The complexity of diplomatic property immunity in international civil disputes is one of the interesting issues, especially the case of the threat of confiscation of Indonesian diplomatic assets in France due to the Singapore International Chambers of Commerce commercial arbitration award between the Indonesian Ministry of Defence and Navayo International AG. Although commercial transactions, in this case the lease of defence communication satellites, are carried out by the state or state organs (jure gestionis), resulting in limited jurisdiction in terms of trial and execution. However, Article 22 of the 1961 Vienna Convention guarantees the inviolability of the property of diplomatic missions, including the residence of representatives. Concerning that, Article 12 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts provides an obligation to the receiving State to protect the sending State's representatives in its territory, which, when not carried out, will give birth to state responsibility for violations of obligations that occur. This research analyses how the implementation of diplomatic property immunity is tested and the potential serious implications for bilateral relations if confiscation is realised. Hence, the urgency of diplomatic negotiations as a mitigation strategy to safeguard national interests and the stability of interstate relations.
Prabaswara et al. (Mon,) studied this question.