Conventions Relating to

Diplomatic and Consular

Relation
Law and Diplomacy
 Conventions Relating to Diplomatic and Consular Relation

1. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations ,1961(India became a party

15 October 1965)
2. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963
3. Convention on Special Missions, 1969
4. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against
Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents,1973
5. Vienna Convention on the Representation of States in their Relations
with International Organizations of a Universal Character, 1975
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations ,1961
• The Convention was adopted on 14 April 1961 by the United Nations
Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities held at the Neue
Hofburg in Vienna, Austria, from 2 March to 14 April 1961.  The Conference
also adopted the Optional Protocol concerning the Acquisition of Nationality,
the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, the
Final Act and four resolutions annexed to that Act.  
 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963

• The extraordinary increase of consulates during the nineteenth and twentieth

centuries revealed the need for a more precise legal framework, particularly
concerning the consular service and the legal status of consuls. Later on, the
vertiginous changes in social, political and economic activity, as well as the
increasing global trends affecting daily life impinged a new challenge for the
consular institution: the protection of citizens and the safeguard of their interests. 
• Some preliminary attempts at the official codification of international consular
legislation resulted in the adoption of regional agreements, preceding the pioneer
work carried out by the League of Nations on the subject. In spite of the League of
Nations’ conclusions regarding not only the desirability, but the paramount
importance of consular regulation through international instruments, the issue was
left pending for nearly twenty years. 
 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963

• The United Nations Conference on Consular Relations was held in Vienna,

Austria, from 4 March to 22 April 1963 and was attended by delegates of
ninety-five States. After careful consideration of the International Law
Commission’s text, the final version was prepared for submission to the
plenary. 
• On 24 April 1963, the Conference adopted and opened for signature the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Optional Protocol concerning
Acquisition of Nationality and the Optional Protocol concerning the
Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. The Convention and both Optional
Protocols came into force on 19 March 1967. 
 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963

• The Vienna Convention consists of 79 articles, most of which provide for the
operation of consulates; outline the functions of consular agents; and address
the privileges and immunities granted to consular officials when posted to a
foreign country. 
• A few other articles specify consular officials’ duties when citizens of their
country face difficulties in a foreign nation. 
• Of particular interest for the right of individuals is Article 36, providing for
certain obligations for competent authorities in the case of an arrest or
detention of a foreign national, in order to guarantee the inalienable right to
counsel and due process through consular notification and effective access to
consular protection. 
• 19 March 1967, in accordance with article 77. 
• Signatories : 48. Parties : 179

