Protection of Diplomats and Diplomatic facilities: a receiving state's responsibility

Lt. Col. Marttala's presentation on the rules of tactical engagement to our class today brought up the issue of a US military installation receiving potentially harassing small-arms fire from some apartment blocks just outside of the compound. I asked if host countries for military forces have the same obligation under international law to protect the 'guest' forces, as is the case for diplomatic facilities and personnel. Lt. Col. Marttala responded that this depends on the type of agreement between the US and host governments. I'd like to comment more fully on the obligations of receiving states with regard to foreign diplomats and diplomatic facilities (embassies, consulates, etc), since it's really interesting and seldom discussed.

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 provides that receiving states have the responsibility to protect diplomats and missions from all forms of "intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission orimpairment of its dignity." (Art. 22(2)) In the United States, Missions are protected by the US Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, as are International Organizations. (like the World Bank, IMF, UN, OAS, IADB, etc)

The history of diplomatic immunity is fairly interesting, but the gist of it is to allow states to conduct relations in an unimpeded fashion. (Vienna Convention, Preamble, 'Believing')

These rules are rarely violated by states, even in the case of war and other inter-state unpleasantness: diplomats are asked to shutter their gates and leave. However, the 1979 seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran during the Iranian Revolution was a notable exception. More than 60 US diplomats and staff were held for 444 days by the new Iranian regime. (A few people were released for political and medical reasons.) In late 1979, during what we now call the Hostage Crisis, the US filed a complaint with the International Court of Justice against Iran for having violated the Vienna Convention and other international instruments and customs. The ICJ ruled in favour of the US and ordered Iran to pay reparations. (The decision is available here.) Needless to say, all States were shocked by this action on the part of the Iranian government, and it cost the Iranians serious credibility-- no one will do business with you if you don't play by the rules that you also benefit from. (I'd venture to guess that Iranian diplomats to the US were withdrawn by Iran at the time of the Revolution, or were simply asked to leave by the US government- this is allowed under the Convention and is the proper course of action.)