It's an oversimplification. The embassy is not Ecuadorian soil. But the embassy itself is inviolable, and while that privilege is not absolute (it has been routinely broken by countries around the world), violating it is a big deal, which is why the UK hasn't simply hauled Assange out.

But no, Ecuador does not have a vote in whether Assange can be extradited. The UK and Sweden do because they are both parties to a treaty that says they do.

Yes, that's an urban legend.

An embassy is outside the jurisdiction of the host country, but is subject to the jurisdiction of the guest country.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomati...

But it is not part of the guest country. So Assange is still residing in England, not in Ecuador.

But still outside the UK judicial process.

That doesn't really mean anything. If Assange was arrested in the embassy, or, like, by a helicopter when he's out on the balcony, he would very much end up subject to the UK judicial process.

The thing protecting Assange right now isn't the judicial process, but rather the inviolability of embassies. The UK police are adhering to the norm that they can't enter the embassy without permission. That norm is routinely violated in other places, but I think everyone involved is comfortable with Assange's self-inflicted house arrest.

Assange cannot be arrested in the Ecuadorian embassy without the permission of the Ecuadorian ambassador. The British police can't enter the embassy without permission. The balcony makes no difference.

> That norm is routinely violated in other places

No, it isn't. That would severely damage relationships between the two countries. It's more than a "norm", it's a fundamental principle of diplomacy going back millennia.

It's a fundamental principle of diplomacy going back 55 years, and if you'd like to put money on my inability to cite you an example of a country not respecting the inviolability of a diplomatic mission on their own soil, I invite you to name a number.

At any rate: we agree: it's the Vienna Accords that keep the UK from simply lassoing Assange and hauling him out of the building. It has nothing to do with whether he's on Ecuadorian soil (he is not).

The Vienna Convention is only the current basis for international law. The concept of diplomatic immunity is at least as hold as history itself. Yes it gets violated occasionally, like nearly every law and custom we've ever created. That's generally treated as an act of war though. You're the only one in this thread that said anything about Ecuadorian soil.

I suggest you start reading earlier in this thread.

I suggest you look at usernames.

Right, outside of the UK judicial process.

Similar to "diplomatic immunity". It's not like Lethal Weapon where you can openly deal drugs and assassinate people and upon your imminent arrest, waive your diplomatic credentials and walk off.

Whilst subject to use and abuse, most countries have agreements that while certain officials may not be prosecuted (oftentimes, this is only "for offenses related to their official capacity") in the guest country, that they will be, in their home state.

Even general principles around arrest or detainment have "reasonable constraints" for self-defense, public safety or for the prevention of a serious criminal act/felony.