• India Accession 28 November 1977

Article 36 of 1963 Convention - Communication and contact with
nationals of the sending State
• The first United States case relating to article 36 of the Vienna Convention
was Breard v. Greene (523 U.S. 371, 1988), followed by numerous claims in United States
federal circuit Courts of appeals, State Supreme Courts, and the United States Supreme Court.
Interpretations have varied widely, from the non-recognition of fundamental rights conferred
by Article 36, where no appropriate remedy is available, to the possibility of individually
enforcing those rights.
• In 1999, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued an advisory opinion, recognizing
that Article 36 creates individual rights, as a “notable exception to what are essentially States’
rights and obligations accorded elsewhere” in the Convention (Advisory Opinion of the Inter-
American Court of Human Rights: Due Process of Law is a Fundamental Right (OC-16/99),
para. 82). 
• In 2001, the International Court of Justice in LaGrand (Germany v. United States of
America) found that where a violation of Article 36 occurs, a remedy is due consisting of
“review and reconsideration by United States courts of convictions and sentences”, in light of
the breach of the Convention.
 Cont..
• The Avena and other Mexican Nationals case ( Mexico v. United States of
America) marked a turning point regarding Article 36 jurisprudence. The
International Court of Justice’s unprecedented decision of 2004 expressly
recognized the interdependence of both individual and State’s rights, by asserting
that “violations of the rights of the individual under Article 36 may entail a
violation of the rights of the sending State, and that violations of the rights of the
latter may entail a violation of the rights of the individual” (I. C. J Reports 2004,
p. 36).
• Moreover, the Court stated that the fact that in this case the ruling concerned only
Mexican nationals cannot be taken to imply that the conclusions reached by it in
the Avena case do not apply to other foreign nationals finding themselves in
similar situations in other countries. 
 Persona non grata
“The process by which an ambassador or other diplomatic agent who is personally unacceptable
to the receiving government is removed has been known under varying descriptions at different
periods….There remains, however, a tendency to use the somewhat more polite expression
“request the recall of a diplomat” rather that the blunter “declare persona non grata”. Whatever
terminology is employed, the characteristic feature of the persona non grata procedure is that it
is diplomat personally who has offended the receiving government. Where the displeasure is not
with the diplomat personally but the policies or conduct of the sending state, the correct course is
to break diplomatic relations, or in a less serious case recall the ambassador for consultations’.
Article 23of 1963 Convention- Persons declared “ non grata ”
 Article 12 The Exequatur
• 1.The head of a consular post is admitted to the exercise of his functions by an
authorization from the receiving State termed an exequatur, whatever the form
of this authorization.
• 2.A State which refused to grant an exequatur is not obliged to give to the
sending State reasons for such refusal.
• 3.Subject to the provisions of articles 13 and 15, the head of a consular post
shall not enter upon his duties until he has received an exequatur.
• Article 22
 Article 22 Nationality of Consular Officers

• 1. Consular officers should, in principle, have the nationality of the sending

State.
• 2.Consular officers may not be appointed from among persons having the
nationality of the receiving State except with the express consent of that State
which may be withdrawn at any time.
• 3.The receiving State may reserve the same right with regard to nationals of a
third State who are not also nationals of the sending State.
 SECTION II.
END OF CONSULAR FUNCTIONS

• Article 25
Termination of the functions of a member of a consular post
• The functions of a member of a consular post shall come to an end, inter alia:
• (a)  on notification by the sending State to the receiving State that his functions have come to an end;
• (b)  on withdrawal of the exequatur;
• (c)  on notification by the receiving State to the sending State that the receiving State has ceased to
• consider him as a member of the consular staff.
 Article 29
Use of National Flag And Coat-of-arms

• 1.The sending State shall have the right to the use of its national flag and coat-
of-arms in the receiving State in accordance with the provisions of this article.
• 2.The national flag of the sending State may be flown and its coat-of-arms
displayed on the building occupied by the consular post and at the entrance
door thereof, on the residence of the head of the consular post and on his
means of transport when used on official business.
• 3.In the exercise of the right accorded by this article regard shall be had to the
laws, regulations and usages of the receiving State.
 SECTION II.
Facilities, Privileges and Immunities Relating to Career Consular
Officers and other Members of a Consular Post

• Article 41
Personal inviolability of consular officers
• 1.Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial,
except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the
competent judicial authority.
• 2.Except in the case specified in paragraph 1 of this article, consular officers
shall not be committed to prison or be liable to any other form of restriction on
their personal freedom save in execution of a judicial decision of final effect.
 Cont..
• 3.If criminal proceedings are instituted against a consular officer, he must
appear before the competent authorities. Nevertheless, the proceedings shall be
conducted with the respect due to him by reason of his official position and,
except in the case specified in paragraph 1 of this article, in a manner which
will hamper the exercise of consular functions as little as possible. When, in
the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 of this article, it has become
necessary to detain a consular officer, the proceedings against him shall be
instituted with the minimum of delay.
 Article 42
Notification of Arrest, Detention or Prosecution

• In the event of the arrest or detention, pending trial, of a member of the consular staff, or of criminal
proceedings being instituted against him, the receiving State shall promptly notify the head of the
consular post. Should the latter be himself the object of any such measure, the receiving State shall
notify the sending State through the diplomatic channel.
 Article 43 Immunity from Jurisdiction

