Sie sind auf Seite 1von 24

Jamia Millia Islamia

Topic: Diplomatic Agents

Submitted To: Submitted By:


BA.LLB (Hons.) (2nd Year)


I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher DR.

GHULAM YAZDANI who gave me the golden opportunity to do this
wonderful project on the topic “Diplomatic Agents”, which also helped
me in doing Research and i came to know about so many new things. I
am really thankful to them.

Secondly I would also like to thank my friends who helped me a lot in

finishing this project within the limited time.

I am making this project not only for marks but to also increase my



 Introduction

 Laws on Diplomatic Agents

 Classification of Diplomatic Agents

 Function Diplomatic Agents

 Immunities of Diplomatic Agents

a) Criminal Jurisdiction

b) Civil Jurisdiction

Diplomatic Agents

 Introduction: Diplomatic Agents are ambassadors residing in a

foreign country as representatives of the States by whom they are
dispatched. In a broader sense, an ambassador represents not merely one
government to another government but even one nation to another nation so
that they may understand each other.
The word ‘diplomacy’ is derived from the Greek word ‘diploma’
meaning a letter folded double a document, a writing conferring some honor
or privileges. According to the Oxford English Dictionary diplomacy
connotes “the management of international relations by negotiations.” It is
“the method by which these relations are adjusted and managed by the
representatives of countries who are accredited to some other countries, i.e.,
the ambassadors or envoys.” Diplomacy is the art of negotiation, especially
of treaties between States, and involves the drawing up of documents in a
negotiable form. It is the art of intercourse of nations with each other. At
present, ‘the institution of diplomatic representatives has come to be the
principal machinery by which intercourse between States is conducted.1

 Law on Diplomatic Agents

The practice of sending and receiving diplomatic agents by States is
followed since the ancient time. One can find the practice in the ancient
India when ‘doots’ were sent from one rajya to another rajya. However,
neither the practice was uniform nor they were sent to others States

Starke’s International Law, Eleventh Edition, (1994) p. 383

permanently. Diplomatic agents were sent temporarily to other States for
some specific purpose, and when the purpose was fulfilled they used to
come back to their own states. Even in the fourteenth and fifteenth century
the practice was not uniform. The practice of sending diplomatic agents
permanently started from the seventeenth century. By the second half of the
seventeenth century, permanent legation became a general institution.2 Later,
they were given certain rights, duties and privileges by the States which
were almost identical in nature. This led to the development of some
customary rules of international Law. The Congress of Vienna of 1815 for
the first time codified the customary rules of International Law on the ranks
of diplomatic representatives. But that was not the end. The institution of
diplomatic agents continued to develop even after 1815. After the
establishment of the United Nation, the task for codifying the law relating to
the diplomatic agents was given to the International Law Commission.3 The
Commission prepared the draft articles and submitted them to the General
Assembly of the United Nations. The Assembly convened a Conference4
which was attended by eighty four nations at Vienna in 1961. The
Conference adopted a Convention on April 18, 1961 by the name of Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Convention came into force on
April 24, 1964 when it was ratified by twenty-two States.5 By the year 1986,
149 States have become parties to the Convention.

Oppenheim’s, ‘International Law’, Vol. I, Ninth Edition (1992) pp. 1053-1054
In 1954 the commission decided to treat the topic on priority basis on the recommendation of the General
General Assembly Resolution 1450(XIV) of Dec 7, 1959
See Article 51 of Vienna Convention

 Classification of Diplomatic Agents
The Congress of Vienna,1815, classified diplomatic representative into
three classes, to which the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle,1818, added a
fourth. They are as below in order of seniority of rank.

a. Ambassadors: They are the representative of the person and dignity

of the sovereign or Head of the State accrediting them and as such
enjoy of credence conferring on them their official character, they are
entitled to public audience from the Head of the State to whom they
are accredited. They have also the privilege of negotiating with the
Head of the State personally. They are entitled to the title of
“Excellency”. Only States enjoying royal honours can send
ambassadors. The diplomatic envoys sent by the Holy See are called
Papal Legates or Nuncios.

b. Ministers Plenipotentiary and Envoys Extraordinary: They are not

regarded as the personal representatives of the Head of their States.
They therefore do not enjoy special honours which are normally
enjoyed by the ambassadors. They do not receive the title of
‘Excellency’. If they are given, it is because of courtesy and not by
any right. They also do not enjoy the privileged treatment with the
Head of the State personally. They have a private audience from the
Head of the State when they present the letter of credence. In other
respects there is practically no difference between them and the

c. Ministers Resident: They are accredited to sovereign and rank below
the Ministers Plenipotentiary and Envoys Extraordinary. They do not
enjoy the title “Excellency” even by courtesy. This class was added in

d. Charges d’ Affaires: They are accredited not by a Head of State to

another Head of State but by a Minister of Foreign Affairs to a
Minister of Foreign Affairs. On arrival at the foreign capital they
present their letter of credence to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961,6 divides

heads of missions into three classes, namely:

 That of ambassadors or nuncios accredited to the Heads of State, and other

heads of mission equivalent rank;
 That of envoys, ministers and internuncios accredited to Head of State; and
 That of charge d’affaires accredited to Ministers for Foreign Affairs.

 Functions of Diplomatic Agents

Functions of Diplomatic Agents are determined by the rules of

International Law and the municipal laws of the States. Vienna Convention under
Article 3(1) lays down the various functions of the diplomatic agents are as

a. Representation: Diplomatic agents represents the State by which they are

sent in the State where they are accredited. Representation is entrusted
primarily to the head of the mission, but other diplomatic agents may also

Art. 14

participate at the appropriate level. Oppenheim says that ‘he is the
mouthpiece of the Head of his home State and its Foreign Minister for
communications to be made to the state to which he is accredited’.7

b. Protection: Diplomatic agents protect the interest of the sending State and
also of its nationals, within the limits permitted by municipal law.8 The limit
is prescribed not by International Law but by the municipal law and
regulations of the sending State within which an envoy affords protection.

c. Negotiation: Negotiation is the most important function which the

diplomatic agents perform. They negotiate on various aspects on behalf of
the sending State with the State to which they are accredited in order to
maintain friendly relation between the two. They are required to
communicate the outcome of the negotiation to the sending State from time
to time.

d. Observation: Diplomatic agents are required to observe those happenings

and events which may take place in the State where they are accredited,
especially those which may have effect in the State by which they are sent.
After making observations they are requires to make periodical reports as
well as special reports thereon to the government of the sending State.9

e. Promotion of friendly relations: Diplomatic agents are required to promote

friendly relation between the sending state and receiving state. They also

Op. cit., p. 1066

have a function to develop the economic, cultural and social relations
between the two states.

 Doctrine of diplomatic immunity: The doctrine of diplomatic Immunity is

one of the oldest notions of foreign relations and the fundamental rule of
diplomatic law. This rule was mentioned under article 29 of the Vienna
Convention in 1961. The diplomatic agent who goes to the receiving state to
serve as a medium of communication between his country and the receiving
state must be given immunity in order to carry out their duties effectively.
Therefore it seems necessary for the diplomatic agent to enjoy the immunity
from the criminal and civil jurisdiction in the receiving state. In general there
are various types of persons in the diplomatic mission some of whom should
be granted a higher protection than others. The immunity for diplomats was
established before by the rule of customary international law. However, the
immunity from jurisdiction in modern practice is regulated by the ‘Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relation, 1961'. It is important to emphasize that
the rule of customary international law will continue to apply if any matter is
not regulated by the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relation 1961.

The basis of diplomatic immunities and the argument which has

arisen about this basis between different scholars in diplomatic law in the
diplomatic law.

Furthermore, it discusses in detail the immunities from the criminal jurisdiction in

Article 31 (1) and the immunity from civil jurisdiction. Additionally, the three
exceptions in Article 31 (1) (a, b, c) in the Vienna Convention are still unclear and
shall be assessed in this project.

Theoretical Basis Of Diplomatic Immunities

There are a variety of different theories which have been used to justify the legal
basis of immunities that the diplomatic agent can benefit from. The three following
theories; exterritorial theory, representative character theory, and functional
necessity theory.

Exterritorial Theory

It could be said that the doctrine of “exterritoriality ' is the first and the oldest
theory which is based on the concept that the premises of the mission is not the
territory of the receiving but it is part of the sending state. In order to clarify this
point, the diplomatic office and residential premises are treated as being the
territory of the sending state which might be considered as a sort of extension of
the sending state.

