Legal and Non-Legal Responses (HSC SSCE Legal Studies): Revision Notes
Legal and Non-Legal Responses
The Julian Assange case demonstrates how both legal mechanisms and non-legal responses interact when an individual comes into conflict with multiple states. Understanding these responses helps illustrate how law operates in complex international situations involving competing interests and jurisdictions.
Legal responses
Legal responses to the Assange case involve multiple countries and legal frameworks. These responses highlight tensions between national sovereignty, international law, and individual rights.
Political asylum
Political asylum provides protection to individuals who face persecution in their home country by allowing them to seek refuge in another nation. Julian Assange sought and received political asylum from Ecuador in June 2012, taking refuge in Ecuador's London embassy.
Key principle: Embassies are legally considered part of the country they represent, not the host nation. Therefore, the Ecuadorian Embassy in London is technically Ecuadorian territory, not British territory.
Historical precedent exists for embassy asylum. Cardinal Joszef Mindszenty spent years (from 1956 to 1971) in the US Embassy in Budapest after receiving a life sentence in Hungary for treason and conspiracy against the communist government. He sought asylum during the 1956 Soviet invasion and represents one of the most famous political asylum cases since World War II. This demonstrates that embassy asylum, while controversial, is not unprecedented under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
The Cardinal Mindszenty case illustrates that extended embassy asylum, though unusual, has historical precedent in international relations. His 15-year stay in the US Embassy demonstrates that such situations can persist for extended periods when diplomatic tensions remain unresolved.
Vienna Convention 1961
Assange's legal team used the Vienna Convention 1961 as the basis for his right to remain in the Ecuadorian Embassy. This international treaty protects diplomatic premises from interference by host nations. Under this convention, British authorities cannot enter the Ecuadorian Embassy without permission.
The UK initially responded to this situation by maintaining a -hour police presence outside the embassy from 2012 to August 2015, with the stated intention of arresting Assange if he stepped onto British soil. This surveillance ended in August 2015 as it was deemed "no longer proportionate".
Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 (UK)
This legislation potentially gave the British Government power to withdraw recognition from diplomatic premises. The Act's key provisions include:
- Land is only considered diplomatic premises if the Secretary of State has accepted or consented to its use for that purpose
- The Secretary of State can withdraw consent if a state stops using land for diplomatic purposes
- Any withdrawal of consent must be "permissible under international law"
- The Secretary of State must consider public safety, national security, and town planning when making such decisions
This created a legal dilemma for the UK Government: respecting international diplomatic law versus responding to the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) from Sweden. The government had to balance its obligations under the Vienna Convention against its commitments to European legal cooperation.
December 2015 agreement
A significant development occurred in December 2015 when Ecuador and Sweden reached a bilateral agreement allowing Swedish prosecutors to interview Assange at the embassy in London. This agreement:
- Referred specifically to Assange and Sweden's intention to question him
- Required formal approval from both countries
- Ensured implementation of national legislation and international law principles, particularly regarding human rights
- Required UK cooperation for legal assistance
This represented a breakthrough after Assange had spent over three years in the embassy. The agreement demonstrated diplomatic negotiation as a means of resolving complex jurisdictional issues, showing that legal deadlocks can sometimes be overcome through bilateral cooperation.
United States espionage law
Parallel to the Swedish investigation, the United States allegedly convened a grand jury to investigate possible violations of federal criminal law by Assange. The investigation focused on "conspiracy to communicate or transmit national defense information in violation of the Espionage Act".
Espionage Act 1917 (US)
The Espionage Act 1917 was introduced to protect the United States from individuals who might undermine the government's ability to defend its territory. President Woodrow Wilson, speaking in December 1915, argued for this legislation to address citizens who:
- "Poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life"
- Sought to bring government authority "into contempt"
- Attempted to "destroy our industries"
- Worked to "debase our politics to the uses of foreign intrigue"
Wilson described such individuals as "creatures of passion, disloyalty, and anarchy" that "must be crushed out". The Act has been challenged and amended since 1917 but remains a key tool for prosecuting individuals accused of espionage.