• 1.Consular officers and consular employees shall not be amenable to the

jurisdiction of the judicial or administrative authorities of the receiving State
in respect of acts performed in the exercise of consular functions.
• 2.The provisions of paragraph 1 of this article shall not, however, apply in
respect of a civil action either:
• (a) arising out of a contract concluded by a consular officer or a consular
employee in which he did not contract expressly or impliedly as an agent of
the sending State; or
• (b) by a third party for damage arising from an accident in the receiving State
caused by a vehicle, vessel or aircraft.
 Article 44 Liability to Give Evidence

• 1.Members of a consular post may be called upon to attend as witnesses in the

course of judicial or administrative proceedings. A consular employee or a
member of the service staff shall not, except in the cases mentioned in
paragraph 3 of this article, decline to give evidence. If a consular officer
should decline to do so, no coercive measure or penalty may be applied to
him.
• 2.The authority requiring the evidence of a consular officer shall avoid
interference with the performance of his functions. It may, when possible, take
such evidence at his residence or at the consular post or accept a statement
from him in writing.
• 3.Members of a consular post are under no obligation to give evidence concerning
matters connected with the exercise of their functions or to produce official
correspondence and documents relating thereto. They are also entitled to decline to
give evidence as expert witnesses with regard to the law of the sending State.
• The Convention on Special Missions (sometimes referred to as the “New York
Convention”) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 8 December
1969, together with an Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of
Disputes and a resolution concerning civil actions. The Convention entered into force
on 21 June 1985. At the time of writing (April 2012), there are 38 States parties.
 Convention on Special Missions, 1969
• 21 June 1985, in accordance with article 53(1). 
• Signatories : 12. Parties : 39 & India is not a party
• Articles 1 to 18 and 20 of the Convention on Special Missions deal with the use of terms, and the
sending, structure and functioning of the mission. Articles 9, paragraph 2, 19, and 21 to 49 set out the
privileges and immunities of the mission, and articles 50 to 55 the final clauses. The final clauses were
standard at the time, though the inclusion of the so-called “Vienna formula” on participation was
politically contentious. 
• As is the case with the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations, the preamble to the
Special Missions Convention acknowledges the functional basis for the privileges and immunities for
which it provides:
• “Realizing that the purpose of privileges and immunities relating to special missions is not to benefit
individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of special missions as missions
representing States”.
• This definition contains a number of elements: the temporary character of the mission (which
distinguishes it from a permanent diplomatic mission); the fact that it represents the sending
State; the fact that it is sent “for the purposes of dealing with [the receiving State] on specific
questions or of performing in relation to it a specific task”.
• Above all, article 1 makes it clear that a special mission may only be sent with the consent of
the receiving State, consent that is to the sending of the special mission as such. (According
to Satow (p. 192), even among parties to the Convention a specific agreement to apply the
Convention to a routine special mission is seldom concluded.)
 Cont...
• Article 2 specifies that consent means prior consent, and that it must be given through the diplomatic or
other agreed or mutually acceptable channel.
• Article 3 makes yet further provision for consent, by providing that –
• “The functions of a special mission shall be determined by the mutual consent of the sending and the
receiving State.”
• The Convention on Special Missions is the applicable international law as between the parties thereto.
Yet it is not clear how it is applied in practice even between the parties. In any event, the parties are
relatively few, and there are few other treaties on the subject.  So, as between most States, and in most
circumstances, the governing rules on special missions and other official visitors are to be found in
customary international law.
• While the elaboration of the Convention within the International Law Commission and in the
Sixth Committee of the General Assembly has no doubt influenced the rules of customary
international law in the field, there is no reason to suppose that all or even most of its
provisions are reflected in customary law, given the circumstances of its adoption and the lack
of support for the Convention among States.
• The Convention is frequently referred to by domestic courts as evidence for certain rules of
customary international law, particularly as regards the elements (including consent) of a
special mission, and the inviolability of the person and immunity from criminal jurisdiction of
members of a special mission. But the rules of customary international law are both wider and
narrower than the provisions of the Special Missions Convention.
 Convention on The Prevention and Punishment of Crimes
Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic
Agents (New York, 14 December 1973)
• 20 February 1977, in accordance with article 17(1). 
• Signatories : 25. Parties : 180
• 11 Apr 1978 –accession.