This theory has received criticism from the writers of diplomatic law and judicial
decisions. First of all, it might be said that the extraterritoriality theory cannot
provide good reason for the basis of the immunities for both premises of the
mission and the diplomatic agent due to the difficulty of accepting this exemption
in practice. Additionally, the ambassador may be involved in business in his own
capacity or he might own property in the receiving state. In this situation, he is
required to follow the local legislation of the receiving state such as paying rates.
However, it could be argued that this theory has some practical values because the
envoy should be treated as if he is outside the receiving state.

10 | P a g e
With reference to the above argument, it may be generally said that this theory is
out of date and is no longer used in the international law field. Decisions of the
different municipal courts have also discarded this theory. 10

Representative Character Theory

The second theory is the representative character theory. Under this traditional
theory, the receiving state should deal with the envoy who represents the sovereign
state as if it deals with sovereign state. Moreover, any attachment to the dignity of
the ambassador is considered as an attachment of the personal dignity of the
sovereign. Therefore, the receiving state must treat the ambassador similar to how
it treats the presidential representative so they are not subjected to jurisdiction of
the receiving state. As a matter of fact, this theory was supported be the decision of
the supreme court of the United States of America in the Schooner Exchange v
MacFaddom11 case.

However, modern diplomatic practice does not accept this theoretical approach for
many reasons. It is not possible to include all the reasons due to the word limit of
this paper, so it focuses on one criticism which is that the representative theory
extends immunity of the official act but does not cover the basis immunity of the
private act.

It could be said that this theory is not supported by many writers and the decisions
of different municipal courts have disregarded this theory.

Fatemi et al v. United States, 192 A 2d 525 (1963)
11 U.S. 116 (1812)

11 | P a g e
Functional Necessity Theory

The functional necessity theory, as presented by scholars is currently becoming

more popular. In diplomatic law, the modern perspective tends to grant the
immunities and privileges on the basis of the “functional necessity”. According to
this theory, the diplomatic mission grants these immunities because diplomats
cannot exercise their duties perfectly unless they enjoy such privileges. It may be
generally said that if the diplomat is liable for any legal action, political
interference or even personal acts which may put the diplomat in a risky situation
depending on the good will of the receiving state to which they are accredited .
Furthermore, it seems necessary to the diplomatic agent to be granted immunity to
make him feel more safe and comfortable without any hamper in the exercise of
their duties.

It could be said that functional theory is more practical and expected in diplomatic

Brief Evaluation Of The Three Theories

The immunities and privileges are very important in the interest of the international
relation between the nations as stated by Professor Guggenheim. From the legal
point of view, the implications of personal immunity in relation to the three
theories shows that the exterritorial theory is disregarded and out dated and the
representative theory has not been supported by many writers in current years.
However, it might be said that the functional necessity theory is more practical and
is highly supported by modern diplomatic practice.

12 | P a g e
Immunity From jurisdiction

The diplomatic agent can benefit from immunity from criminal and civil
jurisdiction in the receiving state under the Article (31) of the Vienna
Convention12. It appears that there are two types of immunity from the criminal
jurisdiction and the civil jurisdiction. This section will discuss this immunity in
addition to discussing the differences between them in detail.

Immunity From Criminal Jurisdiction

To begin with, the diplomatic agent can benefit from immunity from criminal
jurisdiction in the receiving state. The immunity from criminal jurisdiction is
absolute and the local criminal courts in the receiving state cannot try or punish the
diplomat under any circumstances. The importance of immunity from criminal
jurisdiction was emphasized by the decision of the International court of Justice in
the Hostage case13. This case appears to be fully justified by the requirement of his
functions and to make him more comfortable when he works in the receiving state.
The immunity of the diplomat starts at the moment the diplomat enters the
receiving state and gives notification to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and it
ends when he leaves the country or his period has expired (Article 39 (1, 2).
However this immunity from the criminal jurisdiction does not mean that he is
completely immune from any crimes he commits. It only means he will not be
punished in the receiving state but he may be punished in the court of his home
country under Article 31 (4). In spite of the fact that the receiving state cannot sue
and use the jurisdiction over the diplomatic, it can take other ways such as; asking
the sending state to waive the immunity of that diplomat and the waiver must be

I.C.J. Reports 1979, pp. 10-1 1)

13 | P a g e
expressed ( Article 32 (1). Additionally, the receiving state can request to recall
him back to the sending state or declare this diplomat as persona non grata.

