London, UK – August 20, 2025

An attack on the Egyptian embassy in The Hague, the Netherlands, yesterday has triggered a diplomatic incident and raised questions about the responsibilities of host countries under international law. The incident, where demonstrators reportedly broke into and damaged the embassy, led to a tense phone call between the foreign ministers of both countries. The event highlights a disparity in how different European nations, particularly the UK, address protest-related crimes at diplomatic missions.

International Law and Diplomatic Inviolability

International law, as codified by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, is explicit on the protection of diplomatic missions. Article 22 states that the premises of a mission are inviolable, meaning that authorities of the host state, in this case, the Netherlands, may not enter without the head of the mission’s consent. Crucially, the host country has a “special duty” to take all “appropriate steps” to protect the embassy from any “intrusion or damage” and to prevent any disturbance or impairment of its dignity.

The attack on the Egyptian embassy, which resulted in protesters briefly taking control of the building, represents a significant breach of this international legal obligation.

The Dutch Response and Egyptian Demand

Following the attack, Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty expressed “deep dissatisfaction” to his Dutch counterpart, Caspar Veldkamp. During the phone call, Abdelatty demanded that the Netherlands provide increased security for the diplomatic mission and fulfill its duty to prevent a recurrence of such events.

The Dutch Foreign Minister, for his part, expressed “deep regret” for what he described as an “isolated incident.” This characterization, however, may be at odds with the severity of the violation of the Vienna Convention, as it implies a minor occurrence rather than a serious diplomatic breach.

The UK’s Different Approach

The incident also draws a contrast with the United Kingdom, where similar actions against diplomatic missions have been classified as terrorism. This difference stems from the UK’s Terrorism Act 2000, which provides a broader definition of terrorism than many other European countries.

 * UK’s Legal Framework: Under the UK law, an act of “terrorism” is defined not only by violence against a person but also by “serious damage to property” if the act is designed to “influence the government” for the purpose of advancing a “political, religious, racial or ideological cause.” In this context, an attack on a foreign embassy, even if no one is physically harmed, could be prosecuted as a terrorism-related offense.

 * European Convention on Human Rights: While most European countries, including the UK, adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful protest, these rights are not absolute. States can implement laws that restrict protest to maintain public order and protect the rights of others, including the diplomatic immunity of foreign missions.

The distinction highlights a legal and political debate. While many European countries may view the attack as a serious public order crime, the UK’s more expansive definition allows for a more severe legal response. This has led some to argue that the UK is more effective in deterring such attacks, while others contend that such a broad classification could have a chilling effect on legitimate political protest.