R

eports of Australia'€™s espionage targeting Indonesia'€™s President, his wife and other senior figures followed on the heels of news on similar operations involving the United States. After the disclosure of up 200,000 classified documents to the press by the former contractor to the US'€™ National Security Agency (NSA), Edward Snowden, many countries are bracing for the next revelation on their own governments.

The disclosures have fueled debates over the delicate balance between national security and information privacy. The legal protection of the right to privacy in general varies around the world. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states '€œno one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his/her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his/her honor and reputation.'€

Both the US and Australia, are countries that support privacy in their national laws: the US Constitution and Australia Privacy Law, respectively.

Both states are parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the treaty that addresses privacy in article 17. Even though the US made the declaration that the provisions of article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing (do not form part of the domestic law of the nation), the US constitution still guarantees the right

The UN has highlighted that acts of espionage are illegal under a number of international treaties, including the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, the 1947 agreement between the UN and USA, and the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

The Vienna Convention codifies the rules under which diplomats and embassies do their work. The rules themselves go back, in customary international law, to the 16th century.

The 1961 Vienna Convention has been ratified by the US and Australia. Indeed the US relied successfully on that Convention in the International Court of Justice, when its own diplomats and Embassy were interfered with by Iran in 1979. It is in the national interest of the US to ensure that this Convention is respected, without question, and as a matter of routine, to ensure protection for its own missions abroad.

The Snowden/Der Spiegel allegations suggest that listening devices were placed in the EU Mission in Washington, without consent, which would be a blatant breach of Article 22 of the Vienna Convention. The NSA hacked into the computer system of the EU missions, which would be a clear breach of two other articles in the Convention.

Article 22 of the Convention states that '€œThe premises of the [diplomatic] mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of mission'€. '€œThe receiving state is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission from any intrusion [...]'€

Further, article 24 of the Convention says the '€œarchives and documents of the mission shall be inviolable'€.

However some international law scholars argue that espionage does not violate the Convention. One scholar said that spying per say was not expressly prohibited by international law. Embassy officials and personnel do not have a completely unfettered right to engage in activities that may harm the host country.

It is true that the wording of the Vienna Convention can be interpreted that spying is not expressly prohibited by the Convention, and limited only to the protection and conduct of embassies. But one should also consider that the Convention also states that treaties are to be interpreted '€œin good faith'€ according to the '€œordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.'€

International legal experts also often invoke the '€œprinciple of maximum effectiveness,'€ which interprets treaty language as having the fullest force and effect possible to establish obligations between the parties.

The spying actions of the US and Australia, on the grounds of protecting state interests, is not new in the realism theory in international relations, the theory that focuses mainly on national interests and the anarchic world of power balance competition.

To achieve relative gain and the position of zero-sum-game in international cooperation, information is crucial to winning negotiations. It can be done through espionage, a measure that can be acknowledged as '€œlegal'€ to protect national interests.

The question is: Are we going to foster a peaceful world with espionage to the head of state of other countries? With no trust among countries, world peace is unlikely.

The US and Australia know this. But, still, they prefer to exercise their '€œrational choice'€ of conducting spying activities. Civilized nations should act in mutual trust, respect and seek peace. Any actions identified to be against peaceful civilization should be discontinued as it harms international harmony.

While countries that feel that they are '€œvictims'€ of spying like Indonesia can demand answers from Australia, these countries also need to look at their national legal positions, whether they have addressed the privacy issues in the country as requested by the international standard. Consistency is vital in creating respect among nations.

The door is still open for the international courts. No one party to a treaty can impose its particular interpretation of the treaty upon the other parties. International tribunals and arbiters are often called upon to resolve substantial disputes over treaty interpretations.

Furthermore, surveillance technology has advanced a great deal since 1961 when the Convention was issued. A new judgment from the International Court in this case would re-establish and modernize the norms of behavior that the democratic world would want all countries to respect in the future, notably emerging powers like China.

The writer is a lecturer of International Law and Relations in a university in Jakarta, and consultant for human rights and gender equality.