Why isn&#39;t Anne Sacoolas prosecuted in the US? The one fact about the Vienna Convention known by everyone is that diplomats are not subject to the law of the country to which they are sent. But they are subject to the law of their own country. Now setting-aside the question of whether or not Anne Sacoolas has diplomatic immunity (which is already covered here), surely she can be prosecuted in the US, assuming that causing death by dangerous driving is an offence there? Is the impediment that it is an offence under (most) state law, and she was not in any US state?
Anne Sacoolas is the wife of Jonathon Sacoolas, a CIA operative working at the United States Air Force listening station at RAF Croughton. The report that Jonathan Sacoolas is a CIA officer (and his wife, Anne Sacoolasa, former CIA officer) is based on the report from The Guardian, 2020-02-09. That Jonathan Sacoolas doesn't work for the NSA is based on a NSA statement published by the Washington Examiner, 2019-10-11. Neither she, nor her husband, had diplomatic immunity based on the Vienna Convention Diplomatic Relations, 1961 nor by the Vienna Convention Consular Relations, 1963. Her husband had diplomatic immunity based on the 1995 agreement between the US and the UK for US employees (but not spouses) at RAF Croughton, treating him as part of the US embassy. Statement 2019-10-21: The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab) To my knowledge, the exact text of the 1995 agreement has never been made public, so it not known under which (if any) conditions spouses were previously covered by this a agreement. On 22 July 2020, the UK and US governments amended the arrangement to remove immunity from criminal prosecution for the family of US staff. In this affair, the United States has simply chosen to ignore the criminal actions of one of it's citizens committed on foreign soil.
There is no internationally-enforceable mechanism regarding how other people call something, or what alphabet can be uses to write a word. I can legally call that country between Bangladesh and Thailand "Burma" or "Myanmar", I can call Україна Ukraine, The Ukraine, or Ukrainia (the latter seems to be old-fashioned, but it's still legal). As a diplomatic matter, the US government seems to have settled on certain designations so that it uses the version "Myanmar" for official purposes although it includes "(Burma)" in popular communications (State Department travel advisories). If it wanted to, the US could call The Republic of North Macedonia by the name "Macedonia", though there would be political protests. The EU, NATO, UN etc. can likewise set its own rules regarding names of countries. There are many additional complications in the case of countries that are not universally / widely recognized, such as Trasnistria and the Republic of Somaliland. If the president of the Republic of Somaliland sought to address the UN, his problem would not be what people would call his country, it is that the Republic of Somaliland is not "recognized" by the UN (it has no official status), or anyone else. The question of "sameness" of language is a prominent feature of nationalist movements. Claims are made that Flemish and Dutch are "the same" or "different", likewise Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian, Montenegrin; Dari, Farsi and Tajik. Thus there is no real chance of litigating the matter of whether Moldovan and Romanian are the "same language" and which name should be used. But if the EU parliament wants to, it could rule that the language of Moldova is to be called "Romanian", or "Moldovan".
You have a couple major misconceptions about US law. First, crimes against the person are generally punished at the state level. States are not restricted to any sort of enumerated powers, and can pass any law they want to promote the general welfare unless there's a reason they can't. This is called the "general police power," and it lets them make everything from contract law to laws against murder. The federal government has to justify what gives it the authority to pass a law, and cities and counties have to justify their authority with state law or a state constitution, but a state government never has to preemptively justify why they have the authority to pass a law. States are especially not limited to powers listed in the federal constitution. The US Constitution sets up the federal government. State governments are set up by state constitutions, and derive their authority directly from the consent of the people of the state exercising their right to democratic self-determination. The only powers the US Constitution gives to states are minor technical powers involving state-federal relations (e.g. deciding how their presidential electors are appointed). But as I said, they aren't generally limited to any sort of enumerated powers by their state constitution either. Even the federal government isn't limited to "protecting rights listed in amendments." That's very little of what it does, in fact. Congress has powers listed (for the most part) in Article I and Article IV. It can pass laws banning murder in DC because Article I lets it exercise exclusive jurisdiction (meaning general police power) over DC and over federal enclaves. Article IV lets it exercise general police power over US territories, and pass laws regarding other federal property (I think it has a general police power there too, at least according to current law). The Necessary and Proper clause gives Congress the power to protect its own operations by, for instance, criminalizing the murder of a federal judge. Etc. Where there isn't a clear thing that lets the feds regulate something, they can probably get away with cramming "in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce" in the law, secure in the knowledge that practically everything affects interstate commerce. I'm not sure where you got the idea that laws are passed exclusively to enforce rights protected by the Constitution. They are not. They are not passed primarily for that purpose. Such laws do exist (e.g. deprivation of rights under color of law, which was passed pursuant to the 14th Amendment), but they're protecting you from government infringement of that right.
