Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-qks25 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T18:20:58.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The regulation of diplomatic practice: the beginnings to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2010

Richard Langhorne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Diplomats, whose historical reputation in earlier times has so often been unsavoury, have more recently been highly regarded, except perhaps in the immediate aftermath of the First World War, for which catastrophe they were held by some to be to blame. The privations of the Cold War and the occasional severe maltreatments endured in unsettled states have from time to time since 1945 made them heroes. The change of status has, particularly since the nineteenth century, been associated with a rising sense of belonging to a recognizable and separate profession, with its own body of knowledge and skill, for which suitable candidates could be trained. This development was slow in gestation and its first signs cannot be reliably identified until the seventeenth century with the appearance of the first clutch of semi-professional manuals. From that time, a potential semantic confusion has existed arising out of the use of the adjective ‘diplomatic’ sometimes to describe the process of international political argument and its eventual success or failure in reaching agreement, and sometimes to describe the administrative mechanism of diplomacy itself. it was this latter aspect of diplomacy, seen separately from the content of policy, which from the mid nineteenth century began to attract a new kind of attention, driven particularly by international lawyers, to the point where it was beginning to seem desirable to attain a general international agreement as to what were the rules of the game.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , January 1992 , pp. 3 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For example, de Callières, F., De la Manière de negocier avec les Souverains (Paris, 1716)Google Scholar.

2 For example, Hill, D. J., History of Diplomacy in the International Development of Europe, 4 vols. (London, 1905–1914)Google Scholar.

3 See United Nations Yearbook. 1961, pp. 511–18.

4 Rosenne, S. (ed.), League of Nations Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law, 1925–8, vol. 1, Minutes and vol. 2, Documents (New York, 1972)Google Scholar.

5 Ogdon, M., Juridical Bases of Diplomatic Immunity (Washington DC, 1963), p. 13Google Scholar.

6 Hulot, H. and Berthelot, M. (eds.), Les Cinquante Livres du Digeste ou des Pandectes de l'Empereur Justinien (Paris, 1805)Google Scholar, VII, p. 566. , Krüger and , Mommsen (eds.), Corpus Juris Civilis (Berlin, 1928), p. 903Google Scholar.

7 See Mattingley, G., Renaissance Diplomacy (London, 1955)Google Scholar.

8 Langhorne, R., ‘The Development of International Conferences, 1648–1830’, Studies in History and Politics, II, 2 (1981-2), pp. 12-4Google Scholar.

9 Langhorne, ‘Development’, p. 17 n. 17.

10 Hertslet, E., The Map of Europe by Treaty (London, 1875)Google Scholar, I, pp. 62–3 and p. 575.

11 See Harvard Law School, Research in International Law, I, Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities (Cambridge Mass., 1932), p. 26Google Scholar.

12 Hertslet, E., Commerical Treaties (London, 1875), II, p. 371Google Scholar.

13 Hertslet, Commercial Treaties, III, p. 247.

14 See Hertslet, E., Treaties concluded between Great Britain and Persia and between Persia and other Powers (London 1891)Google Scholar.

15 Basdevant, J., Traités et conventions en vigueur entre la France et les puissances étrangères (Paris, 1918), p. 574Google Scholar.

16 Macmurray, J. V. A., Treaties and Agreements with and concerning China 1894–1919 (New York, 1921), I, p. 740Google Scholar.

17 Hinsley, F. H., Power and the Pursuit of Peace (Cambridge, 1963), p. 135Google Scholar.

18 J. K. Bluntschli to F. Lieber, September, 1867. I am indebted to Miss K. Seymour, Churchill College, Cambridge, for this quotation, and for some material on the Harvard Law School draft on p. 12.

19 Harvard Law School, Research in International Law, I, Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities, p. 144.

20 Fiore, P., International Law Codified and its Legal Sanction, or the Legal Organisation of the Society of States (New York, 1918), p. 53Google Scholar.

21 Letter from J. K. Bluntschli, quoted in Scott, J. B. (ed.), Resolutions of the Institute of International Law dealing with the Law of Nations (New York, 1916)Google Scholar, p. viii, citing Gilman (ed.), The Miscellaneous Writings of Francis Lieber, II, p. 14.

22 Annuaire de l'Institut de droit International, session de Hambourg, 1889–92, II, pp. 394–407.

23 Scott (ed.), Resolutions of the Institute of International Law Dealing with the Law of Nations, pp. 119–23.

24 Permanent Court of International Justice, Proces-Verbal of the Proceedings of the Committee (1920), p. 747.

25 League of Nations, The Records of the First Assembly, Meetings of the Committees, pp. 326, 462, 480, 493, and 588.

26 Rosenne (ed.), League of Nations &, I, pp. xxxi and xxxii.

27 Directors’ Meetings record, Vols. 3144–55, UN Library Geneva.

28 Rosenne (ed.), League of Nations &. I, p, vii.

29 See Minutes of the Thirty-Second session of the Council, League of Nations Official Journal, Sixth Year (1925), pp. 120, 143, 149, and 274.

30 League of Nations Archives, CPDI 15 (1) p. 43.

31 Rosenne (ed.), League of Nations &, II, p. 104.

32 Rosenne (ed.), League of Nations &, II, p. 105.

33 Rosenne (ed.), League of Nations &, II, p. 104–10.

34 Rosenne (ed.), League of Nations &, II, p. 110.

35 Rosenne (ed.), League of Nations &, II, p. 115–16.

36 Rosenne (ed.), League of Nations &, II, p. 101–3.

37 League of Nations Publications, V. Legal, 1927. V.21 (A105.1927.V) see also Rosenne (ed.), League of Nations &, I, pp. xcii-xcv for text of resolution.

