Expert: US will not force Russia to sell the buildings of the former diplomatic institutions

The scandal closed in the U.S. the Russian dipuchrezhdeny booming. Russia, in which property is arrested two of the three buildings (the former Consulate General in San Francisco and sales offices in Washington, D.C.; office of trade mission in new York was rented), intends to sell to the American side — although, according to some, such a proposal previously announced by US Secretary of state Rex Tillerson. Moreover, the Russian authorities have repeatedly declared that will appeal to the U.S. Supreme court with the claim about violation of property rights to buildings. Why Washington may be the right building, bought a long time Moscow? What is the use of the premises for Russia? Do our country a chance to defend their case in an American court? This “MK” talked with an expert.

photo: kremlin.ru
The building is closed by the Americans from the Consulate General of Russia in San Francisco is still owned by Russia.

“Russian diplomats have repeatedly spoken on the topic of why our country does not want to lose their buildings in the United States, recalled in an interview with “MK” specialist in international law, Professor of European law at MGIMO Nikolai TOPORNIN. — First of all, they are owned by Russia, even if they are deprived of their diplomatic immunity, they can be used for any other purpose. These buildings are very valuable, their cost is tens of millions of dollars, they have a large area, favorable location, the buildings themselves are modern, of high quality. That is, from all points of view, this property is profitable and easy to implement, if given such a task. Meanwhile, they can rent out, including American companies. We are not in the country, which is urgently needed, relatively speaking, $ 50 million. Therefore, the position of the Russian foreign Ministry regarding the refusal to sell the building completely justified.

As for the American position, even to me as a lawyer it is unclear why, depriving the building have diplomatic immunity, the US needs to buy them. How are these two aspects?

Among some American politicians have a point of view that in this way, our countries will seek full diplomatic parity, including in terms of ownership is on foreign soil each of the States. It is no secret that the Russian buildings on American soil more than shtatovskih. They never were the objects of some special arrangements, just bought and used, but now they become tools to achieve global parity. Some other reason for wanting US to buy the Russian property, I do not see.

The American authorities there is no way to force Moscow to sell the building. And, I think, our foreign Minister make the right move, if in case you have any difficulties with the use of the building will go to court in the state in which it is located.

The fact that the restriction of the right of ownership in the US is possible only on the basis of the decision of the local judiciary. And even if the FBI or someone else imposes certain restrictions, for the state court to have the values not be. Diplomatic issues are the responsibility of the Federal government, and the ownership issues (non-diplomatic) — the local law of the individual state. Therefore, Russia has all chances to win the case in court, if the Americans could create obstacles for the use of the property”.

According to experts, search full parity between Russia and the United States is not the best path for bilateral relations: “it is Possible to compare, for example, whose diplomats more cars, etc. Then there might be a downgrading of diplomatic relations… there is No limit to some complexities in this area. But, in my opinion, all of it unhelpful and inconsistent with the spirit of U.S.-Russian relations. We must understand that the diplomatic conflict we have now gone further than in a real relationship (the degree of antagonism that in diplomacy, now the objective is not, despite sanctions etc.)”.

“Apparently, would take a consular agreement 1964 signed between the USSR and the USA, and to reconsider it. It may make sense to enter into a new agreement, which Denes all the parameters, including the purely technical, such as the number of machines, buildings, employees etc. it is Clear that such practices are actually not — this usually happens on a contractual basis, in a lighter mode. But what to do in current situation? In 2014, diplomatic relations between the countries fell to a record low level: I believe that even during the Cuban missile crisis, the situation was better. Then nobody was engaged in the reduction of diplomatic missions, etc., all communication channels were open — just to avoid full-scale conflict. Now the situation is unprecedented. Both countries need to put a point to take a pause to with a cool head to analyze the situation,” — concluded Mykola Topornin.

Sanctions . Chronicle of events

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *