NationStates Jolt Archive

Given the lack of codified rules governing the exchange of diplomats between nations, the Foreign Ministry of Sophista has drafted the following proposal. As always, positive commentary is welcome.

These NationStates United Nations,

FULLY AWARE of the need for nations to maintain friendly and efficient diplomatic relations with their colleagues in the world;

RECOGNIZING the lack of a codified set of rules to govern the establishment and operation of diplomatic missions;

BELIEVING it is the role of the United Nations to provide such a framework;

1. DEFINES that a sending nation is the nation from which a diplomatic mission originates, and a receiving nation is the nation in which the diplomatic mission will reside;

2. DEFINES a "diplomatic mission" as any embassy, consulate, consulate-general, high commission, deputy high commission, commission, legation, governorate, governorate-general, or viceregal seat, as well as official diplomatic residences and diplomatic compounds, that serve to facilitate a formal and mutual diplomatic exchange between two nations;

3. REQUIRES receiving nations to accept the practice of extraterritoriality, and treat the physical location of any diplomatic mission as the sovereign territory of the sending nation;

4. PROVIDES that, as soon as such a site has been decided upon, the physical location of any diplomatic mission shall be protected by extraterritoriality, and shall remain thus protected until the diplomatic mission is terminated;

5. AFFIRMS the right of all nations to secure diplomatic correspondence, and guarantees that no nation will impede the delivery of a properly marked container, and provide for its security should a courier be detained by authorities or otherwise held from completing his mission;

6. REQUIRES that receiving nations commit to a good-faith relationship and refrain from installing any device which may facilitate visual, acoustic, or electronic surveillance on the property of the diplomatic missions of sending nations;

7. RESERVES the right of receiving nations to declare an individual "persona non grata" at any time, and expel them from their territory at the sending nation's expense;

8. GUARANTEES that, should a state of war develop between two nations, each nation will allow for the safe return of diplomats and their staff members to their home nations.

9. ESTABLISHES the right of any foreign citizen, traveling or residing legally within a host nation, to visit the diplomatic missions of any nation, including the mission of their home nation;

10. FURTHER ESTABLISHES the right of any foreign citizen, traveling or residing legally within a host nation, to receive visits from a diplomatic representative of his or her home nation if imprisoned, and for that representative to be free from interference in his duties, so long as those duties do not interfere with the hosting nation's criminal investigation.

11. FURTHER RESERVES the right of any nation to add additional terms to the establishment of a diplomatic mission via bi-lateral treaties with the partner nation;

12. REMINDS nations of their obligations under Resolution #127 Diplomatic Immunity;

And thus stand firmly resolved.

Possibly useful, but not really necessary. Nations can (and do) establish bilateral agreements. Although harmonising them could help, I suppose.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I think we could write off a great number of resolutions as "not necessary." Granted, this proposal doesn't cover something dramatic or hot-button, but I think it's important to set some ground rules for an issue that is of grave importance. Without proper, safe, and established diplomatic procedures, nations have no incentive to play fair in the smoking lounges. Anything we can do to lessen diplomatic tension is a good step.

2. DEFINES a "diplomatic mission" as any embassy, consulate, consulate-general, high commission, deputy high commission, commission, legation, governorate, governorate-general, or vice regal seat, as well as official diplomatic residences and diplomatic compounds, that serve to facilitate a formal and mutual diplomatic exchange between two nations;

Viceregal; one word.

(my fault, I know! :p)

10. FURTHER ESTABLISHES the right of any foreign citizen, traveling or residing legally within a host nation, to receive visits from a diplomatic representative of his or her home nation if imprisoned, and for that representative to be free from interference in his duties;

9. REMINDS nations of their obligations under Resolution #127 Diplomatic Immunity;

And thus stand firmly resolved.

REMINDS clause #11? (Am I becoming a nitpicker? :p )

Also, is it still legal to put your nation's name in the title of the proposal? I know we have the Wolfish Convention on POW, but is this considered "branding" under the new rules?