38 Rosenne (ed.), League of Nations &, II, pp. 408–11.

39 Rosenne (ed.), League of Nations &, II, p. 409.

40 Rosenne (ed.), League of Nations &, II, p. 409.

41 Rosenne (ed.), League of Nations &, II, p. 369.

42 See Harvard Law School, Research in International Law.

43 Sixth International Conference of American States: Final Act, Habana, 1928, pp. 142–50.

44 See particularly correspondence within the Secretariat contained in League of Nations Assembly files, 1919—27, 19/61354/10950. The significant memoranda were by Hudson and Zaleski and are reprinted in extenso in Rosenne (ed.), League of Nations &. I, pp. lxxxii-lxxxvi.

45 Rosenne's own judgement was as follows:

At the same time it must be recognized that the very failure of the Committee of Experts, and the lessons learnt from t have turned into the corner stone for the codificationi work of the United Nations. The constitutional and structural difficulties of the League codification effort were largely rectified in the Charter of the United Nations and in the statute of the International Law Commission, and above all in the evolving practices of the Sixth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly. It is indeed questionable whether any of the milestones in the codification and progressive development of international law which have been passed by the United Nations would have been reached but for the Committee of Experts & Rosenne (ed.), League of Nations. & I, pp. ciii-civ.

46 Report of the ILC, 1949, Official Records of the General Assembly (ORGA), Supp. 10 (A/1925), p. 3.

47 Speech of M. Vlahovic at Sixth Committee, 29 October 1952, ORGA: A/C6/SR316, pp. 53–5.

48 Discussion at Sixth Committee (A/C6/L253), 31 October 1952, ORGA: A/C6/SR316, p. 73.

49 Resolution at the General Assembly, 5 December 1952, ORGA: Plenary Meetings (400/58), p. 312. Text reads:

The General Assembly,

Recalling the purposes of the United Nations and the provision of the preamble of the Charter according to which the ‘peoples of the United Nations’ are determined ‘to practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours’, Expressing its desire for the common observance by all governments of existing principles and rules and recognized practice concerning diplomatic intercourse and immunities, particularly in regard to the treatment of diplomatic representatives of foreign states, Considering the early codification of international law on diplomatic intercourse and immunities is necessary and desirable as a contribution to the improvement of relations between states. Noting that the International Law Commission has included the topic ‘Diplomatic intercourse and immunities’, in the provisional list of topics of international law selected for codification, Requests the International Law Commission as soon as it considers it possible to undertake the codification of the topic ‘Diplomatic intercourse and immunities’, and to treat it as a priority topic.

50 Report of the International Law Commission, 1954, ORGA, Supp. 9, (A2693), V, 73, p. 21.

51 Sixth Committee meetings, 509–512, 27 September to 4 October 1957, ORGA: A/C6/SR509–12, pp. 3–23.

52 Sixth Committee meetings, 568–581, 27 October to 13 November 1958, ORGA: A/C6/SR568–81, pp. 86–147.

53 For example, P. D. Morozov was recorded as follows in 1952: ‘The question before the committee concerned only the priority to be given to a certain topic and there was no justification whatever for discussion the substance of that topic... clearly the item had been introduced simply as a propaganda manoeuvre &’ and somewhat later & ‘The course of the discussion had shown quite clearly that the item had been artificially created by the governments of the United States and Yugoslavia & The Yugoslav draft resolution was quite superfluous’. By 1958, Morozov was purveying a different attitude: The arguments that had been raised against concluding & a convention were few and unconvincing. It had been said that it was hardly appropriate to deal with the matter while so many important international problems remained unsettled. He pointed out that& the regulation of the question of diplomatic immunity and intercourse would help to decrease international tension & The USSR delegation convinced of the usefulness of an international convention & were ready to vote at once&.

54 Speech of V. Rusin at Sixth Committee, 27 October 1958, ORGA: A/C6/SR568, pp. 86–87.

55 Discussion at Sixth Committee, November 1958, ORGA: A/C6/SR568–81, p. 141.

56 Ibid. p. 145.

57 ORGA: Plenary, 782nd meeting, item 56, 5 December 1958, p. 459. Text of Resolutions in UN Yearbook, 1958, pp. 387–8.

58 Cahier, P., ‘Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations’, International Conciliation, 571 (January 1969), p. 6Google Scholar.

59 ORGA: Plenary, 847th meeting, item 56, 7 December 1959, pp. 645–8.

60 Resolution 1450/XIV: text in United Nations Yearbook 1959, pp. 403–4.

61 ORGA: Plenary, 943rd meeting, 12 December 1960, pp. 1228–9.

62 It is difficult to forget in this connection that both Byzantine and Venetian diplomats were so poorly paid that they were often actually expected to pay for their missions out of commercial work arranged on the side.

63 See United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities, Vienna 2 March-14 April 1961: Official Records Vol. 1: Summary Records of Plenary Meetings and of Meetings of the Committee of the Whole, A/CONF/20/14.

64 A/CONF/20/12.

65 Denza, E., Diplomatic Law (New York and London, 1976), p. 1Google Scholar. Some interest attaches to reservations that have been entered by ratifying states. Byelorussia, Mongolia, the Ukraine and the USSR will not accept the sole right of the receiving state to limit the size of a mission but will operate on the basis of bi-lateral agreement. Western Germany, the United Kingdom and Tanzania have objected to this. Cambodia and the then United Arab Republic made reservations indicating their objection to granting technical and administrative staffs the same privileges as diplomats. Cahier, ‘Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations’, pp. 39–40.

66 Final Act, A/CONF/20/10; Convention, A/CONF/20/13.