• Crimes against diplomatic agents and other internationally protected persons

create a serious threat to the maintenance of normal international relations which
are necessary for cooperation among States. The objective of the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected
Persons, including Diplomatic Agents (the Convention) is to establish effective
measures for the prevention and punishment of such crimes.
 Cont..
• The Convention applies to the crimes of direct involvement or complicity in the murder,
kidnapping, or attack, whether actual, attempted or threatened, on the person, official
premises, private accommodation or means of transport of diplomatic agents and other
"internationally protected persons". Internationally protected persons are defined as Heads of
State or Government, Ministers for Foreign Affairs, State officials and representatives of
international organizations entitled to special protection in a foreign State, and their families.
• Parties are obliged to establish jurisdiction over the offences described; make the offences
punishable by appropriate penalties; take alleged offenders into custody; prosecute or extradite
alleged offenders; cooperate in preventive measures; and exchange information and evidence
needed in related criminal proceedings. The offences referred to in the Convention are deemed
to be extraditable offences between Parties under existing extradition treaties, and under the
Convention itself.
 R. V. Cranham

• One decision of the Ontario Court of Justice, R. v. Cranham, is worth mentioning. The
decision was an oral sentencing judgment from the lowest level of the provincial court; the
previous decision on the conviction is not reported and only the sentencing judgment is
available. In a comment made in dicta, the judge observed that the Crown prosecutor’s
requested sentence was not unreasonable, “considering that this offence of [the accused]
involved internationally protected persons, consular staff of the Russian embassy.” While this
comment initially appears to assume that consular staff are IPPs, it is important to note that the
consular staff in question worked at the Russian embassy. The Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations protects all diplomatic staff, whether they exercise consular functions or
not. Thus, the status of such individuals as IPPs necessarily flowed from their affiliation with
the embassy, not from their status as consular staff.
 Iran Hostage Case

• A short section in the ICJ’s decision on provisional measures in Diplomatic and Consular
Staff in Tehran arguably supports the extension of IPP status to consular employees. However,
a review of the specific facts of the decision indicates that the discussion was dicta and does
not provide a basis for extending IPP status.
• Toward the end of its decision on provisional measures, the ICJ discusses the importance of
diplomatic and consular relations and protection in sweeping terms:
• [T]he unimpeded conduct of consular relations, which have also been established between
peoples since ancient times, is no less important [than diplomatic relations] in the context of
present-day international law . . . . [T]he privileges and immunities of consular officers and
consular employees, and the inviolability of consular premises and archives, are similarly
principles deep- rooted in international law . . . .58
 United States Diplomatic And Consular Staff In Tehran (U.S. V. Iran)

• Significantly, the court mentioned consular officers and employees individually, but did not
distinguish between the degree of protection owed to each category. However, two
observations indicate that this excerpt should not be relied upon for the premise that consular
employees qualify as IPPs. First, the ICJ only referenced the privileges and immunities owed
to such individuals.
• Privileges and immunities should not be conflated with protection. While consular employees
are guaranteed some degree of privileges and immunities under the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations, they are not guaranteed protection. Second, this comment by the ICJ was
effectively dicta. As explained in the merits decision, all the consular representatives held
hostage were members of the “Consular Section of the Mission,” and thus were IPPs by virtue
of their status as members of the diplomatic staff
UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR STAFF IN
TEHRAN (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. IRAN)

