Been a long time since I posted here. Just curious on one thing. Are the TECO offices in cities like Vancouver, Montreal, Los Angeles, Chicago, wherever in North America they are, despite not being called “embassies” still a Taiwanese jurisdiction the same way that a real Embassy would be? And if so, could it be that only some countries with just a trade office taking up just one floor of a office building also a Taiwanese jurisdiction which local law enforcement has to respect the same as if it was a real embassy?
1 Like
as of 2018
Designated employees of TECRO, located in
Washington, D.C., who are accredited by the
American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), enjoy
full immunity from criminal jurisdiction, but
only enjoy immunity from civil jurisdiction
with respect to their official acts. They are
not subject to any form of arrest or detention.
Their residences may not be entered or
searched. Their property (including vehicles)
may not be entered or searched in matters
involving the exercise of criminal jurisdiction
or matters related to the exercise of civil
jurisdiction with respect to acts performed
within their official duties. They may not
be obliged to give evidence as a witness
in criminal, civil, administrative, or other
proceedings.
The head and deputy head of each TECO,
located outside Washington, D.C., who are
accredited by AIT, enjoy immunity from civil
and criminal jurisdiction only with respect
to their official acts. However, they may
not be arrested or detained pending trial,
except pursuant to a felony warrant. Their
residences and property are not inviolable,
and they may decline to give evidence as
a witness only on matters related to their
official duties.
2 Likes
They are pretty much treated in the same way as normal Embassies, they get Diplomatic Immunity and protection and so on. Likewise the foreign countries that maintain Offices under various names (AIT for the USA, Australian Office in Taipei, German Institute in Taipei etc) are accorded the same in Taiwan.
For all the nonsense that countries do not recognize the ROC they have had diplomatic relations protections for a long time. No government is going to station their employees in other countries to have trade immigration economics political consular officers not covered by normal diplomatic protections. After all they post career diplomats and immigration and other government officials to these missions.
4 Likes
Perhaps the OP means the actual land they stand on? As with many being essentially spots in a high rise, I doubt it.
I wonder if the foreign "embassies"here actually have that either? Also doubt it.
Foreign missions have been allowed to purchase land in Taiwan in the past. As for present many are in high rise buildings. AIT I believe own their own property.
‘Laws and Rules Regarding Extraterritoriality’ on integrity-legal.com: “There is a common misconception that Embassies and Consulates have extraterritoriality. As anecdotal evidence of this misconception, people will often say things like, ‘the US Embassy sits upon United States soil.’ For the most part, this is not the case as extraterritoriality is not conferred upon an Embassy or Consulate, but in some situations extraterritoriality may be created by Treaty”.
1 Like
This is more what I was learning towards. If one owns a condo, they dont really own land in the standard sense. they own a share. curious how this works with an embassy, I doubt any government wanting to own land would rent a room/floor in a highrise, they would just buy a proper peice of real estate without grey areas. but now I am curious how that might work in such instances.
Seems countries afraid of china would avoid officially owning land here, and that taiwan should welcome this in a self defense sense. Would lend to just a slightly better news headline down the road if things went down.
The definition of diplomatic premises is buildings or part of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for the purposes of the mission including the residence of the head of mission (VCDR 1961, Article 1(i)).
I wonder how a condo type building gets divided up if part of a floor is an embassy and the other 95% are say private businesses and taiwnaese land?
Seems complicated…even unlikely.
part of buildings and ancillary land should be diplomatic premises if the part is used for the purposes of the mission, irrespective of ownership.
So, essentially a share or percentage of a peice of land? this is what surprises me. Or, would surprise me. at least with countries that have a deeper than greed interest in Taiwan (ie. japan, usa etc. makes sense for Palau, Guatemala etc who arent really spending untold resources here). allowing such high structured importance to be farmed out into partial private ownerships seems, well, pointless. but that’s whay I am wondering. they might well be intentionally playing that china game. What happens when the building is demolished. be it natural or man made? do they then own say 10% of the foot print of the land? I guess that could still be symbolic, but realsiitiy seems useless. Still very curious!
are you wondering on the ownership of the land?
diplomatic immunity and privileges shouls be given to the part used for diplomatic mission, regardless of ownership, in any country. iiuc
Yes, curious about land ownership. I just dont see how it works, or could work, ina high rise when the embassy rents a room/section/floor etc.
I understand that the humans may be immune. but I am curious about the land title and the rights involved 
confusing to me!
if they just rent, they don’t own. without the property ownership, the room is still a premise of a foreign mission, so immunities are given. police cannot get in the room without a permission of the head of the foreign mission.
1 Like
This has been my assumption all along.
So, then, next step. if they “buy”. is it basically like any condo situation, in that they own a percent/share in the entire project? Do any diplomatic entities actually own entire titles outright here? I could see say the US doing it, but then I think they are so afraid of china it wouldnt surprise me if they worded it different to enable the CCP regimes stronghold on freedoms in such matters here. If anyone was to just do things normally, and disregard Chinese oppression, I would presume the USA would be the first and/or only one willing to just shrug off such issues. smaller/less hostile countries.i would think it’s more an issue of economy vs morality and they may not bother (I am legally Canadian, so come from that perspective of them not bothering).
If the later, I would be surprised I guess. the former not so much. Especially with non US entities.
Again, just curious. By own, I mean in some countries their embassy is considered, say, US soil. military establishments as well, but that would be too much for the ccp. embassies are different. I am curious if that exists here? I feel it would be ideal for Taiwanese protection (invasion would mean invading other nations territory) but feel most countries wont want to touch this with a 20 foot pole. either way, does it exist?
isn’t it just a US government thing? they would recognize an offence against their foreign mission as an offence against US, or who is born in the premise of US mission/base as a child of a us officer is recognized as US born, or like that?
what degree of immunities and privileges are given to what range of people and spaces should be decided by an agreement between the host country and the foreign country, regardless of the ownership of properties. iucc
in the case of taiwan
Regulations on Privileges and Immunities of Foreign Institutions in ROC and Their Personnels
i guess so, unless they specifically buy just the room or floor without the propotional land ownership.
The 16 acre (6.5 hectares) site for the American Institute in Taiwan located in the Nei-Hu District in Taipei was acquired on a long-term 99 year lease from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office.
1 Like
The UK consulate in Shanghai was like that when I had to go there for an emergency passport in 2013 - just part of a floor (or multiple floors - not sure) in a fairly typical office building. It’s apparently moved now, but it looks like some other consulates are located in the same building:
The building also hosts a number of foreign consulates or their delegate offices, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Ireland, the Philippines and the United States. The Consulate-General of the United States in Shanghai has some satellite offices in the Shanghai Centre.
I found the place amusingly unimpressive. It must have been quite grating for the staff (and fun for Chinese authorities) when they had to move from their previous location on the Bund.
Yes, this is how I assume it is. But literally just that, an assumption Am very interested how it actually is. As noted, I could assume only a country like the US might care in regards to Taiwan, and a lease seems a logical to continue their ambiguous methodology.
What I was wondering was if any "embassy"is sovereign land here in taiwan? seems most countries would be far too afraid of China to do that. but again, that’s an assumption. Some typical common conversation says some are, but I have never actually read into it. hence being curious if it’s true or BS. Especially within taiwans national borders.