CRITIQUE OF THE THEORY OF EXTRATERRITORIALITY IN MODERN DIPLOMATIC PRACTICE

Abstract

The development of international relations has strengthened the role of diplomatic relations as an essential instrument for maintaining communication and cooperation among states. To ensure the effective performance of diplomatic functions, diplomats are granted immunity and privileges under international law. One of the traditional theories underlying diplomatic immunity is the theory of extraterritoriality, which assumes that diplomats and embassy premises are beyond the jurisdiction of the receiving state. However, the theory has increasingly been criticized in modern diplomatic practice due to its inconsistency with the principle of state sovereignty and contemporary developments in international law. This study aims to analyze the concept of the theory of extraterritoriality, examine criticisms of its application in modern diplomatic practice, and evaluate its relevance within the current framework of international law. This research employs a normative legal method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The study relies on primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials collected through library research and analyzed using a descriptive qualitative method. The findings indicate that although the theory of extraterritoriality played a significant historical role in shaping diplomatic immunity, its relevance has diminished in contemporary international law. Modern diplomatic immunity is primarily justified by the principle of functional necessity as embodied in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Furthermore, the theory is criticized for potentially facilitating abuses of diplomatic immunity and creating challenges for law enforcement within the receiving state. Consequently, contemporary international law favors a functional approach that balances diplomatic protection with respect for state sovereignty.