons, avoiding its grant to those of Spanish nationality.
Martens, Nouveau Recueil, 2nd series, Vol. 8, 346, 356, 435.
Padelford, Spanish Civil Strife, 158.
For example, see the note of 19 October 1936. Morgado, Sucesos de Espana, 345.
H. Helfant, The Trujillo Doctrine of Humanitarian Diplomatic Asylum, 177 (1947).
A. N. Morgado, Los acontecimientos de Espana vistos por un diplomatico, (1941).
League of Nations, Official Journal, January 1937, 21.
League of Nations, Documents C. 36, M. 26, 1937, VII; C. 52, M. 29, 1937, VII; C. 64, M. 36, 1937, VII.
League of Nations, Official Journal, February 1937, 65 ff.
League of Nations, Official Journal, February 1937, 94–102, 127–134.
It must be pointed out here that the Permanent Delegate of Iran to the League of Nations contested this opinion of the Chilean representative in a letter dated 27 January 1937 (D.C. 123, M. 75, 1937, VII), and he affirmed that the right of asylum had not existed in Iran for a long time.
E. Reale, supra note 5, at 536; Padelford, Spanish Civil Strife, 158–159.
Padelford, Spanish Civil Strife, 159.
Dictionnaire diplomatique de l’Académie diplomatique internationale 385–386.
E. Reale, supra note 5, at 537.
For a similar observation, see R. B. Greenburgh, “Recent Developments in the Law of Diplomatic Asylum,” 41 Transactions of the Grotius Society 103, 106107 (1956); Koziebrodzki, d’Asile, 252.
See J. Luelmo, “Teoria del derecho del asilo,” 1947 Revista de la Escuela national de jurisprudencia 165;
R. B. Greenburgh, supra note 206, at 107.
For a similar caveat, see M. M. L. Salverg, Le problème du droit international américain, 284 (1946). As he points out, “Cette attitude, qui à première vue pourrait paraître illogique et même injuste, s’explique pourtant facilement pour qui se rend compte du fait que ce sont seulement les pays, où les luttes civiles se sont produites avec une fréquence régulière, comme ce fut le cas dans l’histoire de l’Espagne et de la plupart des états latino-américains, qui ont reconnu un droit d’asile diplomatique.” Ibid.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1971 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sinha, S.P. (1971). History of Asylum. In: Asylum and International Law. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8856-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8856-2_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8200-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-8856-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive