Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T09:16:49.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Status of Agents on Special Mission in Customary International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Michael H. Ryan
Get access

Extract

As international relations grow in their scope and intensity, it is not surprising to find the traditional modes of diplomatie intercourse, centred around the permanent mission, giving way in many spheres to new forms of contact among nations that are more adapted to the exigencies of modem statecraft. Rapid communications and transportation have rendered superfluous or obsolete many of the functions which historically have been the preserve of the sedentary diplomat. Summit meetings, high level talks, and “shuttle diplomacy” provide a more direct and immediate means of communication which is resorted to with increasing frequency in a time when the world seems confronted with a rapid succession of crises. Moreover, the permanent mission, which evolved at a time when diplomacy was concerned primarily with the maintenance of political representation in foreign capitals, is not always well suited as an agency for participation in international conferences and congresses or negotiations on highly technical or scientific questions. These are matters which in recent years have become of increasing importance in the conduct of international relations.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 16 , 1979 , pp. 157 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1979

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 See Department of External Affairs, Annual Review 1975 (1976), for a complete list.

2 Bartos, M., “Le Statut des missions spéciales de la diplomatie ad hoc,” 108 Recueil des cours 425, 440 (1963).Google Scholar

3 Vienna Convention on Diplomatie Relations, [1966] Can. T.S. No. 29, 500 U.N.T.S. 95.

4 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, [1974] Can. T.S. No. 25, 596 U.N.T.S. 261.

5 For text, see Official Records of the General Assembly, 24th Sess., Supp. No. 30 (A/7630), at 99.

6 Resolution 2530 (XXIV) of December 8, 1969: for text, see ibid.

7 Argentina, Cyprus, El Salvador, Finland, Israel, Jamaica, Liechtenstein, Nicaragua, Philippines, Switzerland, Tunisia, United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia.

8 Argentina, Cyprus, Philippines, Tunisia, and Yugoslavia.

9 Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Fiji, Iran, and Paraguay.

10 Article 53.

11 Official Records of the General Assembly, 13th Sess., Supp. No. 9 (A/3859), at 11, para. 51.

12 Official Records of the General Assembly, 15th Sess., Supp. No. 9 (A/4425), at 36, paras. 32–33. The question of immunities and privileges of delegates to international congresses has now been dealt with, in part, by the Vienna Convention on the Representation of States in their Relations with International Organizations of a Universal Character of March 14, 1975; for text, see U.N. Doc. A/CONF.67/16.

13 [1964] I Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n. 2.

14 The approach has been subjected to considerable criticism: see Donnarumma, M., “La Convention sur les missions spéciales,” 8 Revue Belge de droit international 34, 46 et seq. (1972), and especially the government comments on the text of the Convention collected in Official Records of the General Assembly, 22nd Sess., Supp. No. 9 (А/6709/Rev. 1), Annex 1.Google Scholar

15 Article 21.

16 See, for example, Cahier, , Le Droit diplomatique contemporain 362 (1962)Google Scholar, and M. Donnarumma, supra note 14, at 79.

17 Flourens, French Minister of Foreign Affairs, to Herbette, French Ambassador to Berlin, April 26, 1887, in 3 Répertoire français de droit international 430–21 (1965).

18 Flourens to Herbette, April 25, 1887, ibid., 420.

19 Count Herbert von Bismarck, German Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to Herbette, April 29, 1887, ibid., 421–22.

20 Boundary Treaty, Bayonne, December 2, 1856, 116 Con. T.S. 85.

21 M. J. Paganon, Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the Chamber of Deputies, second sitting of December 6, 1932, Répertoire français de droit international, supra note 17, at 423.

22 Ibid., 424.

23 See the editor’s headnote, ibid., 418.

24 Oppenheim, I, International Law 862 (8th ed., Lauterpacht, 1955).Google Scholar

25 [1918] Journal de droit international 1183, Répertoire français de droit international, supra note 17, at 425 (trib. corr. de la Seine, 10th chamber).

26 Ibid.

27 [1889] Journal de droit international 618.

28 But note Meyer v. Offerman, [1911] Journal de droit international 1288 (civil court of Buenos Aires), which Cahier cites to the opposite effect: supra note 16, at 363, n.4.

