JUN 8TH SINCE TIME BEGAN : salus populi suprema est lex - the right of the people is the supreme law : IN TRUTH WE TRUST 2019 A.D.E.
THE CONVENTION ON SPECIAL MISSIONS : CANADA RATIFIED : INTERNATIONAL LAW : CANADA JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
" 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 2019), there are 39 States parties.
Historical Context
Ad hoc diplomacy is the oldest form of diplomacy. As the United Nations Secretariat explained in 1963:
“The custom of sending a special envoy on mission from one State to another, in order to mark the dignity or importance of a particular occasion, is probably the oldest of all means by which diplomatic relations may be conducted. It was only with the emergence of national States on a modern pattern that permanently accredited diplomatic missions, entrusted with a full range of powers, came to take the place of temporary ambassadors sent specially from one sovereign to another. However, although the legal rules which were evolved to determine diplomatic relations between States were therefore based largely on the conduct of permanent missions, so that special missions came to seem merely a particular variant of the other, the sending of special missions was never discontinued. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries such missions were frequently dispatched in order to provide suitable State representation at major ceremonial occasions, such as coronations or royal weddings, or for the purposes of important political negotiations, particularly those held at international congresses.” (Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1963, vol. II, p. 151, para. 3)
Negotiating History
In submitting its final draft on diplomatic intercourse and immunities to the General Assembly in 1958, the International Law Commission stated that, although the draft dealt only with permanent diplomatic missions, diplomatic relations also assumed other forms that might be placed under the heading of “ad hoc diplomacy”, covering itinerant envoys, diplomatic conferences and special missions sent to a State for limited purposes (Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1958, vol. II, p. 89, para. 51). Also in 1958, the Commission requested A. E. F. Sandström (the Special Rapporteur for the topic “Diplomatic intercourse and immunities”) to submit a report at a future session, and in 1959 appointed him Special Rapporteur for the new topic “Special missions”.
In 1960, on the basis of Sandström’s report, but without the usual in-depth study, the Commission adopted and submitted to the General Assembly three draft articles on special missions, together with commentaries, making it clear that the draft should be regarded “as constituting only a preliminary survey”(Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1960, vol. II, p. 179, para. 37). The articles would have applied the rules developed for the privileges and immunities of permanent diplomatic missions to special missions.
The General Assembly, by resolution 1504 (XV) of 12 December 1960, decided that the three draft articles should be referred to the United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities (the Vienna Conference) so that they could be considered together with the draft articles on permanent diplomatic missions.
At the Vienna Conference, the question of special missions was referred to a Subcommittee established by the Committee of the Whole. While stressing the importance of the subject of special missions, the Subcommittee noted that, because of lack of time, the draft articles on special missions had, in contrast with the usual practice, not been submitted to Governments for their comments before being drafted in final form, and that the draft articles did little more than indicate which of the rules on permanent missions applied, and which did not apply, to special missions. The Subcommittee considered that, while the basic rules might in fact be the same, it could not be assumed that such an approach necessarily covered the whole field of special missions. Following consideration of the topic by the Subcommittee and by the Committee of the Whole, the Vienna Conference adopted a resolution recommending to the General Assembly that it refer the topic back to the International Law Commission (A/CONF.20/10/Add.l).
In 1961, the General Assembly adopted resolution 1687 (XVI) of 18 December 1961 requesting the International Law Commission to study further the subject of special missions and to report thereon to the Assembly.
In 1963, the Commission appointed Milan Bartoš as Special Rapporteur and decided that he should prepare draft articles, based on the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 but that he should keep in mind that special missions were, by virtue of both their functions and nature, an institution distinct from permanent missions.
The Commission considered this topic between 1964 and 1967. In connection with its work on this topic, the Commission had before it four reports of the Special Rapporteur, information provided by Governments as well as a document prepared by the Secretariat.
In 1964, the Commission provisionally adopted sixteen articles, which were submitted to the General Assembly and to Governments for information. At the first part of its session, in 1965, the Commission provisionally adopted twenty-eight further draft articles. All draft articles then adopted were submitted to the General Assembly for its consideration and were also transmitted to Governments for comment.
In 1966, the Commission examined certain questions of a general nature affecting special missions which had arisen out of the opinions expressed in the Sixth (Legal) Committee of the General Assembly and the written comments by Governments and which it was important to settle as a preliminary to the later work on the draft articles.
In 1967, the Commission adopted a set of 50 final draft articles on special missions, and submitted them to the General Assembly with a recommendation “that appropriate measures be taken for the conclusion of a convention on special missions” (Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1967, vol. II, p. 347, para. 33).
The Sixth Committee recommended that an item entitled “Draft convention on special missions” be placed on the provisional agenda of the General Assembly’s 1968 session with a view to the adoption of a convention by the Assembly. By resolution 2273 (XXII) of 1 December 1967, the Assembly adopted the recommendation of the Sixth Committee and invited Member States to submit comments and observations on the draft articles.
Over two sessions, in 1968 and 1969, the Sixth Committee considered the item “Draft convention on special missions” on the basis of the Commission’s final draft articles. By resolution 2530 (XXIV) of 8 December 1969, the General Assembly, upon the recommendation of the Sixth Committee, adopted the Convention on Special Missions.
Key provisions
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 the privileges and immunities:
“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”.
Article 1(a) of the Convention defines a special mission, for the purposes of the Convention, as follows:
“a ‘special mission’ is a temporary mission, representing the State, which is sent by one State to another State with the consent of the latter for the purpose of dealing with it on specific questions or of performing in relation to it a specific task”.
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; and 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.
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 contains no other provision defining the functions of special missions: there is no provision corresponding to article 3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or article 5 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. It was suggested during the negotiations that “[t]he normal task which a special mission will perform is a task that would ordinarily be performed by a permanent diplomatic mission of the sending State” (A/C.6/SR.1129, paras. 25-26). Permanent diplomatic missions have a wide range of functions, and are by no means limited to what may be thought of as classical diplomacy. In any event, there was no agreement during the negotiations to limit the functions that might be performed by a special mission. Some States considered that special missions might concern technical matters as well as political ones. The key lies in the requirement of mutual consent on the functions of the mission.
Two or more States may each send a special mission at the same time to another State in order to deal together with questions of common interest (article 6). Again, the emphasis is on consent. Article 18 provides that special missions from two or more States may meet in the territory of a third State, but only after obtaining the express consent of that State.
Provision is made for the various categories of members of special missions (article 1). The sending State may freely appoint the members of the special mission, but their details must be given to the receiving State prior to their appointment, and that State may object to the overall size of the mission or to individual persons (article 10). Detailed provision is made for notifications to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the receiving State (article 11). All official business is to be conducted with or through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or with such other organ of the receiving State as may be agreed (article 15).
The scale of facilities, privileges and immunities provided for in the Convention (articles 22 to 49) follows, with only relatively minor modifications, that provided in relation to permanent diplomatic missions by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. This includes, most importantly, inviolability of the person and immunity from criminal jurisdiction of members of special missions (articles 29 and 31, paragraph1). It also includes immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction, subject to the same exceptions as members of a permanent diplomatic mission plus an additional exception for “an action for damages arising out of an accident caused by a vehicle used outside the official functions of the person concerned” (article 31, paragraph 2).
Among the other differences between the privileges and immunities accorded under the Convention on Special Missions and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations are the following: tax exemption for the premises of the special mission applies only “[t]o the extent compatible with the nature and duration of the functions performed by the special mission” (article 24); the head of mission’s consent to enter the premises of the mission may be presumed “in case of fire or other disaster that seriously endangers public safety”, and it has not been possible to obtain his or her express consent (article 25); and archives and documents “should, when necessary, bear visible external marks of identification” (article 26).
Article 21 provides that the Head of the sending State, when he or she leads a special mission, enjoys the facilities, privileges and immunities accorded by international law to Heads of State on an official visit; and further that the Head of Government, Minister for Foreign Affairs and “other persons of high rank”, when they take part in a special mission, enjoy, in addition to what is granted by the Convention, the facilities, privileges and immunities accorded by international law.
The Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes is modelled on the corresponding Optional Protocols to the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations. It also entered into force on 21 June 1985. At the time of writing (April 2019), there are 17 States parties.
Influence of the Convention on Special Missions
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.
It is difficult not to share Sinclair’s assessment:
“[t]his effort at progressive development and codification has accordingly been only partially successful, no doubt because of the reluctance of Governments to accord a wide range of privileges and immunities to special missions and their members when, in the view of the Governments concerned, the grant of such privileges and immunities was not justified by functional reasons.” (I. Sinclair, The International Law Commission (1987), p. 61)
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. Although some uncertainties remain as to the precise scope of special mission immunities under customary international law, it is generally accepted that customary international law requires mutual consent and representation of the sending state, and the grant of personal inviolability and immunity from criminal jurisdiction for the duration of the special mission and during a reasonable period of time for travel. But it would seem that the rules of customary international law are both wider and narrower than the provisions of the Special Missions Convention. They are wider in that the class of official visitors who may be entitled to immunity is wider than that foreseen in the Convention. They are narrower in that the range of privileges and immunities is more limited, being essentially confined to immunity from criminal jurisdiction and inviolability of the person.
Related Materials
A. Legal Instruments
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Vienna, 14 April 1961, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 500, p. 95.
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Vienna, 22 April 1963, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 596, p. 261.
Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, 8 December 1969, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1400, p. 339.
Vienna Convention on the Representation of States in their Relations with International Organizations of a Universal Character, Vienna, 14 March 1975, Doc. A/CONF.67/16.
B. Jurisprudence
French Property Commission in Egypt case (described in A. Watts, “Jurisdictional Immunities of Special Missions: The French Property Commission in Egypt”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 12, 1963, pp. 1383-1399.
Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany), Tabatabai case (Case No. 4 StR 396/83), 27 February 1984, EntBGH in Strafsachen, vol. 32, 1984, p. 275; International Law Reports, vol. 80, pp.388-424.
Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court of Justice, Austria), Syrian National Immunity case (Case 12 Os 3/98), 12 February 1998, International Law Reports, vol. 127 pp. 88-93.
US District Court for the N.D. of Ohio, Kilroy v. Windsor (Prince Charles, Prince of Wales) (Civ. No. C-78-291 (N.D. Ohio, 1977)), Digest of United States Practice in International Law 641; International Law Reports, vol. 81, p.605.
United States District Court, District of Columbia, Li Weixum et al. v. Bo Xilai (Civ. No. 04-0649 (RJL)),568 F.Supp.2d 35 (D.D.C. 2008).
High Court, Queen's Bench Division (United Kingdom), Khurts Bat v. The Investigating Judge of the German Federal Court and Others, [2011] EWHC 2029 (Admin); [2011] All ER (D) 293 (Jul); International Law Reports, vol. 147, p. 633.
Divisional Court (England and Wales), R (on the application of the Freedom and Justice Party) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2016] EWHC 2010 (Admin); [2016], All ER (D) 32 (Aug)
Court of Appeal (England and Wales), R (on the application of the Freedom and Justice Party) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2018] EWCA Civ 1719; [2019] 1 All ER 133.
C. Documents
Report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its tenth session, 28 April to 4 July 1958 (A/3859, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1958, vol. II, Chapter III).
Report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its eleventh session, 20 April to 26 June 1959 (A/4169, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1959, vol. II, Chapter III).
Ad hoc Diplomacy - Report by A.E.F. Sandström, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/129, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1960, vol. II).
Report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its twelfth session, 25 April to 1 July 1960 (A/4425, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1960, vol. II, Chapter III).
General Assembly resolution 1504 (XV) of 12 December 1960 (Report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its twelfth session).
Report of the Committee of the Whole (A/CONF.20/L.2) (Official Records of the United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities, vol. II (Annexes, Final Act, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Optional Protocols and Resolutions)).
Resolution on Special Missions adopted by the Conference (A/CONF.20/10/Add.l) (Official Records of the United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities, vol. II (Annexes, Final Act, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Optional Protocols and Resolutions)).
General Assembly resolution 1687 (XVI) of 18 December 1961 (Question of special missions).
Working paper prepared by the Secretariat (A/CN.4.155, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1963, vol. II).
Report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its fifteenth session, 6 May to 2 July 1963 (A/5509, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1963, vol. II, Chapter IV).
Report on Special Missions by Mr. Milan Bartoš, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/166, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1964, vol. II).
Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its sixteenth session, 11 May to 24 July 1964 (A/5809, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1964, vol. II, Chapter III (A/CN.4/173)).
Second Report on Special Missions by Mr. Milan Bartoš, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/179, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1965, vol. II).
Report of the International Law Commission on the work of the first part of its seventeenth session, 3 May to 9 July 1965 (A/6009, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1965, vol. II, Chapter III (A/CN.4/181)).
Third report on Special Missions, by Mr. Milan Bartoš, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/189 and Add.1 & 2, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1966, vol. II).
Reports of the International Law Commission on the second part of its seventeenth session, 3 to 28 January 1966, and on its eighteenth session, 4 May to 19 July 1966 (A/6309/Rev.1, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1966, vol. II, Part II, Chapter III (A/CN.4/191)).
Fourth Report on Special Missions by Mr. Milan Bartoš, Special Rapporteur (A/CN.4/194 and Add.1-5, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1967, vol. II).
Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its nineteenth session, 8 May to 14 July 1967 (A/6709/Rev.1 and Corr.1, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission1967, vol. II, Chapter II and Annexes I and II (A/CN.4/199) (includes comments by Governments (A/CN.4/188 and Add.1-4))).
General Assembly resolution 2273 (XXII) of 1 December 1967 (Special Missions).
General Assembly resolution 2531 (XXIV) of 8 December 1969 (Settlement of civil claims in connexion with the Convention on Special Missions).