Also, is it still legal to put your nation's name in the title of the proposal? I know we have the Wolfish Convention on POW, but is this considered "branding" under the new rules?
His draft name is too long in any case. Probably a good idea to lose the branding, though.

Also, what Category would this fall under?

His draft name is too long in any case.I had a feeling that it was too long.
Also, what Category would this fall under?
I would say probably Furtherment of Democracy.

Generally acceptable, but I'd suggest _
[1] adding a clause to allow for the wholesale expulsion of a nation's diplomats (without the need to declare each of them separately 'persona non grata') if war breaks out between the sending & receiving nations,
and [2] maybe allowing for limits to the right granted by clause #10 in any cases where the foreigners were arrested for offences against national security... I do realise that such a limitation could be abused by repressive regimes, but then clause #10 is also subject to abuse as it stands (if, for example, the diplomat's assigned duties include silencing a captured spy before they could be interrogated... or simply escorting them out of prison & back home?).
Oh, and shouldn't the right granted in clause #9 only apply when the travellers concerned aren't under arrest?

Also, what Category would this fall under?

OOC: That's a good question, Fris. There really isn't a category that's truly appropriate for stuff like this. The same problem arose before. "Diplomatic Immunity" was stuffed into The Furtherment of Democracy, and "Rights of Neutral States" was shoehorned into Political Stability. I was hoping that, when the new categoried were created, there would be one called something like "International Relations" to handle cases like this. Maybe next time. ;)

Generally acceptable, but I'd suggest _
[1] adding a clause to allow for the wholesale expulsion of a nation's diplomats (without the need to declare each of them separately 'persona non grata') if war breaks out between the sending & receiving nations,
and

There's nothing that says you can't PNG a list of people: "The following persons are declared persona non grata and will...."

[2] maybe allowing for limits to the right granted by clause #10 in any cases where the foreigners were arrested for offences against national security... I do realise that such a limitation could be abused by repressive regimes, but then clause #10 is also subject to abuse as it stands (if, for example, the diplomat's assigned duties include silencing a captured spy before they could be interrogated... or simply escorting them out of prison & back home?).

We see the point, but we don't think a change would be wise. As you note, it would be open to gross abuse. If we think the diplomat would pose a danger to the prisoner, we'd simply take steps to eliminate the danger. And the business about escorting them out of prison would only apply if the prisoner had diplomatic immunity, and is required by the resolution on that subject. If the person didn't have diplomatic immunity, the holding authorities would simply refuse to release him or her.

Oh, and shouldn't the right granted in clause #9 only apply when the travellers concerned aren't under arrest?

That's an interesting point. Deserves further consideration.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

There's nothing that says you can't PNG a list of people: "The following persons are declared persona non grata and will...."

I suppose so.
Okay, so how about a clause specifying that if two nations go to war with each other they must expel each other's diplomats instead of interning them (OOC: which would be in keeping with normal RL practice, I think...)?

We see the point, but we don't think a change would be wise. As you note, it would be open to gross abuse. If we think the diplomat would pose a danger to the prisoner, we'd simply take steps to eliminate the danger. And the business about escorting them out of prison would only apply if the prisoner had diplomatic immunity, and is required by the resolution on that subject. If the person didn't have diplomatic immunity, the holding authorities would simply refuse to release him or her.

I was wondering whether the phrase "and for that representative to be free from interference in his duties" would let nations specify their diplomats' duties as including such escorts, so that refusing the release would be UN-illegal "interference"... I agree that the scope for abuse would be considerable if a simple, wide exemption in 'national security' cases was made: I do, however, think that there should be some way for nations to keep the fact that they've arrested foreigners on grounds such as espionage or terrorism secret, even when those people were in the country legally and would therefore be entitled to contact their embassies under this proposal's current terms... Then again, I suppose it doesn't specify how quickly that contact with the diplomats must be allowed...