29 4 Moore, A Digest of International Law 438 (1906).

30 7 Anne, c. 12.

31 Supra note 29, at 428–29, 7 British Digest of International Law 678–79, Jones, , Full Powers and Ratification 177–78 (1946).Google Scholar

32 Supra note 29, at 428–29.

33 13 Eliz. II, c. 81.

34 [1925] 2 K.B. 391, 6 B.I.L.C. 253.

35 Ibid., at 401 (K.B.) and 258 (B.I.L.C).

36 Wilson, , Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities 230 (1967).Google Scholar

37 15 & 16 Geo. VI and 1 Eliz. II, c. 18.

38 17 Eliz. II, c. 48.

39 S. 6(1) and (2).

40 Schedule I, Part II, ss. 9–13.

41 (1921), 38 T.L.R. 259, 6 B.I.L.C. 247.

42 Ibid., at 262 (T.L.R.) and 251–52 (B.I.L.C.) (emphasis added).

43 Foreign Office to Waters, M., September 4, 1958, cited in Waters, The Ad Hoc Diplomat: A Study in Municipal and International Law 123 (1963).Google Scholar

44 Ibid., 125.

45 Sir Neville Bland to M. Waters, August 5, 1958, cited in ibid., 133.

46 Department of External Affairs to M. Waters, September 25, 1958, cited in ibid., 126.

47 R.S.C. 1970, c. P-22, as amended by S.C. 1974–75, c. 69, s. 3(1) (b) and s. 3(2)(c).

48 SOR/76-278 of April 28, 1978, Canada Gazette, Pt. II, Vol. 110, No. 9, at 1393. The Act was also invoked in favour of the Eighth Session of the North American Forestry Commission of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations: see Order SOR/75-667 of November 19, 1975, s. 3(b), Canada Gazette, Pt. II, Vol. 109, No. 23, at 3117.

49 2 Hyde, International Law, Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States 1227 (2nd rev. ed., 1951).

50 Ibid., 1231.

51 Moore, supra note 29, at 446.

52 4 Hackworth, , Digest of International Law 442–43 (1942).Google Scholar

53 Moore, supra note 29, at 440; for other examples see Hyde, supra note 49, at 1228, n.3.

54 Moore, supra note 29, at 441–43.

55 Ibid., 429.

56 Ibid.

57 State Department to M. Waters, August 9, 1958, cited in Waters, supra note 43, at 124.

58 Ibid.

59 7 Whiteman, , Digest of International Law 41 (1968).Google Scholar

60 Hyde, supra note 49, at 1228–29.

61 Ibid., 1229, n. 12; cf. the communication from Foster, Secretary of State, to Heard, October 31, 1892, in Moore, supra note 29, at 440.

62 U.S. v. Coplon, 84 F. Supp. 472 (D.C.N.Y., 1949), 16 Ann. Dig. 293.

63 Trost v. Tompkins, 44 A. 2d 226 (Mun. C.A.D.C., 1945); discussed in Waters, supra note 43, at 130.

64 Ibid.

65 88 F. Supp. 915 (D.C.N.Y.).

66 Ibid., 921.

67 Ibid.

68 Supra note 63.

69 Ibid., 230 (emphasis added).

70 190 F. Supp. 67 (D.C.N.Y., i960) ; parts of the judgment are reproduced in 55 Am. J. Int’l L. 734 (1961).

71 Ibid., 88 (emphasis added).

72 For a complete chronicle of the events summarized below see: 66 Revue générale de droit international public 601 (1962); Watts, A. D., “Jurisdictional Immunities of Special Missions: The French Property Commission in Egypt,” 12 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 1383 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Louis, J.-V., “Le Procès des diplomates français au Caire: problèmes juridiques,” 10 Annuaire français de droit international 231 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

73 Cited in Watts, supra note 72, at 1385.

74 Cited in Revue générale de droit international public, supra note 72, at 606.

75 Cited in ibid., 603.

76 The State v. Mattet et al., 34 Int’l L. R. 175 (1962).

77 Watts, supra note 72, at 1396.

78 Supra note 24, at 859–63.

79 Watts, supra note 72, at 1397.

80 See The State v. Mattei et al., supra note 76, at 178.

81 Ibid., 179.

82 See Revue générale de droit international public, supra note 72, at 611.

83 Cited in ibid., 612.

84 [1967] II Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n. 17, para. 119.

