On August 1, 2024, Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, along with two other Americans, was released from Russia as part of a prisoner swap. The exchange included a total of 24 individuals: 12 German citizens, eight Russians, and two non-prisoner children, taking place in Ankara, Turkey.

The New York Times characterized the event as "the most far-reaching exchange between Russia and the West in decades." This intricate deal involved seven nations, including the United States, Slovenia, Turkey, Norway, and Germany.

Some analysts have referred to this type of arrangement as "hostage diplomacy," highlighting an increasing trend where countries detain foreigners under dubious pretexts and leverage their potential release for political advantage.

The transfer of prisoners among nations is a sensitive and intricate issue that is mainly guided by diplomatic efforts instead of rigid legal systems. Typically conducted discreetly, this process relies on negotiations, shared interests, and strategic factors, illustrating how diplomacy influences the dynamics of international relations.

International Law on Exchange of Prisoners:

Understanding that deals for hostages and political prisoners are primarily political endeavours rather than legal matters is crucial. There are no international treaties or rules governing the process of releasing hostages or political prisoners. Each country involved has the autonomy to negotiate agreements that serve their individual interests, evaluating each situation on its own merits.

The fundamental question is whether it would be advantageous to create an international legal framework that establishes specific guidelines for the release of hostages and political prisoners. In recent years, the practice of detaining political prisoners and taking foreigners hostage has become increasingly prevalent. A potential next step could involve developing international agreements that formalize processes for the release of hostages and prisoners.

Understanding the situation is challenging, as negotiations of this nature typically occur discreetly and away from public view. Those participating from all parties face limitations regarding what information can be shared.

Every instance of a hostage or political prisoner exchange has its own narrative. While there may be shared political elements influencing these situations, countries become more adept at handling such matters over time, gaining insights into the appropriate actions and statements to make.

Every nation possesses its own internal system for managing this type of negotiation. However, due to the highly political and confidential nature of these discussions, they will not simply involve junior or mid-level government representatives. The engagement will directly include the heads of state who will decide to move forward with specific actions.

In case of USA, this means that the president, vice president, and senior officials from the State Department will take part in the negotiations.

The U.S. has also established an internal process to categorize its citizens who have been "wrongly detained" by foreign countries. This classification does not imply a judgment of guilt or innocence; rather, it indicates that various government agencies and officials are engaged in facilitating the potential for an exchange or release. For instance, when basketball player Brittney Griner was detained, the initial challenge for her supporters was to convince the U.S. government to recognize her as "wrongly detained."

India's method for exchanging prisoners with other nations is a complex process that integrates legal systems, bilateral agreements, and diplomatic initiatives. Through these strategies, India seeks to ensure the humane treatment and rehabilitation of prisoners while also tackling larger strategic and humanitarian issues. The success of this approach relies on the joint efforts of multiple government agencies, diplomatic representatives, and international allies, highlighting the crucial role of diplomacy in navigating intricate global challenges.

The exchange of prisoners is mainly regulated by international treaties, including the Geneva Conventions, that stipulate the humane treatment of both prisoners of war and civilians. These legal provisions emphasize the respect for prisoners' rights and promote their exchange via diplomatic means and bilateral agreements. The procedure ensures that repatriation occurs in a humane manner and aligns with human rights standards. Moreover, certain national legislation, such as the Repatriation of Prisoners Act in various countries, establishes legal frameworks for the transfer of sentenced individuals across borders, highlighting the importance of mutual consent and humane treatment. Nonetheless, this system doesn't always achieve success, resulting in the utilization of "hostage diplomacy."

The Importance of Diplomacy in Facilitating Prisoner Exchanges:

Diplomacy involves the skilful practice of negotiating between state representatives. It covers a diverse range of actions, including dialogue, compromise, and the strategic use of soft power to sway decisions and behaviours. In the realm of prisoner exchanges, diplomacy plays a pivotal role for several key reasons:

Flexibility and Adaptability:
Diplomatic discussions offer a level of flexibility and adaptability that is vital in the sensitive and ever-changing landscape of prisoner exchanges. Legal proceedings can often be slow and inflexible, frequently failing to address the distinctive circumstances of each case. In contrast, diplomacy can respond to evolving scenarios and identify innovative solutions that cater to the interests of all parties involved.

Confidentiality and Discretion:
Diplomatic negotiations usually take place in private, shielded from public attention. This confidentiality is crucial for managing sensitive topics and reaching compromises without the weight of public judgment. It permits negotiators to explore a variety of options and make concessions that might be unfeasible in a more formal, legal context.