The question may arise whether this immunity from the criminal jurisdiction
covers the diplomatic agent only or it also extend to cover members of his family,
administrative and technical staff. It seems difficult to explain this point in more
detail but it may be helpful to provide a short summary on this point. It is not clear
under article 37 (1) the meaning of the “family” of the diplomatic agent. It could
be said that the spouse of the diplomat and the children below age of majority are
member s of the family and the immunity should be extended to them.
Furthermore, the administrative, the technical staff and their families have
immunity under Article 37 (2). However, there is limitation under Article 37 (3).

The following table shows a brief summary on criminal immunity for the mission
in the receiving state.

Moreover, some of the scholars in diplomatic law divide the crimes which may be
committed by the diplomatic agent into two categories; political offense and the
ordinary crime. First of all, a political offence against the receiving states for
example, a conspiracy against the Head of the receiving state, collecting of
intelligence and the information the office secret of the state. As matter of fact,
some countries in these types of the crimes may put restraint on the diplomatic
agent, dismiss and expulse him but these sanctions have been limited in the

However, it is possible that some countries may justify this act on the basis of the
principle of self-defense. At this point, the question of what the meaning of the self
defense is and whether there is any limit in applying it remains unanswered. On the

14 | P a g e
one hand, it could be said that the countries which may use this doctrine want to
protect their securities. On the other hand, it might be argued that, the receiving
state may misuse this principle and it may extent to explicate this principle. In
addition, it appears that giving the diplomatic agent immunity from criminal
jurisdiction is necessary in order to do his tasks effectively otherwise the immunity
of this person might hardly be guaranteed. This view is supported by the American
Institute of International Law and Harvard Law School in the drafts of
international conventions.

The second category is related to ordinary crimes. For instance, the most common
crimes statistically taken from the United States and Western Europe are the
violation of road traffic offences and drug abuse. It appears in some of these
countries, such as Great Britain, these crimes are dealt with by informing the heads
of missions of any laws broken by any member of the mission. However, for
serious crime a waiver of immunity may be requested.

A question which may arise from time to time is whether the procedures from the
receiving state against the diplomatic agent before taking him to the court is
considered as contravention to Article 29 in the Vienna Convention. An example
could be the diplomatic agent commits an ordinary crime and the police conduct
investigations related to this crime and ask the diplomat some questions. There is
much academic discussion about this question but it has been argued that even
those small actions may be considered as contravention to Article 29.

To sum up, it is clear that this immunity from criminal jurisdiction is absolute for
the diplomatic agent and there is no exception at all. Hence, the receiving state
must respect this principle and should draw very narrow interpretation of this

15 | P a g e
doctrine unless there is an expressed waive from the sending state. However, in
practice the sending state is unlikely to waiver immunity in criminal cases.

 There is a latest case of Devyani Khobragade (an Indian Diplomats in US)

which comes under the scope of immunity from criminal jurisdiction. The
US has rejected India’s contention that it has misconstrued salary details in
the visa application of senior Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade’s
domestic help, asserting there is “no goof up” and that the case against her is
on a firm footing. Making it clear that visa fraud charges against
Khobragade will not be dropped, US sources here said, “The strength of the
fraud in the case is very strong. The case will be there against her, it will not
be dropped. The charges will remain,” the sources said, adding that if the 39-
year-old diplomat gets full diplomatic immunity, she can travel outside the
country. However, if she were to return to the US later on a visit and if she
then does not have the immunity, she could face arrest on the charges
against her and be prosecuted.

Effects Of Immunity On Insurance

Another relevant point regarding immunity from jurisdiction is that of the impact
of immunity. In the case of Dickinson v Del Solar in the United Kingdom, it was
held that the insurer could not take the benefit of the entitlement of a diplomatic
customer to immunity on the basis that the waiver of the diplomatic immunity
leads to a breach of the insurance contract or on the grounds that the diplomatic
agent has no legal liability. It is clear that the situation in the United Kingdom is
more difficult if the diplomat denies and refuses a waiver of his immunity. In this
case, the claimant will face difficulties in receiving damages.

16 | P a g e
In the United States, it is required by the diplomatic mission, their members and
families to have insurance before driving their cars. The crucial point is that if
there are any civil claims, it will not be against the diplomat but against the
insurance company directly which makes it easier for the claimant to receive

Motoring Offences And Claims

In recent years there have been many offences involving the diplomat driving
under the influence of alcohol. This causes chronic problems and also other
offenses such as illegal parking. It is worth mentioning that the Netherlands
rejected to ratify the Vienna Convention until 1984. The reason is that it wanted to
assume jurisdiction over claims of damages caused by motor traffic accidents
unless the insurance company is liable for the damages directly. Generally
speaking, most states are implementing the insurance solution to cope with this
problem and most plaintiffs obtain solutions easily regarding motor accidents.