• The case was brought before the Court by Application by the United States
following the occupation of its Embassy in Tehran by Iranian militants on
4 November 1979, and the capture and holding as hostages of its
diplomatic and consular staff. 
• On a request by the United States for the indication of provisional
measures, the Court held that there was no more fundamental prerequisite
for relations between States than the inviolability of diplomatic envoys and
embassies, and it indicated provisional measures for ensuring the
immediate restoration to the United States of the Embassy premises and
the release of the hostages. 
• In its decision on the merits of the case, at a time when the situation complained of still persisted, the
Court, in its Judgment of 24 May 1980, found that Iran had violated and was still violating obligations
owed by it to the United States under conventions in force between the two countries and rules of
general international law, that the violation of these obligations engaged its responsibility, and that the
Iranian Government was bound to secure the immediate release of the hostages, to restore the
Embassy premises, and to make reparation for the injury caused to the United States Government
• The Court reaffirmed the cardinal importance of the
principles of international law governing diplomatic and
consular relations. It pointed out that while, during the
events of 4 November 1979, the conduct of militants could
not be directly attributed to the Iranian State — for lack
of sufficient information — that State had however done
nothing to prevent the attack, stop it before it reached its
completion or oblige the militants to withdraw from the
premises and release the hostages.
 Vienna Convention On The Representation Of States In Their
Relations With International Organizations Of A Universal
Character
• Signatories : 20. Parties : 34
• Not entered into force
• 92 Articles & India is not a party
The Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972
• 11 Sections
• Code Of Conduct For The Treatment Of Diplomatic/Consular Personnel In India And Pakistan

• A bilateral treaty signed on 19.08.1992

• The Code provides for “smooth and unhindered functioning” of the diplomatic and consular officials of
the two countries in conformity with international laws without violating their privileges and immunities.
• It also says that the two countries should not resort to intrusive and aggressive surveillance and actions
such as verbal and physical harassment, disconnection of phone lines, etc.
• In its 16th note verbale, a diplomatic communication, to the Pakistan foreign ministry on March 22, the
Indian High Commission specifically mentioned three incidents of harassment of senior officials.
• Pakistan had claimed that there had been as many as 26 instances of harassment and intimidation of its
diplomats since March 7, following which Islamabad called back its high commissioner Sohail Mahmood
to discuss the issue.
• India and Pakistan have agreed to resolve matters related to the treatment of diplomats after envoys of
the two countries made claims and counter-claims about harassment of each other’s diplomats, the
government 5th April L 2018informed Rajya Sabha
Demarche made to the Canadian High Commissioner to India
• Demarche(A French word -a course of action, especially a political one:)
• The Canadian High Commissioner was summoned to the Ministry of External Affairs today and
informed that comments by the Canadian Prime Minister, some Cabinet Ministers and Members of
Parliament on issues relating to Indian farmers constitute an unacceptable interference in our internal
affairs.

Such actions, if continued, would have a seriously damaging impact on ties between India and Canada.

These comments have encouraged gatherings of extremist activities in front of our High Commission
and Consulates in Canada that raise issues of safety and security. We expect the Canadian Government to
ensure the fullest security of Indian diplomatic personnel and its political leaders to refrain from
pronouncements that legitimize extremist activism.
• New Delhi 
December 04, 2020
INDIA RUSSIA CONSULTATIONS ON UNSC
ISSUES
• December 02, 2020
• Shri Vikas Swarup, Secretary ( West), Ministry of External Affairs led the Indian delegation for consultations on UN
Security Council related issues with Russian Foreign Ministry officials on 2nd December 2020 in Moscow. Indian
delegation also included other officials from the Ministry of External Affairs and the Embassy of India in Moscow.

2.​The Russian delegation was led by Mr. Sergey Vasilyevich Vershinin, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
Russian Federation and included other Russian Foreign Ministry officials.

3. Russian side welcomed India taking up the non permanent seat at the UNSC for the period 2021-22. Both sides
held wide ranging discussions on issues on the UN Security Council agenda and recent developments. Both sides
agreed to deepen cooperation on counter terrorism at multilateral platforms. The Indian delegation briefed
Russia on its priorities during its upcoming UNSC tenure and they decided to work closely together, given the
common challenges faced and in keeping with their long standing Special and Strategic Privileged Partnership. 
•