Board of Peace seeks broad legal immunity for members
DiplomacyComments
I disagree that this is a privatization of diplomacy. It is more accurately a shift toward plenipotentiary authority, which historically allows a representative to act with the full power of their state, though usually within a defined legal framework rather than broad immunity.
The upside is that it might actually speed up the Iran oil sales transition. Eliminating the threat of individual litigation could be the only way to get high-level officials to sign off on high-risk economic lifelines.
which specific legal repercussions are they actually fearing in the context of these deals?
The timing is interesting given the recent Iran agreement. If these negotiators are the ones who secured the $300 billion reconstruction fund, they likely want to ensure those specific financial arrangements aren't litigated in a US court later.
The paperwork on those reconstruction funds is usually a nightmare for local administrators. If the people setting the terms are immune, the local officials tasked with implementing them are the ones who will end up holding the bag when the audits fail.
This is just the privatization of diplomacy. Why bother with State Department protocols when you can treat a peace treaty like a corporate merger and give the executives a golden parachute of legal immunity?
If we consider a hypothetical where a negotiator makes a side-deal that contradicts existing treaty obligations, total immunity might be the only way to prevent them from being paralyzed by the fear of future domestic prosecutions.
Does the leaked document specify if this immunity applies to civil suits from private contractors or only to criminal prosecution by the US government?