Immunities From Civil Jurisdiction

The immunities from civil jurisdiction came after the establishment of the
immunities from criminal jurisdiction. According to Article 31 (1) in the Vienna
Convention, after mentioning the immunities from the criminal jurisdiction, it
mentions the immunities from civil jurisdiction with three important exceptions.

These three exceptions did not exist in common law countries before but were in
existence in some civil law countries. It seems important to assess these three
exceptions in more detail.

17 | P a g e
Exception For Private Immovable Property

The first exception in Article 31.1 (a) is that “ a real action relating to private
immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving , unless he holds it on
behalf of the sending state for the purpose of the mission”.

This exception was accepted before by some authors such as Grotius but in recent
years there has been some criticism by many countries. There is an argument in
various legislations and court decisions in different countries about this exception.
It appears that this exception is unclear and there are different views regarding it.
First, there had been an opinion that the local courts had jurisdiction when this case
related to private immovable property. There were two reasons for this view; first
on the grounds of immunity of the sovereign. The second reason is on the basis
that the best place to settle any dispute arising in connection to property was the
place of its location. However there was exception to this view suggested by
Bynkershock in the favor of the real property to the ambassador when he uses the
real property for embassy aims.

The question may arise what the meaning of the “real action” is. It could be said
that there are different meanings for the real action in different countries. However,
it may be helpful to focus on the common law countries such as the UK to define
this term. Indeed under the English Law the distinction between the real and the
personal actions does not carry the same meaning as in Article 31.1. (a). The real
action is probably defined as the court of Appeal concluded in the case” in which
the owner ship or possession as distinct from mere use “

Another ambiguous point is whether the words ‘unless he holds it on behalf of the
sending state for the purpose of the mission' apply to the doctrine of the private
residence of a diplomat. It can be said that if the aim of this exception is to allow
18 | P a g e
the local courts the trial of action affecting real property which seems difficult to
try the diplomatic agent in their country. In this case it could be argued that the
construed of the exception should be very narrow in order to bring any action to
settle on the legal claim of the owner of a house in which the diplomat resides.

Exception For Involvement In Succession

The second exception is of “an action relation to succession in which the

diplomatic agent is involved as executer administrator, heir or legatee as a private
person and not behalf of the sending state” under Article 31.1(b).

As matter of fact, the exception is quite common and is considered as a new

exception. It is generally considered that the diplomat may be involved in
succession matters in certain situations. For example, in the case of national citizen
of diplomatic agent's own state dies leaving money to the home state, the diplomat
can receive the money in his office capacity. Moreover, in the case the diplomat
become involved in the division of the estate.

Exception For Private , Professional Or Commercial Activity

The third exception under Article 31.1(c) is that “an action relating to any
professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the
receiving state outside his official functions”. It can be said that under Article (42)
the diplomatic agents cannot engage in any commercial activities in the receiving
for personal profit. Nevertheless, in practice the last exception is very important
and it is still needed. It is necessary to highlight this exception as it was not
effective and it remained narrow in terms. For instance under the English law,
there was no place for this exception and this point was illustrated by decision in

19 | P a g e
the case of Magdalena Steam Navigation Company v Martin. However, in current
years many authors give a broader explanation for this exception.

The question is whether the family members of the diplomatic agents are subject to
this exception especially they are not subject to the prohibition in Article (42).
From the legal point of view, it appears that this exception will also apply to the
family members of the diplomatic agents. It is worth mentioning that this exception
is more beneficial for the claimants or creditors in the receiving state to receive
their money rather than using persona non grate.

Another relevant point is the meaning of ‘any professional or commercial

activities'. In general ordinary activities such as the buying of goods or some
services are not considered as commercial activities. This point was supported by
the decision of the Court of Appeal in the USA in the case Tabion V Mufti . It was
held that the contract related to domestic service between a Philippine national and
a diplomatic agent was not a commercial activity. Nonetheless, if the diplomatic
member or his family works in the receiving state, it could be argued that they are
within the exception. Therefore the claimants can sue them in the receiving state.