Advisory Committee on Issues of Public International Law (Commissie van advise inzake volkenrechtelijke vraagstukken, CAVV), Advisory Report on the Immunity of Foreign State Officials, Advisory Report No. 20, The Hague, May 2011.
Council of Europe Ad Hoc Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law (CAHDI), Replie by States to the Questionnaire on “Immunities of Special Missions” (CAHDI (2018) 6 prov), Strasbourg, 11 July 2018, available on the CAHDI website <https://www.coe.int/en/web/cahdi>
D. Doctrine
M. Bartoš, “Le statut des missions spéciales de la diplomatie ad hoc”, Recueil des Cours, vol. 108, 1963 (I), pp. 425-560.
M. R. Donnarumma, “La Convention sur les missions spéciales (8 décembre 1969)”, Revue belge de droit international, no 8, 1972, pp. 34-79.
J. Foakes, The Position of Heads of State and Senior Officials in International Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014), pp. 133-135.
E. Franey, Immunity, Individuals and International Law: Which Individuals are Immune from the Jurisdiction of National Courts Under International Law, Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrucken, 2011, pp. 135-149.
H. Fox, P. Webb, The Law of State Immunity (Oxford University Press, Oxford, revised and updated third ed., 2015), pp. 567-570.
M. Hardy, Modern Diplomatic Law (Manchester University Press, 1964), pp. 89-94.
N. Kalb, “Immunities, Special Missions”, in R. Wolfrum (ed), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012.
J. Nisot, “Diplomatie ad hoc - les missions spéciales”, Revue belge de droit international, no 2, 1968, pp. 416-422.
M. Paszkowski, “The Law on Special Missions”, Polish Yearbook of International Law, vol. VI, 1974, pp. 267-288.
F. Przetacznik, “Jurisdictional Immunity of the Members of a Special Mission”, Indian Journal of International Law, vol. 11, 1971, pp. 593-609.
F. Przetacznik, “Diplomacy by Special Missions”, Revue de droit international, de sciences diplomatiques et politiques, vol. 59, 1981, pp. 109-176.
M. Ryan, “The Status of Agents on Special Missions in Customary International Law”, Canadian Yearbook of International Law, vol. 16, 1978, pp. 157-196.
A. Sanger, M. Wood, “The Immunities of Members of Special Missions” in: T. Ruys, N Angelet, L Ferro (eds.), Cambridge Handbook on Immunities and International Law (CUP, 2019) 452–480.
A. Sanger, "Identification of Special Mission Immunity and the Reception of Customary International Law into English Law”, Cambridge Law Journal, vol. 78, issue 1, 2019, 1–4.
Satow’s Diplomatic Practice (I. Roberts (ed.), 7th ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017, pp. 292-295.
M. Waters, The Ad Hoc Diplomat: A Study in Municipal and International Law, M. Nijhoff, The Hague, 1963.
M. Wood, “The Immunity of Official Visitors”, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, vol. 16, 2012, pp. 35-98 (forthcoming).
M. Wood, A. Sanger and Council of Europe, The Immunities of Special Missions (Brill Nijhoff, 2019)"
LIST OF COUNTRIES 1975 SUBMITTING TREATIES PER VIENNA CONVENTION : CERTIFIED TRUE COPY : PDF COPY : 1969 CONVENTION SIGNATORIES : TREATIES REGISTERED AT UN : MUTI-LATERAL TREATIES REGISTERED AT THE UN : TREATIES STATUS REPORTS
ADDENDUM : SIGNATORIES TO THE CONVENTION : UNITED NATIONS
CHAPTER III
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES, DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR RELATIONS, ETC
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Canada
"The Government of Canada does not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Convention made by the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as modifying any rights or obligations under this paragraph."
16 March 1978
"The Government of Canada does not regard as valid the reservations to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of article 37 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made by the People's Republic of China. Similarly the Government of Canada does not regard as valid the reservations to paragraph 2 of article 37 of the Convention which have been made by the Government of the United Arab Republic (now the Arab Republic of Egypt), the Government of Cambodia (now Kampuchea) and the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco.
"The Government of Canada does not regard the statement concerning paragraph 1 of article 11 of the Convention made by the Government of the Mongolian People's Republic, the Government of Bulgaria, the Government of the German Demo- cratic Republic and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen as modifying any rights and obligations under that paragraph.
"The Government of Canada also desires to place on record that it does not regard as valid the reservations to paragraph 3 of article 27 of the Convention made by the Government of Bahrain and the reservations to paragraph 4 of article 27 made by the State of Kuwait and the Government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya."
JUN 8TH SINCE TIME BEGAN : salus populi suprema est lex - the right of the people is the supreme law : IN TRUTH WE TRUST 2019 A.D.E.