Fostering Trust and Relationships:
uccessful diplomacy hinges on the establishment of trust and the cultivation of relationships. Prisoner exchanges often form part of broader negotiations concerning other critical issues, such as trade, security, or political alliances. By promoting trust and goodwill, diplomatic initiatives can facilitate successful prisoner exchanges while also enhancing bilateral relations.

Historical Examples of Diplomatic Prisoner Exchanges:
Throughout the annals of history, a variety of instances demonstrate the significant impact of diplomacy in facilitating prisoner exchanges.

Cold War Exchanges:
During the Cold War era, the United States and the Soviet Union participated in several notable prisoner exchanges. A prominent example occurred in 1962 when U.S. pilot Francis Gary Powers, apprehended by the Soviets, was traded for Soviet spy Rudolf Abel, who was held by the U.S. This exchange, accomplished through extensive diplomatic negotiations, contributed to the easing of tensions between the two superpowers.

The Iran-U.S. Hostage Crisis (1981):
The resolution of the Iran-U.S. Hostage Crisis, in which 52 American diplomats and citizens were held captive for 444 days, was realized through diplomatic initiatives. The Algiers Accords, mediated by Algeria, resulted in the hostages' release in exchange for the unfreezing of Iranian assets and the removal of trade sanctions. This agreement underscored the essential role of diplomatic mediation in resolving intricate international issues.

The Israel-Palestine Prisoner Exchanges:
Over the years, Israel has conducted various prisoner exchanges with Palestinian factions. A significant instance was the 2011 exchange in which Israel released over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in return for the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who had been held by Hamas for five years. These exchanges, often negotiated through intermediaries such as Egypt or international organizations, highlight the vital function of diplomacy in achieving humanitarian results.

The Interplay of Law and Diplomacy:
Although diplomacy is crucial to prisoner exchanges, it frequently operates in conjunction with legal frameworks. International law establishes the rights of prisoners and the responsibilities of states. Treaties, including the Geneva Conventions, provide guidelines for the treatment of prisoners of war and the conditions under which exchanges may occur. However, these legal instruments alone are often inadequate to facilitate the exchange process.

Diplomacy steps in to fill the void, addressing the practical and political aspects that legal frameworks may not fully cover. For instance, while international law may stipulate the humane treatment of prisoners, the actual decision to release or exchange them often depends on diplomatic negotiations that take broader geopolitical concerns and national interests into account.

Challenges and Limitations of Diplomatic Prisoner Exchanges:

While diplomatic efforts in prisoner exchanges are crucial, they encounter various obstacles and constraints:
Power Imbalances:
Negotiations for prisoner exchanges can be swayed by disparities in power among the involved parties. More powerful nations may apply pressure on less influential ones to obtain favourable agreements, which can result in asymmetrical or unjust outcomes.

Domestic Political Pressures:
The influence of domestic politics can hinder diplomatic negotiations. Governments might respond to public sentiment or face political opposition, limiting their flexibility to make concessions or find compromises in prisoner exchange agreements.

Human Rights Concerns:
During diplomatic negotiations, strategic interests can sometimes take precedence over human rights issues. This may lead to the release of individuals who have committed serious offenses or the continued detention of others for politically motivated reasons rather than legal justification.

Diplomacy in Contemporary Prisoner Exchanges:
In today's international relations landscape, diplomacy remains essential for executing prisoner exchanges. The examples of prisoner exchanges between the U.S. and North Korea, as well as the U.S. and Iran, demonstrate the continued significance of diplomatic initiatives.

U.S.-North Korea Prisoner Exchanges:
The successful release of American detainees from North Korea has frequently been facilitated by high-level diplomatic discussions. For example, in 2018, three American prisoners were freed as a result of direct negotiations between U.S. and North Korean officials, underlining the critical role of diplomatic channels in achieving humanitarian outcomes.

U.S.- Iran Prisoner Exchanges:
The intricate relationship between the U.S. and Iran has led to multiple prisoner exchanges brokered through diplomatic talks. A notable instance occurred in 2016, when Iran released five American detainees in return for seven Iranians held by the U.S. Such exchanges often take place amid wider diplomatic efforts, including discussions regarding Iran's nuclear program.

Conclusion:
The transfer of prisoners between nations is a complex and detailed process primarily driven by diplomatic efforts. Although international law offers significant frameworks, the aspects of flexibility, secrecy, and relationship development inherent in diplomacy are what make it a vital mechanism for facilitating these exchanges. Both historical and modern instances showcase how diplomatic initiatives can lead to humanitarian results and address intricate global challenges. Despite facing certain obstacles and restrictions, diplomacy is essential in managing prisoner exchanges, underscoring its vital importance in international relations.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565