> The Geneva Convention dictates who gets diplomatic immunity, and that is based around your job description and rank.
from what I know, this is not correct.
if the US said he's a diplomat or has diplomatic immunity and/or was given that by the US and notified the UK, then he has immunity and it is up to the US and UK to resolve their grievances through diplomatic channels.
for example, many family members of diplomats and government officials have such status in host countries
> many family members of diplomats and government officials
Point still remains. They will be family members of people with suitable job description and rank.
As an extreme example, nobody seriously expects a janitor at an embassy to be given diplomatic immunity.
There are a large numebr of roles at an embassy that simply do not require diplomatic immunity. And based on the media reports, it seems this person was in one of those roles that did not require diplomatic immunity.
like I said, this seems to be handled just as I thought, through the UK putting pressure on the US to act according to their wishes
it's really up to the US to classify what staffers are under immunity, that's just how it goes. it may not be right or moral but that's part of what allows them to station staff in other countries without fear of them being compromised and so on.
> based on the media reports, it seems this person was in one of those roles that did not require diplomatic immunity.
if you could give a reference to this, that'd be great. remember though, it doesn't have to be a "diplomat" role. just being in an official role or attached to such, or being family of such person is enough in most cases.
from what I know, this is not correct.
if the US said he's a diplomat or has diplomatic immunity and/or was given that by the US and notified the UK, then he has immunity and it is up to the US and UK to resolve their grievances through diplomatic channels.
for example, many family members of diplomats and government officials have such status in host countries