Diplomatic handbook

The effect of these changes on the man in the street has, naturally enough, been one of passive acceptance of their immediate consequences for his or her daily life with little thought for their long-term consequences. For diplomats, it calls for analysis of cause and effect, and for logical projection in so far as the limitations of logic are recognised, and the factor 'X' - the unforeseeable - is taken into full consideration; but that has always been the diplomat’s task: it will change only to the extent of its complexity. It is also safe to say that there will be no change in the need for diplomats to acquire knowledge of how the world works, professional skills, and relevant personal attributes. Different circumstances will evidently call for different emphasis; but fundamentals are unlikely to change. To understand people and their perceptions is to understand policy; to be ’sympathique’ and approachable and to have the ability to explain and clarify is to be able to influence to mutual advantage. Diplomacy will become more complex, more demanding, more professional. It will demand greater omniscience, but not necessarily greater specialisation.

The introduction to the sixth edition of the Diplomatic Handbook ended with the words ‘we are living at a time when the Old World Order has collapsed and a New World Order is nowhere in sight: our only hope lies in the successful conduct of diplomatic relations.’ Those words still apply and, if anything, understate the seriousness and magnitude of the diplomat's responsibilities.

 

 

 

 

 

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DIPLOMATIC

RELATIONS AND OF PERMANENT

DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS

 

GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND PURPOSES

 

Diplomatic relations between states may be established by friendly contacts of any form between their governments; but permanent diplomatic relations are considered to exist only with the establishment of a diplomatic mission, or preferably with the exchange of diplomatic missions. These are established by mutual consent and on the basis of a mutual understanding of the functions that will be undertaken by the mission. These functions have become generally accepted over past centuries, and have been defined in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations as consisting, basically, of:

 

1. representing the sending state in the receiving state;
2. protecting in the receiving state the interests of the sending state and its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law;
3. negotiating with the government of the receiving state;
4. ascertaining, by all lawful means, conditions and developments in the receiving state, and reporting thereon to the government of the sending state;

(e) promoting friendly relations between the sending state and the receiving state, and developing

      their economic, cultural and scientific relations.

 

Apart from their diplomatic functions, members of the diplomatic staff of a mission may also act in a consular capacity.

 

 

 

CLASSES OF HEADS OF MISSION

 

Heads of mission may be of one of three classes depending on the mutual agreement of the governments concerned:

1. Ambassadors, Apostolic Nuncios, and other heads of mission of equivalent rank (e.g. High

   Commissioners exchanged between Commonwealth countries) who are accredited to Heads of

   State.

    2. Envoys, Ministers and Papal Internuncios who are accredited to Heads of State. This class is now

   virtually non-existent.

3. Chargés d’Affaires (en titre, en pied, or titular) who are accredited to Ministers for Foreign  

       Affairs.This class is also rare.

 

No differentiation may be made between heads of mission on account of their class, except in matters of precedence and protocol, and in that the right of reception by a Head of State is normally reserved to those of ambassadorial rank.

 

 

TITLES OF HEADS OF MISSION

 

It is usual for an Ambassador to be styled ‘Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary’. (An Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary was at one time superior in status to a resident Ambassador.) Similarly the head of a legation is likely to be styled ‘Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary’.

 

 

APPROVAL OF A HEAD OF MISSION BY THE

HOST STATE

 

Before a head of mission is appointed to a post, the approval or agrment of the receiving state is sought confidentially. This approval will normally be given, but may be withheld if it is considered that the person concerned is not acceptable and in this event no reason has to be given. In practice, an official (but usually informal) hint of unacceptability would normally be enough for a nomination to be withdrawn.

 

CREDENTIALS

 

A head of mission is provided with credentials to prove his authenticity to the Head of State to whom he is accredited. These are alternatively referred to as Letters of Credence and are somewhat ornate in style, e.g.

 

For Ambassadors

 

To [full name and title of head of state]

 

Excellency:

I have appointed X.Y.Z., a distinguished citizen of [name of sending state], to represent me before  your Government as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of [name of sending state].

He is well aware of the mutual interests of our two countries and shares my sincere desire to preserve and enhance the long friendship between us.

