The Future of Diplomatic Asylum in Latin America

Authors

• Regina Romero-Garza, Southern Methodist University, Dedman School of Law

Abstract

Latin American Countries (“LAMC”) maintain a distinct set of diplomatic practices that differ from those commonly observed around the world. One observable distinction is the doctrine of diplomatic asylum, which allows political refugees of other countries to seek asylum in foreign embassies. The concept of diplomatic asylum is seldom recognized outside of the Latin American region, leaving LAMC as one of the few that recognize and use this locally recognized right. Various cases have arisen over the years involving disputes between the countries receiving the refugee (receiving state) and the country that wants the refugee in their custody (territorial state). Most recently, Mexico and Ecuador have filed suit against each other in the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”), asking for a ruling on the status of the ex-vice-president of Ecuador, Jorge David Glas Espinel (“Mr. Glas”). Mr. Glas is wanted by Ecuador on corruption charges and stormed the Mexican embassy, where he was seeking diplomatic asylum. The feasibility and legitimacy of diplomatic asylum often depend on how effectively the home country confronts and prosecutes corruption within its own political system. The extent to which a state is recognized by other states on the international stage reflects its position in the international sphere. Thus, the more control a state has over its territory, the higher the likelihood of recognition by other states. Corruption negatively impacts a country’s standing as an international power through its destructive effects on both its economy and public trust of the government. Mexico and Ecuador, both countries with long-standing issues of political dishonesty, have approached corruption in distinctive ways. Ecuador’s declining tolerance of corruption among government officials has enhanced its relations with other countries. To lower corruption levels, the country focused on addressing the needs of the lower socioeconomic classes to decrease homicide rates and improve trust in the government. Bringing Mr. Glas in front of

the Ecuadorian judiciary, in line with their recent history of bringing corrupt officials to justice, is an important element of their domestic judiciary policies. On the other hand, Mexico has failed for decades to bring corruption levels down. The economic and reputational decline of Mexico has been attributed to the shortcomings of various presidents, which have led to distrust in the country’s capabilities and a decline in its international negotiating powers. The ruling of the ICJ in Mexico v. Ecuador will not only shape future diplomatic relations between the two nations but will also influence the current conceptions of diplomatic asylum in Latin America. Past ICJ rulings involving diplomatic asylum have, at times, contributed to diplomatic tension in the region involving multiple LAMC. The ICJ’s ruling will inherently validate the respective country’s practices: it will either endorse Ecuador’s stringent anti-corruption policies or condone Mexico’s political failure. Moreover, a decision favoring Ecuador has the power to adversely affect Mexico’s international standing.

Recommended Citation

Regina Romero-Garza, Case Note, The Future of Diplomatic Asylum in Latin America, ILRA Student Forum (2025)
https://doi.org/10.25172/ilrasf.4.1.3