OOC: That's a good question, Fris. There really isn't a category that's truly appropriate for stuff like this. The same problem arose before. "Diplomatic Immunity" was stuffed into The Furtherment of Democracy, and "Rights of Neutral States" was shoehorned into Political Stability. I was hoping that, when the new categoried were created, there would be one called something like "International Relations" to handle cases like this. Maybe next time. ;)

And removing some of the other ones at the same time? Having specific categories for some things such as the drugs one only encourages the masses.:rolleyes:

His draft name is too long in any case.

The name carried over from an off-site forum. I kept it as such for lack of something better to call it, and fully expect to change it when it comes time to submit things.

Viceregal; one word.

Is it? Alrighty. I'll take your word for it.

Also, what Category would this fall under?

Haven't the foggiest at the moment. I'm leaning towards political stability, as this is technically a resolution that will remove a few political freedoms (removing several of a hosting nation's rights to bully around diplomats) in order to increase global stability (formal diplomatic relationships help to avert distasters before they become distasters).

There's nothing that says you can't PNG a list of people: "The following persons are declared persona non grata and will...."

This is correct. In most countries, it doesn't require a special act of government, the person in charge of the list just adds the names to the list and off they go. The bit about war is a good point, though. I'll fix that.

"11. GUARANTEES that, should a state of war develop between two nations, each nation will allow for the safe return of diplomats and their staff members to their home nations."

I was wondering whether the phrase "and for that representative to be free from interference in his duties" would let nations specify their diplomats' duties as including such escorts, so that refusing the release would be UN-illegal "interference"...

That's a rather bizarre perversion of international law, but it's not a loophole that's beyond fixing

"10. FURTHER ESTABLISHES the right of any foreign citizen, traveling or residing legally within a host nation, to receive visits from a diplomatic representative of his or her home nation if imprisoned, and for that representative to be free from interference in his duties, so long as those duties do not interfere with the hosting nation's criminal investigation."

That would rule out escorting the prisoner home, killing the prisoner, or what have you.

The proposal has been updated up top.

Okay, there's now only one clause whose wording the government of St Edmundan Antarctic considers questionable: This 9. ESTABLISHES the right of any foreign citizen, traveling or residing legally within a host nation, to visit the diplomatic missions of any nation, including the mission of their home nation; would seem to allow a foreigner who's actually been arrested already to visit the diplomatic mission of their home nation... at which point they'd legally be on their home nation's soil, and consequently, unless a relevant bilateral or multilateral treaty said otherwise, couldn't be taken back into custody without the extradition process being invoked...
Perhaps it could be changed to 9. ESTABLISHES the right of any foreign citizen, traveling or residing legally within a host nation and not currently under arrest, to visit the diplomatic missions of any nation, including the mission of their home nation;?

Oh, and one more minor point: You refer to "foreign citizens", but there are a number of nations that don't actually classify all (or, in certain cases, "any") members of their populations as 'citizens': It might be better to use the term "foreign nationals", instead, in order to close that potential loophole...

@STA:

I would prefer it to look like this:

9. ESTABLISHES the right of any foreign citizen, traveling or residing legally within a host nation, to visit the diplomatic missions of any nation, including the mission of their home nation, or, in the case that they are currently under arrest by the host nation, have a representative from their home nation's diplomatic mission to contact or come to their place of bondage;

or something like that that's less clunky.

Oh, and one more minor point: You refer to "foreign citizens", but there are a number of nations that don't actually classify all (or, in certain cases, "any") members of their populations as 'citizens'

Ooh. Very valid point. I'll make those changes in the draft.

would seem to allow a foreigner who's actually been arrested already to visit the diplomatic mission of their home nation... at which point they'd legally be on their home nation's soil, and consequently, unless a relevant bilateral or multilateral treaty said otherwise, couldn't be taken back into custody without the extradition process being invoked...

The seond part about being visited by a diplomatic representative is already covered, but I understand the first problem. Adding "under arrest" will work, I just need to think of a qualifier that ensures they are legitimate charges.

Lemme mull it over a while.