Read on Twitter
Having now read the article in full, this summary is deeply misleading. A thread 1/ https://twitter.com/hui_echo/status/1305841638745358336">https://twitter.com/hui_echo/...
The article refers to numerous complaints by John Zhang - a policy advisor to a NSW MP - that the Australian authorities have breached PIL regarding ambassadorial and consular correspondence. 2/
The article then goes into detail about how *Zhang& #39;s* electronic devices were searched on numerous occasions. 3/
And yet the article continues: "Mr Zhang argues the search warrants may have been unlawful because the communications of diplomatic officials and their families are "inviolable" to Australian authorities under Australian and international law." 4/
We can safely assume that Zhang is *not* arguing that he is himself a member of a PRC diplomatic or consular mission. So what does that leave? 5/
Zhang& #39;s messages *to* the diplomatic missions plainly do not emanate *from* any PRC diplomatic mission. Nor does it appear that they were obtained from the archives of any PRC diplomatic mission (which would be a clear breach of PIL on mission inviolability). 6/
Elieen Denza& #39;s commentary on the VCDR and the process that led to its conclusion strongly suggests that "official correspondence" is confined to correspondence between the mission and other authorities of the *sending State* (in this case the PRC). 7/
(Denza, who used to advise the UK FCO, is acknowledged as an authority on diplomatic and consular relations.) 8/
Again, I have to assume that Zhang - the NSW Parliamentary staffer - is *not* arguing that he was acting in any official capacity *on behalf of the PRC*. 9/
In the circumstances, I must confess I find Zhang& #39;s argument - if the news article describes it correctly - to be deeply baffling. 10/10
h/t @Rory_Medcalf, who clued me in to this news piece