The language used by President Wilson reflects the heightened national security concerns during World War I. This historical context is important for understanding the Act's original purpose, though its application has evolved significantly since 1917.
Pentagon Papers case: New York Times Co. v United States (1971)
The most famous application of the Espionage Act occurred in 1971 when the US Government attempted to prosecute Daniel Ellsberg for leaking classified documents known as the Pentagon Papers. These documents revealed that:
- The US Government knew early on that the Vietnam War could not be won
- Continuing the war would result in far more casualties than publicly admitted
- The Johnson Administration "systematically lied" to both the public and Congress about matters of "transcendent national interest"
Ellsberg obtained the Pentagon Papers and provided them to New York Times correspondent Neil Sheehan, who broke his promise of confidentiality and wrote a major story. Ellsberg subsequently sent copies to other newspapers.
Landmark Case: New York Times Co. v United States (1971)
The US Government sought to prevent publication of the Pentagon Papers through a prior restraint injunction, arguing that publication would harm national security.
The Court's Decision: In New York Times Co. v United States ( US ), the Supreme Court ruled that the press had the right to publish the papers. This ruling is considered one of the "modern pillars" of First Amendment rights relating to freedom of the press.
Legal Significance: The case established that the government bears a heavy burden to justify prior restraint of publication. The presumption favors press freedom, and national security concerns alone are insufficient to prevent publication of information the public has a right to know.
The parallel between Ellsberg and Assange is striking: both obtained classified information through intermediaries (Ellsberg through contacts, Assange through Chelsea Manning) and both disseminated it widely. However, Ellsberg was not ultimately convicted of espionage, while Assange faces potential charges under the same Act.
Edward Snowden case (2013)
Another high-profile whistle-blower case demonstrates the ongoing application of espionage law. Edward Snowden revealed secret documents to the public in 2013 in a manner similar to Assange. The US Government:
- Charged Snowden on two counts of breaching the Espionage Act
- Cancelled his passport in June 2013 while he was travelling to Ecuador (possibly to seek asylum)
- Left him stranded in the transit area of Moscow airport
Russia subsequently granted Snowden asylum, allowing him to leave the airport. This case shows that the legal issues Assange faces are not unique but part of a broader tension between government secrecy and transparency.
The Snowden case demonstrates how modern technology has transformed whistle-blowing. Digital documents can be copied and distributed instantly across borders, making it far more difficult for governments to contain information leaks compared to the pre-digital era of the Pentagon Papers.
Exam guidance: Analysing legal responses
When analysing legal responses in the Assange case, consider:
- Effectiveness: Did the legal mechanism achieve its intended purpose? Political asylum protected Assange but confined him for years.
- Competing legal frameworks: How do different legal systems (UK, Swedish, US, international law) interact?
- Balance of rights: Individual rights to asylum versus state rights to prosecute alleged offences
- Precedent: How do historical cases like the Pentagon Papers inform current interpretations?
Non-legal responses
Non-legal responses operate outside formal legal mechanisms but significantly influence public opinion, political pressure, and ultimately legal outcomes.
Media coverage
Media responses shaped public understanding and discourse about the Assange case:
Television coverage:
- The Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) provided extensive coverage of developments in the case
- The current affairs programme Four Corners broadcast a special episode on 12 August 2012 examining the case in detail
- Channel Ten produced and broadcast the telemovie Underground: The Julian Assange Story in 2012, which traced Assange's early life and activism
Media coverage serves multiple functions:
- Informing the public about complex legal issues
- Generating debate about government secrecy and transparency
- Maintaining pressure on governments to act
- Humanising the individuals involved in the case
Media coverage plays a crucial role in cases involving government secrecy by creating alternative narratives to official government positions. Television documentaries and dramatizations can reach audiences who might not engage with traditional news reporting, broadening public awareness and debate.
Political responses
Assange attempted to engage directly with the Australian political system. In 2012, he announced his candidacy for the Australian Senate in the 2013 federal election. The WikiLeaks Party was formed to support this campaign and fielded several candidates.
