CHIANG MAI, Thailand -- After so much controversy surrounding two recent asylum incidents in Beijing, a change of focus may be in order -- from the emotional to the legal dimension. We should begin with the reminder that asylum and inviolability issues, in general, are extremely complicated and can never be analyzed in terms of black and white. We are confronted with an endless variety of circumstances, specific national policies or lack of them, academic bibliographies, ample jurisprudence or litigation with merely the bare fundamentals. Internationally accepted texts provide the necessary legal framework.

Without claiming any wisdom leading to a final verdict in these tricky matters, let's leave aside for the moment the heavily emotional positions taken by the recent protagonists (China, Japan, South Korea), and concentrate on the nuances of applicable basic legislation, the protagonists' response to them and their interpretation by analysts.

First, we should bear in mind that when we talk about the guarantees of the "Vienna convention," we should consider two essential texts, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 (hereafter referred to as A) and the Vienna Convention on Consular Affairs of 1963 (referred to as B).