It remains unclear whether the creditors can sue the diplomat in the receiving state
in the case of bankruptcy for the diplomatic within the exception. It seems difficult
to address the above question but it could be argued that the bankruptcy
proceedings cannot be established against them in respect to the immunities of the

The last point is whether some acts were done with the diplomat official functions
or outside his functions. It appears complicated to draw a determined line between
them. With regard to Article 3 which states the general rules for diplomatic

20 | P a g e
functions, any unclear actions will be considered as the functions of the diplomatic
mission. This approach was supported by many judicial decisions in many
countries such as the UK. This approach was illustrated by the decision of the
English High Court in the case of Propend Finance Property v Sing and the
Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. It was held that the Diplomatic
staff of the Australian carrying out police cooperation activities part from his
official function.

Legal Effects Of Establishment Or Lifting Of Immunity

Generally, there is a difference between the exemption from liability and

exemption from immunity from jurisdiction. In the case of exemption from
liability there will not be enforcement whereas in the exemption from Jurisdiction
the claim might be enforced. This could happen in many situations for example
when the immunity is waived from the sending state in respect to judgment and
execution or when the immunity has been ceased.

Another relevant point is that the immunity from jurisdiction in the case the
government of the sending state waives the immunity does not mean it waives
from any measures of execution. Therefore, any decision from the courts cannot be
enforced against the diplomatic agent unless there is a separate waiver. This is the
main point emphasized in Article 31 (3) in the Vienna Convention.

Furthermore, it seems necessary to mention that if the diplomatic agent has

immunity from jurisdiction in the receiving state, it does not exempt him from the
jurisdiction of the sending state.

However, there is a question arising regarding this point which is whether the
sending state will exercise the jurisdiction against the diplomatic agent. There are

21 | P a g e
many problems regarding this question, as in Article 31.4 which does not make it
compulsory for the sending state to exercise the jurisdiction. Additionally, some
cases may be considered as crimes in the receiving state; for example, the drinking
alcohol whereas in the sending state this is not considered to be a crime. The
question is what is the solution to tackling this issue? It is suggested that this issue
may be settled by the consultation between the receiving and the sending states. In
the case relating to civil jurisdiction, it could be said that there are three exceptions
(as mentioned previously) and also in the practice the sending state may waiver the
immunity from the diplomatic agent.

With reference to the above discussion concerning the immunity from civil
jurisdiction for the diplomatic agent, it is not absolute and there are three
exceptions for this immunity and these exceptions will exist if he is outside his
official functions. It is worth noting that there has been a school of thought against
the view of exceptions from the civil immunity and the Havana Convention 1928
had adopted this view.

Limited Immunity

There is much academic discussion about the issue of the limited immunity of the
diplomatic agent because in recent years there are many cases of diplomats abusing
their immunity. Especially after the famous case in the UK in 1984 when a police
woman was killed in London by shots fired from the windows of the Libyan
people's Bureau. Moreover, there are other examples of abusing diplomatic
immunity in the receiving state such as traffic offences.

Another point is whether diplomatic immunity should prevail even when there has
been a violation of human rights. It could be said that this issue is very wide but it
seems important to mention it briefly. It might be said that the protection of human
22 | P a g e
rights is more important than the immunity of the diplomatic agent. However, it
can be argued that diplomatic immunity is more important even if the diplomat
violates human rights because they will be liable for this in the sending state.

Indeed it is difficult to cover the issue about abusing diplomatic immunity and the
clash with human rights due to word constraints and it is not a core point to this
assignment question; however, it is worth mentioning these two issues.

In short, there have been many suggestions by writers addressing this issue and
creating a balance between the diplomatic immunity and reducing the abuse of

The first suggestion is creating new restrictions of the Vienna Convention or

amending some provisions in this Convention.

However, it is argued that these two proposals are difficult to apply in practice
because they may lead to reducing the immunity for the diplomatic agent.

Another proposal which may be applied in some situations is providing insurance

for the vehicles in the receiving state which is applied in The USA. It may be
helpful in practice especially in dealing with some cases without any violation of
the diplomatic immunity.

23 | P a g e

 Kapoor, S.k. : Public International Law

 Tandon, M.P. : Public International Law

 Aggarwal, H.O. : Public International Law

 Vienna Convention 1961



 Some Cases of International Court of Justice

24 | P a g e