My faith in his high character and ability gives me entire confidence that he will carry out his duties in a manner fully acceptable to you.

Accordingly I entrust him to your confidence. I ask that you receive him favourably, and give full credence to what he shall say on the part of [name of sending state] as well as to the assurances which he bears of my best wishes for the prosperity of [name of receiving state].

 

Yours very truly

 

[Signature of Head of State]

 

By the head of state

 

[Signature of Minister for Foreign Affairs]

 

[Place]   [Date]

 

 

In the Commonwealth the Sovereign is Head of State of sixteen of the member states, and when heads of mission are exchanged between such states they are provided with a letter of introduction from Prime Minister to Prime Minister.

 

When a Head of State who is a sovereign dies or otherwise ceases to reign, the credentials of all heads of mission accredited to the sovereign become invalid; similarly the credentials issued by the sovereign become invalid; and in both instances require renewal. This requirement does not, however, apply in the event of the death of a President or the termination of his period of office, and is no longer effective in the kingdoms of Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands.

 

 

DATE OF ASSUMPTION OF FUNCTIONS

 

A head of mission of ambassadorial rank is considered to have taken up his functions in the state to which he is accredited when he has presented his credentials to the Head of State. In a few states (notably the UK) he is considered to have taken up his functions when he has notified the appropriate ministry (usually the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) of his arrival and has presented them with a working copy (copie d’usage) of his credentials. The ceremonies for the formal acceptance of heads of mission are held strictly in the order that they arrived to take up their functions.

 

 

NATIONALITY OF A HEAD OF MISSION

 

A head of mission will, save in most exceptional circumstances, have the nationality of the state he is representing; but this requirement does not necessarily apply to his spouse. In many diplomatic services officers may be given special permission to marry foreign nationals provided the circumstances and the particular nationality involved are such that they do not in any way jeopardise or interfere with the officer's career. In Arab countries it is the general rule that diplomats may not marry foreigners, though in certain instances the Head of State may authorise marriage to other Arabs.

 

 

 

NATIONALITY OF MEMBERS OF THE DIPLOMATIC STAFF

 

The members of the diplomatic staff of a mission should in principle be nationals of the state they serve, but in exceptional cases they may be nationals of the state in which the mission is situated; in this event, the specific approval of the host state must be obtained, and it may be withdrawn at any time. Such diplomats will enjoy only limited privileges and immunities (see p. 48).

 

 

ACCREDITATION TO MORE THAN ONE STATE

 

A head of mission may be accredited (and members of the diplomatic staff assigned) to more than one state, provided there is no objection on the part of any of the states concerned. In the event of such an arrangement, Chargés d’Affaires ad interim (or in certain circumstances members of the diplomatic staff of lesser standing) may be established in diplomatic missions in those capitals where the head of mission does not have his permanent seat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS: ACCREDITATION

OF HEADS OF MISSION

 

A head of mission (or any member of the diplomatic staff of his mission) may act as representative of his state to any international organisation, and in this instance the state to which he is accredited need not be informed, nor may it raise any objection.

 

 

THE SEAT OF A DIPLOMATIC MISSION

 

A diplomatic mission is established in the capital of a state; additional offices forming part of the mission may only be established in other parts of the state if special permission is given by that state. In a few instances, e.g. the Netherlands, the diplomatic capital (The Hague) is different from the capital of the country (Amsterdam).

 

 

THE SIZE OF A MISSION

 

The size of diplomatic missions may be agreed on a reciprocal basis; alternatively a state may require that the number of members of a mission should be kept within reasonable limits taking into consideration the circumstances and conditions in the host state and the needs of the mission. Within such limits, and provided that the principle of representation by its own nationals is adhered to, a state should be free to appoint whomsoever it wishes to any of its diplomatic missions. In the case of military, naval and air attachés it is within the discretion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to require their names to be submitted in advance, and for approval to be obtained before any appointment is made. A state may also refuse to accept officials of a particular category, provided that the restriction is applied on a non-discriminatory basis to all diplomatic missions in the state.