The political campaign:
- Failed to secure any seats (none of the candidates received sufficient votes)
- Raised questions about potential disqualification due to Assange's relationship with Ecuador
- Demonstrated an attempt to use democratic processes to influence policy
- Brought additional media attention to the case
Political engagement represents an alternative pathway to achieving objectives when legal routes are blocked or uncertain.
Assange's decision to run for political office while confined to an embassy demonstrates the interconnection between legal and political strategies. Although unsuccessful, the campaign generated additional publicity and framed his situation as a matter of public interest rather than simply a legal matter.
Community support
Grassroots community responses emerged to support Assange:
Internet-based support groups:
- Attempted to raise public awareness of Assange's situation
- Encouraged support through social media campaigns
- Coordinated donations to fund Assange's living expenses and legal costs
- Spread information about the case to wider audiences
Community support mechanisms:
- Provide financial resources for extended legal battles
- Generate public pressure on governments
- Create networks of solidarity
- Challenge dominant narratives in mainstream media
These non-legal responses demonstrate how individuals and groups can mobilise to influence outcomes in cases involving state power, even when formal legal avenues are limited.
The combination of media attention, political engagement, and community support creates a multi-dimensional strategy for influencing legal outcomes. While these non-legal responses cannot directly change legal decisions, they can shape the political environment in which legal decisions are made and enforced.
Exam guidance: Evaluating non-legal responses
When evaluating non-legal responses, consider:
- Effectiveness: Did media coverage, political action, or community support change outcomes?
- Limitations: What can non-legal responses achieve that legal responses cannot, and vice versa?
- Interaction with legal responses: How do public campaigns influence legal decision-making?
- Democratic participation: What role should public opinion play in cases involving alleged criminal activity?
Comparative analysis: Ellsberg, Assange, and Snowden
Understanding the Assange case requires comparing it with similar cases:
| Aspect | Daniel Ellsberg (1971) | Julian Assange (2010-present) | Edward Snowden (2013) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Documents leaked | Pentagon Papers (Vietnam War) | US diplomatic cables, military documents | NSA surveillance programmes |
| Source | Own access + contacts | Chelsea Manning | Own access as NSA contractor |
| Distribution method | Directly to newspapers | WikiLeaks platform | Journalists (Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras) |
| Legal charges | Espionage Act (charges dropped) | Potential Espionage Act charges (US), sexual assault allegations (Sweden) | Two counts under Espionage Act |
| Outcome | Not convicted; Supreme Court protected press freedom | Years in embassy asylum; arrested 2019 when Ecuador revoked asylum | Asylum in Russia; passport cancelled |
Key similarities:
- All involved classified government information
- All claimed to act in public interest
- All faced potential prosecution under espionage legislation
- All generated intense public debate about government secrecy
Key differences:
- Ellsberg's case strengthened First Amendment protections; Assange and Snowden face harsher treatment
- Technology enabled Assange and Snowden to distribute far more documents more widely
- International dimensions complicated Assange's case (multiple jurisdictions)
This comparison reveals evolving tensions between state security and public transparency in the digital age. The different outcomes suggest that government approaches to whistle-blowing have become more aggressive since the Pentagon Papers era, possibly because digital technology makes leaks larger in scale and harder to control.
Key Points to Remember:
-
Political asylum protected Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy under the Vienna Convention 1961, though the UK's Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 theoretically allowed withdrawal of recognition
-
The Espionage Act 1917 (US) provides the legal basis for potential charges against Assange, though the Pentagon Papers case established important press freedom protections
-
The December 2015 agreement between Ecuador and Sweden allowed Swedish prosecutors to interview Assange at the embassy, representing a diplomatic breakthrough
-
Non-legal responses including media coverage, political engagement (WikiLeaks Party), and community support campaigns significantly influenced public discourse and pressure on governments
-
Comparative cases (Daniel Ellsberg, Edward Snowden) demonstrate that Assange's situation reflects broader tensions between government secrecy and transparency in democratic societies
-
The interaction between legal and non-legal responses shows how law operates within broader political and social contexts, with each type of response reinforcing or constraining the other