In general the act must be a crime in both countries for an extradition to proceed, but the extradition treaty between countries A and B likely has more specific provisions as well. C's involvement is generally limited to consular assistance, but there have been instances where countries have offered to incarcerate their citizens for convictions in other countries. The country of citizenship certainly does not have priority to extradite or try its citizens, and it is unlikely that the country seeking to prosecute would have much interest in another country taking over the case.
This is tied up in the concept of sovereignty - nation states have control over their territories and citizens and they recognise the right of other nation states to do likewise. The USA, China (Hong Kong) and Panama are all sovereign states, they each decide what the law is within their own territory and they can’t tell each other what to do; they can ask, however, that’s what diplomats do. If a HK domiciled company provides HK based servers then they have to comply with HK law irrespective of where their customers are located. The USA could pass a law requiring US companies (like ISPs) to keep logs of traffic to and from HK servers but they cannot force a HK company to do anything, unless and until it operates in a place where the US has jurisdiction which means both the right and the ability to enforce their law.
Diplomatic immunity means that diplomats are immune from prosecution in their host countries. It does not necessarily mean that they can be sued or prosecuted in their home country. Whether the diplomat is subject to the home country's laws and courts is up to the home country. In most cases, it seems, diplomats can escape prosecution altogether by reason of their immunity. If the home country wishes to dissociate itself from the diplomat's actions, it can waive diplomatic immunity to enable prosecution in the host country's courts. There are some interesting examples, some of which touch on your question, in the Wikipedia article on diplomatic immunity. With respect to your example of an apartment lease, it appears that a diplomat might not actually be immune, since the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 provides for some exceptions to immunity, including A real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission Interestingly, the Wikipedia article lists two prosecutions under home-country legal systems that both involve Romania, and both involve fatal accidents in which the driver had been drinking alcohol. (In one case, Romania was the sending state, and in the other, it was the receiving state.) In one case, the driver was an American Marine assigned to guard the US embassy. He was tried in a court martial, presumably under the US military code, which no doubt penalizes drunk driving, but that's just a guess. The court may well have applied Romanian law. In the other case, Romania apparently prosecuted its chargé d'affaires in Singapore after a fatal automobile accident. It's not clear whether he was charged under the Romanian or Singaporean law.
Is it true that there has never been a single case It is tough to prove a negative. I am not going to completely parse the quote but please notice that the quote states "we couldn't find" and concludes that "it doesn't happen." Given these two pieces of information I do not conclude that there has never been a single case. Rather I conclude that the speaker in your quote could not find a case therefore he concluded that there has never been a single case. It's largely impossible to determine that there has never been a single such case. We can search published opinions but that barely scratches the surface of lawsuits that are filed. It is entirely possible that someone filed a suit which was quickly dismissed. The Act provides a defense, it does not bar lawsuits. Someone might get sick from food and not know where the food came from so they sue the provider. If this happens the provider may raise the Emerson Act as a defense and escape liability to the extent applicable. But again, we will never know because it's impossible to examine every lawsuit filed in this country.
This is an interesting hypothetical. In this scenario, Country Z does not have jurisdiction to enforce such a law on foreign nationals, unless Country Z has an extradition treaty with Country A. Generally, however, these types of laws would never be enforced as they are egregious abuses of government, and could possibly be elevated to the International Court of Justice if Country Z actually charges any individuals with such a crime. In these instances, however, war is a very unlikely scenario, since this would often be expensive and any escalation would most likely be small skirmishes that would lead to an eventual ceasefire, with the encouragement of the international community, without the involvement of UN Peacekeeping troops.