 

 

ACCREDITATION BY MORE THAN ONE STATE

 

Two or more states may, in exceptional circumstances, accredit the same person as head of mission to another state, unless objection is raised by the receiving state.

 

 

 

DECLARATION OF 'PERSONA NON GRATA' OR

‘NON-ACCEPTABLE’

 

A state has the right to declare a head of a mission or member of his diplomatic staff to be unacceptable (persona non grata) and to inform his government accordingly. In this event the diplomat's functions are terminated and he is (unless a national or permanent resident of the state in which he is serving) recalled. If his government takes no such step, the host state may refuse to recognise him as being a member of the mission. The declaration of persona non grata may be made either before or after the diplomat's arrival, and no reasons for it have to be given.

Similarly, members of the administrative and technical staff may be declared non-acceptable.

There are two principal grounds on which a diplomat may be declared persona non grata: those which spring from personal weakness, and result in criminal or antisocial behaviour; and deliberate acts hostile to the security or other interests of the state, carried out under the cloak of diplomatic immunity. A further possible pretext for a diplomat being so declared is as a retaliation against a state that has declared one of its own diplomats to be persona non grata; but although such practice is contrary to the spirit of international relations, it is regrettably not infrequent.

OBLIGATIONS ACCEPTED BY A HOST STATE

 

By agreeing to the establishment of a permanent diplomatic mission a state implicitly accepts certain obligations: it must provide such facilities and immunity as will enable the mission to function satisfactorily, and it must grant to those who work in the mission the personal privileges and immunities necessary for them to carry out their functions without fear or hindrance. These obligations are set out in Chapter 5 dealing with ‘Diplomatic privileges and immunities’.

 

 

 

THE CONDUCT OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

IN THE ABSENCE OF A FULL DIPLOMATIC

MISSION OR WHEN DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

HAVE BEEN SEVERED

 

No state maintains a diplomatic mission in every capital in the world; most have to be selective, and balance their national interest against the cost involved. The problem of not having full diplomatic representation in a particular state can be resolved in any of four ways:

 

1. by requesting a government which is represented by a permanent mission in the state concerned to act

on its behalf, which it may do with the approval of that state. In these circumstances the head of the

permanent mission would normally limit his activities to transmitting messages between the two

governments concerned and dealing with consular matters; and if any conflict arose between the

interests of his own government and those of the foreign government on whose behalf he was acting,

the interests of his own government would prevail;

2. by accrediting one of its heads of mission resident in another state as a non-resident or ‘visiting’ head of mission in the state concerned;
3. by establishing a diplomatic mission headed by a duly accredited non-resident head of mission, but with a Chargé d’Affaires ad interim in charge. In practice, owing to the difficulty encountered by several states in finding adequate senior diplomatic staff for the posts they wish to fill, it is not uncommon for a host state to agree to such a mission being headed by a diplomat of lesser standing;
4. by accrediting a very senior official (e.g. the Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Ministry) as a non-resident or ‘visiting’ head of mission in a number of states while maintaining his residence in his own capital.

 

In certain instances diplomatic missions may be withdrawn as a result of mutual agreement between the states concerned, for example on the grounds that changed circumstances have resulted in the missions being unnecessary or uneconomic. Missions may also be withdrawn as a deliberate act of foreign policy, and in the days of straightforward gunboat diplomacy the withdrawal of a mission with the consequent breaking off of diplomatic relations was a logical prelude to war; in practice, the threat of such action by a big power was usually sufficient to convince the smaller power that it was time that it reviewed its foreign policy. Today this manoeuvre is occasionally used, not so much as a threat but as a protest; but as such its effect is limited, and usually disproportionate to the inconvenience that it causes to all concerned.

 

Even when a mission is withdrawn and diplomatic relations formally broken off, contacts are rarely terminated: the states of the world are to an increasing extent interdependent, and diplomatic relations frequently carry on in varying degrees as before, but (provided the host state has no objection) through the intermediary or ‘good offices’ of a state that is represented by a permanent mission in that country. In some cases only the head of the mission leaves, usually ‘for consultation’, and returns within a short space of time. In more serious circumstances the head of mission and the majority of the staff depart, leaving behind a token ‘Interests Section’ as part of the mission of a protecting power which looks after the interests of their country. They retain their personal diplomatic privileges and immunities, communicate with their government under privilege in the name of the ‘protecting’ power, and continue to function normally except that they may not fly their national flag or display their national emblem on their official premises. If they display a flag or emblem it will be that of the ‘protecting’ power.

