Jordan breaking international law, peace treaty with ambassador refusal

It is in the vital interests of both countries that Israeli-Jordanian relations be put back on track.

August 17, 2017 20:50
3 minute read.
Jordan breaking international law, peace treaty with ambassador refusal

Protestors chanting slogans during a demonstration near the Israeli embassy in Amman, Jordan July 28, 2017. . (photo credit: REUTERS)


Dear Reader,
As you can imagine, more people are reading The Jerusalem Post than ever before. Nevertheless, traditional business models are no longer sustainable and high-quality publications, like ours, are being forced to look for new ways to keep going. Unlike many other news organizations, we have not put up a paywall. We want to keep our journalism open and accessible and be able to keep providing you with news and analysis from the frontlines of Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World.

As one of our loyal readers, we ask you to be our partner.

For $5 a month you will receive access to the following:

  • A user experience almost completely free of ads
  • Access to our Premium Section
  • Content from the award-winning Jerusalem Report and our monthly magazine to learn Hebrew - Ivrit
  • A brand new ePaper featuring the daily newspaper as it appears in print in Israel

Help us grow and continue telling Israel’s story to the world.

Thank you,

Ronit Hasin-Hochman, CEO, Jerusalem Post Group
Yaakov Katz, Editor-in-Chief


The Jordanian government, according to media reports, is refusing to permit the return to Amman of Israel’s resident ambassador.

The embassy staff was withdrawn by Israel in light of the recent tension between the two countries following the shooting by an Israeli security guard of an alleged Jordanian assailant and the fear that the staff was in danger.

This situation raises some legal issues.

The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, to which both Jordan and Israel are party, governs all issues regarding the content and nature of the diplomatic relations between states.

The convention guarantees, in its article 29, the complete inviolability of a diplomatic agent. He or she is not liable to any form of arrest, detention or measures of execution by the authorities of the receiving state. Article 31 of the convention ensures that a diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from criminal jurisdiction within the receiving state, and exempts such a diplomat from any requirement to give evidence as a witness.

However, immunity from the jurisdiction of the receiving state does not exempt a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the sending state in the event of a suspicion of criminal activity by the diplomatic agent. As a signatory to the Vienna Convention, Israel is therefore required to investigate such a situation.

Accordingly, as required by international law and practice, the appropriate legal authorities in Israel have duly opened an investigation of the incident to ascertain whether there is cause for charges to be laid. Israel’s Justice Ministry instructed the head of the Investigations and Intelligence Division of the Israeli Police to conduct a police investigation into the shooting incident, including taking into account findings provided by Jordan.

However, despite this, according to the Jordanian media sources, Jordan has informed Israel’s Foreign Ministry that it would not agree to the return of Israel’s ambassador without guarantees that the security guard is being investigated and will be put on trial.

This would appear to be at odds with Jordan’s international obligations.

Jordan, like any other state signatory to the Vienna Convention, has the sovereign prerogative pursuant to its article 9 “to notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable.”

However, such a move, in the present situation, would logically be out of any proportion to the nature and circumstances of the diplomatic incident concerned. This especially in light of the fact that the ambassador had no involvement whatsoever in the incident and that Israel is conducting a police investigation into the incident, as required by international law and practice.

Thus, refusal by Jordan to permit the return of Israel’s ambassador would appear to be incompatible with Jordan’s obligations according to the Vienna Convention.

Furthermore, Jordan and Israel are both committed, pursuant to article 5 of the 1994 Jordan-Israel Treaty of Peace, to maintain “resident ambassadors” in each other’s capital. This commitment is absolute, in fitting with the peace treaty’s preambular mutual assurance “to develop friendly relations and co-operation between them in accordance with the principles of international law governing international relations in time of peace.”

The inherent logic of maintaining resident ambassadors is all the more evident, and necessary in a situation such as this one, in order to ensure direct, and high level diplomatic contact between the two states.

It is in the vital interests of both countries that Israeli-Jordanian relations be put back on track. The key to protecting this relationship is to make sure that both the peace treaty, as well as each country’s international diplomatic obligations, are strictly observed.

Alan Baker is the former legal adviser of the Foreign Ministry and former ambassador to Canada. He presently heads the international law program at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

He participated in the negotiation and drafting of the peace treaty with Jordan.

Join Jerusalem Post Premium Plus now for just $5 and upgrade your experience with an ads-free website and exclusive content. Click here>>

Related Content

Blue and White leader Benny Gantz speaks after the first elections exit polls
April 20, 2019
Revising the prime ministerial appointment