85 See note 47, supra, and accompanying text.

86 See note 38, supra, and accompanying text.

87 This is the case, for instance, in the United States : see Hyde, supra note 49, at 1228–29.

88 Satow’s Guide to Diplomatic Practice 207 (4th ed., Bland, 1957).

89 Supra note 24, at 776.

90 A Treatise on International Law 365 (8th ed., 1924).

91 1 International Law 275 (1904).

92 International Law 65 (6th ed., 1927).

93 1 A Treatise on International Law 248–49 (1920).

94 A Guide to Diplomatic Practice 188–89 (2nd rev. ed., 1922).

95 2 Commentaries upon International Law 524 (3rd ed., 1882).

96 “Diplomatic Privileges of Non-Diplomats,” 19 Am. J. Int’l L. 469, 473 (1925).

97 Le Droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains IV, iv, 75 (1st ed., 1758).

98 Précis du droit des gens modernes de l’Europe s. 196 et seq. (1858).

99 Supra note 95, at 523.

100 Supra note 97.

101 2 Traité de droit international 49–50 (1886).

102 Le Droit international codifié 160 (1886).

103 Ibid.

104 A Treatise on International Public Law 354–55 (1901).

105 “Les Immunités diplomatiques,” 12 Recueil des cours 115 (1926).

106 Supra note 90, at 370.

107 Supra note 94, at 248–49.

108 Supra note 88, at 210.

109 Supra note 93 at 249.

110 Das Europaische Volkerrecht der Gegenwart auf den besherigen Grundlagen 455–56 (1844).

111 3 Le Droit international 192 (5th ed., 1896).

112 Supra note 24, at 862 (emphasis added).

113 Supra note 102, at 161.

114 2 International Law 519 (3rd ed., 1920) (emphasis added).

115 Supra note 24, at 859–60 (emphasis added).

116 1 Principes du droit des gens s. 44 (1896).

117 26 Am. J. Int’l L. (Supp.) 168, Art. 2 (1932).

118 Ibid., Art. 4.

119 Ibid., 181, Art. 20.

120 Ibid., 177, Art. 2 & 6.

121 Ibid., 171, Art. 2 & 14.

122 Ibid., 175, Art. 2.

123 The comment to Article ι of the Harvard Research in International Law Draft Convention on Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities refers to “the members of non-diplomatic missions, such as frontier commissions, or agents sent abroad for purposes of an administrative or technical character …”: ibid., 44.

124 Ibid., 43.

125 Ibid., 169, Art. 14.

126 American Law Institute, Second Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, s. 82 (1965).

127 See Official Records of the General Assembly, 22nd Sess., Supp. No. 9 (A/6709/Rev. 1) Annex I.

128 Ibid., 36.

129 Ibid., 37.

130 Ibid., 53.

131 Ibid., 33.

132 Although the matter was once heavily disputed, it now appears to be established that international law does not admit of any distinction between monarchs and other heads of state, such as presidents of republics, with respect to immunity: all heads of state stand on an equal footing. See: 18 Halsbury’s Laws of England paras. 1548–49 & 1557 (4th ed.); 2 Dalloz, Répertoire de droit international 125, s. 76 (1969). For the views of publicists see: Hall, supra note 90, at 352, de Martens, supra note 101, at 407, and Oppenheim, supra note 24, at 763, all of whom support the modem doctrine. For a summary of views to the contrary, see Oppenheim, ibid.

133 Hall, supra note 90, at 220–21; de Martens, supra note 101, at 413 et seq.; Oppenheim, supra note 24, at 348; Phillimore, supra note 95, at 134 et seq.; Calvo, supra note 111, at 284 et seq.

134 Oppenheim, supra note 24, at 759; de Martens, supra note 101, at 415.

135 Immunity for official acts only: Hall, supra note 90, at 221; Calvo, supra note 111, at 287; Laurent, , Droit civil international 60, 96 et seq. (1886)Google Scholar; de Martens, supra note 101, at 422. Immunity for both official and private acts: Oppenheim, supra note 24, at 759.