 

 

Chapter 2

THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN

AFFAIRS

 

 

ORGANISATION AND FUNCTIONS

 

The governments of all states include among their members one who is responsible for relations with other states and with international organisations. The extent of his personal responsibility varies from country to country, as does his title: Minister for Foreign Affairs, Secretary of State (USA), Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (UK), etc. The Minister’s executive function is to implement the foreign policy of his government, and to manage its international relations. This he does with the help of the permanent staff of his Ministry and the heads of his own missions abroad, and through the intermediary of the heads of foreign missions accredited to his state.

The composition of Ministries varies considerably from country to country, but on the basis of the functions that they perform might be divided into the following sections, and grouped according to convenience:

 

Political Affairs - usually subdivided into regional departments, e.g. Latin America, Australasia.

The United Nations - including the provision of directives or ‘briefs’.

Other international and regional organisations - including interdepartmental coordination and the

provision of non-technical briefs.

Treaties - this section works in close relations with the legal department.

Legal - a separate department in the larger states; it normally deals with all international instruments and all

questions of international law. Smaller countries may appoint part-time professional or academic

advisers or obtain advice from a general Ministry of Justice. The legal department may advise both

in matters of home and foreign affairs. In certain states a Department of International Law exists as

a separate entity from the Legal Department, the latter concerning itself with legal assistance

frontier problems, nationality law, national property abroad, etc.

Protocol - responsibility for all personal dealings with heads of foreign missions on such matters as

privileges, immunities and formalities; also for the organisation of conferences, reception of visitors,

etc.

Trade and economic relations

Cultural relations

Disarmament

Press, Media and Information

Scientific

Personnel

Commodities

Consular relations

Administration, communications and security

Archives and library

 

When a country maintains close international relations on a wide variety of matters of national concern its Ministry of Foreign Affairs would be overloaded and even technically out of its depth if it were to try to maintain a close control over the negotiations concerned. An example of this situation is the relationship between the countries of Western Europe, where matters of defence, social welfare, health, economic relations, etc., are of close mutual concern, and policies are constantly under discussion and negotiation between the departmental experts rather than through the traditional channels of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But although a Ministry of Foreign Affairs may in many instances relinquish immediate responsibility to other departments, it has an essential coordinating function and must always remain responsible for background information, political advice, personal relationships and follow-up; and it must always be in a position to step in and take action, or at least make recommendations, if it considers that a particular department, in pursuing its particular interest, is in danger of losing sight of the national interest as a whole.

 

 

RELATIONS WITH ITS OWN MISSIONS

 

The prime responsibility of a head of mission is to carry out the instructions of his Ministry and to report back to it the information that he is asked to provide. He is, however, expected to use his initiative in recommending the policy that he thinks his government should adopt, and also in reporting back information that he personally considers significant, whether he has been asked to do so or not. The relationship between Ministry and heads of mission is thus very much a matter of give and take, and the extent to which the Ministry or the mission dominates in the shaping of policy varies from country to country and in accordance with the national requirements and resources. Modern technology now helps Ministry and mission to keep in almost instantaneous contact, thus fusing their contributions to the formulation of policy.

If policy decisions are reached essentially within the Ministry and the task of the head of mission is mainly that of implementing them, emphasis in terms of numbers of staff (and often ability) is likely to be placed on the Ministry, leaving fewer to serve abroad; but if policy- making is to be influenced strongly by the advice of the heads of mission, then the staff of the Ministry need be relatively few, and the overseas posts may be strongly manned. Staff distribution policy will also determine the length of time that diplomats serve abroad compared with the time that they spend at home, and there is a marked contrast not only between the policies of different countries but also between types of officers: for example, a commercial or press attach for whom wide local contacts are essential might be of greatest value if his stay in a country were five years or longer, while for an embassy secretary the standard period might be three or four.