In a hostage crisis, is it ethical for a government to agree to grant a terrorist immunity if he releases the hostages, even though the government has every intention of capturing and prosecuting the terrorist once his hostages are released?
Yes, in a hostage crisis it is ethical for a government to agree to grant a terrorist immunity if he releases the hostages. This is because It is the duty of the government to provide and save each and every citizen of its country. Even though, the government has every intention of capturing and prosecuting the terrorists once his hostages are released, itâ€™s first priority is to avoid any danger to the normal citizens and to save their lives. It happened in many countries all over the world many times. Even though government grant a terrorist immunity to release the hostages later, it goes on with missions to capture those terrorists, (Bovard, J. (2004)).
It protects and secures diplomats who take security together with other countries and the laws of the country where they are visited. Diplomatic relations provide security for Ambassadors and Diplomats to perform their duties without fear of being disturbed by the host country.
Failure of immunity may also arise in the case of Iran’s hostage crisis, where it protects different properties and violates the obligation of diplomatic immunity of the revoked personnel. In the hostage crisis, the terrorist wants immunity for the release of the hostages and the government has to negotiate under these circumstances. It will be part of the government even if it wants to be timeless and related terrorists continue to be indefinite Care must be made and when the terrorists are involved, the lives of the people in the game are involved. Dependent and terrorist requirements are generally fulfilled by the Government. A number of agreements adopted by the United Nations General Assembly refer to terrorism as threat, such as hostage-taking, terrorist bombing, terrorist group financing, and nuclear terrorism. However, international condemnation of an activity does not automatically imply just cogens status. 1994 The United Nations Declaration on the Prevention of Terrorism Measures points to the need to promote “progressive development and coding of international law” and it is a situation that indicates that terrorism will be taken out of the jus cogens. (Taillon, jus cogens (J. P. D. B. (1997))
The aim of the compensation for the victims of terrorism is in conflict with the foreign policy implications underlying the determination of what constitutes terrorism, especially in the context of immunity. JASTA exempts from an external sovereign immunity for “claims for compensation due to a killing action without a license, aircraft damage, pledge, terrorism, or the provision or support of material resources for such action, or any contribution or claim for compensation” good commentators can wait a long time to see how these legal ambiguities are resolved, existing jus cogens theories and terrorism can support a terrorist exception for official immunity based on international law, (Bovard, J. (2004)).