136 See infra. See also 2 O’Connell, , International Law 857 et seq. (2nd ed., 1970).Google Scholar

137 Duke of Brunswick v. King of Hanover (1844), 6 Beav. 1, aff’d (1848), 2 H.L. Cases 1, 3 B.I.L.C. 138; De Haber v. Queen of Portugal (1851), 17 Q.B. 171, 3 B.I.L.C. 151; Mighell v. Sultan of Johore, [1894] 1 Q.B. 149, 3 B.I.L.C. 170 (C.A.) ; Statham v. Statham and Gaekwar of Baroda, [1912] P. 92, 3 B.I.L.C. 178; Sayce v. Ameer Ruler Sadig Mohammed Abbasi Bahawalpur State, [1952] 2 Q.B. 390, [1952] 2 All E.R. 64, 7 B.I.L.C. 662 (C.A.).

138 Compania Naviera Vascongada v. S.S. Cristina, [1938] A.C. 485, at 490, [1938] 1 All E.R. 719, at 720, 3 B.I.L.C. 402, at 403 (H.L.) per Lord Atkin.

139 [1977] I All E.R. 881.

140 See O’Connell, supra note 136, at 859 et seq.

141 See Charkieh (1873), L.R. 4 A. & E. 59, at 97, 3 B.I.L.C. 847, per Sir Robert Phillimore in obiter. The question was fully argued but left undecided in Sultan of Johore v. Abubakar Tunku Aris Bendahara, [1952] A.C. 318, [1952] I All E.R. 1261, 3 B.I.L.C. 667 (P.C.).

142 Supra note 126, ss. 66 & 67.

143 See the “Tate letter” of May 19, 1952, 26 Department of State Bull. 994.

144 60 Am. J. Int’lL. 101 (1966).

145 Supra note 126, at ss. 65–70.

146 See for example the European Convention on State Immunity signed in Basle on May 16, 1972, British T.S. 31 (1972).

147 Mellerio v. Isabelle de Bourbon, [1874] Journal de droit international 33, at 33, 3 Répertoire français de droit international public 270, at 271.

148 [1917] Journal de droit international 1465–66, 3 Répertoire français de droit international public 270. See also Petau v. Prince de Monaco, 3 Répertoire français de droit international public 269.

149 Nobili v. Charles I of Austria, [1921] Journal de droit international 626, I Ann. Dig. 136 (1919–22) (Cassazione).

150 Munden v. Duke of Brunswick, [1847] 2 Q.B. 656, 3 B.I.L.C. 148 (England); Ex-Roi d’Egypte Farouk v. S.A.R.L., [1957] Journal de droit international 271 (France); Thabore Saheb Khanji Kashari Khanji v. Gulam Ra Sul Chandbal, [1955] A.I.R. 499 (India). Publicists take the same view: see Oppenheim, supra note 24, at 761 and Calvo, supra note 111, at 294.

151 [1940] Nouveau Revue de droit international privé 105.

152 [1962] Journal de droit international 172, at 174.

153 Ibid.

154 Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1941, 4 & 5 Geo. VI, c. 7. See 6 Whiteman, Digest of International Law 377 (1968).

155 Art. 21, para. (2).

156 See, for example, the remarks of M. Bartos, the Special Rapporteur, on this point, [1967] I Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n. 165, para. 12, and those of the French delegate to the Sixth Committee, M. Deleau, U.N. Doc. A/C.6/SR.1055, at 7.

157 58 Am. J. Int’l L. 186 (1964).

158 Supra note 126, at s. 66.

159 See, for example, Déak, F., “Organs of State in Their External Relations: Immunities and Privileges of State Organs and of the State” in Sorensen, (ed.), Manual of Public International Law 387 (1968).Google Scholar

160 See note 154, supra, and the accompanying text.

161 Supra note 157.

162 Supra note 126, at s. 66.

163 Supra note 101, at 423.

164 Supra note 90, at 220.

165 Supra note 102, at 132.

166 Supra note 24, at 760.

167 [1967] II Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n. 31–32.