1

Diplomatic and Consular

Systems
Dr. Hala A. El Rashidy
Office:
No. 50, FEPS New Building, Third Floor
Email:
hala.elrashidy@feps.edu.eg;
h_elrashidy07@hotmail.com;
 Development of Diplomatic Function:
A historical perspective

 Diplomatic communication dates as far back as two

millennium, the best means devised by civilizations for
preventing international relations from being governed by
force alone.

 There is no doubt that sending of emissaries to open

negotiations was a common practice among quite primitive
peoples and that in many cases their reception and
treatment were regulated even by custom.
 Historically, the origins of diplomacy lay with the first
decisions of human communities to reach an
understanding with their neighbors about the limits of their
hunting territories. But even though these early diplomatic
exchanges allowed for the establishment of some basic
rules of representation, communication and conflict
management, they did not result in the creation of any
permanent institutions. Basically, diplomatic interaction
was not sufficiently frequent or important and hence it
lacked the incentives required to develop complex
institutional relations.
 Diplomacy in this early period was described as ‘rudimentary’
(undeveloped and primary) partly, because it was not called on
very often and because communications were slow, occasional,
unpredictable and insecure.

 Since these first stages of interaction, however, diplomacy has changed

significantly. Such evolutions can be described in three distinct diplomatic
periods, both inside and outside of the Western world: ancient, medieval
and modern diplomacy (actually modern and contemporary diplomacy).

 We will study them briefly, as follows.

 Although the Greek city-states were considered to be belonged to the
same civilization, it was agreed that they had known or witnessed a
primarily form of exchanging diplomatic relations. As communication
was an evitable feature among different Greek city-states’ relations
enforced by various reasons:

 Prevailing superiority.
 Exchanging interests and extra goods.
 Building alliances.
 Settling conflicts and wars.
 Even the goals of communication differ from one case to another, there
was still an important and necessary need of it.
 The ancient diplomatic systems involved no permanent institutions
but rather ad hoc missions, taking place as circumstances arose. The
patterns of diplomatic representation, communication and negotiation
developed by ancient states were largely influenced by the perceived
levels of power asymmetry. Among the small but independent Greek
city-states, no single city was powerful enough to rule over the others,
nor were the city-states overwhelmed from outside. The cities thus
diplomatically engaged with each other as equals.
 In the following, there are some examples on the prominent
diplomatic practices adopted by the Greek city-states:
 Exchanging ad hoc diplomatic missions was confined only to
important occasions.
 The adoption of truce agreements as a procedure followed by parties
in a case of war.
 As a result of direct democracy practiced at that time, diplomatic
representatives were supposed to perform well orally before the city-
state council of the host state. This meant that they were often chosen
by the assembly of the city for their ‘known respectability’, ‘reputed
wisdom’ and for their maturity.
 The prevail of the proxenos (Greek word means consul) system who
was a representative that would act for another state while remaining
resident in his own state, because of the fear that the foreign envoy if
was resident in the hosting state would cooperate secretly with
insurgents and rebels. They played an important influential role in
shaping public policy, specifically in commerce, culture and politics.
They were expected to protect their nationals located in the receiving-
state, handle their legal administration and promote trade and
commerce between the two states in general. They had known
somehow type of consulates for this reason too.
 Another feature of the sophistication of the Greek diplomatic system
was the several members of an Embassy (there were often as many as
ten Ambassadors in a single mission) would each deliver a set speech
to a foreign monarch or Assembly, much as happens in the ordered
international conferences of today. Thus, the Greek city-states had
known the institution of conference diplomacy where most treaties
had been discussed in front of public assemblies to get approved.

 In addition, arbitration had been known as a main customary device

for pacific conflict resolution.
 Religion often played a significant role in framing diplomatic practices
of conflict resolution. The Greeks believed, for instance, that the
conduct of international affairs was governed by certain divinely
ordained principles. The rules of ‘civilized conduct’ developed by
ancient Greeks included fair treatment of prisoners, non-use of
poisoned weapons, observance of truces and armistices, prohibition of
warfare during religious festivals, as well as inviolability of important
temples and embassies, are just some examples.

 Personal protection was given to the diplomatic envoy as another

application of the importance of religious principles and norms in the
Greek diplomatic practices.
 After that, in the age of the Roman empire, the contribution
to this heritage was characterized of producing rulers and
administrators rather than diplomats, and preferring
organization to negotiation, with a great desire to impose
their own superiority and a universal respect to their own
system of law on other entities.

 Thus, various basic legal codes were adopted in this

regard, the most famous is the Code of Justinian which
provided basic material for the development of the modern
law of diplomatic immunity.
 The Romans inherited from the Greeks the lack of a
formal structure for dealing with matters of foreign policy,
but also the appreciation for the talent of speaking
fluently in public and the ability to persuade by argument.
In view of the fact that formally the Senate had the
ultimate authority on matters of foreign policy, Roman
envoys – called either nuntii or oratores – were appointed
from within senatorial ranks. They were provided with
credentials and instructions, which were supposed to be
closely followed. Their main task was to negotiate with
the responsible authority within the hosting state and
then report back to the Senate, which had the authority to
accept or refuse the results of their negotiations.
 One of the most important Roman contributions to the
diplomatic practice was the issue of formality. As for the
Roman respect for legal issues, they had given notable
respect for procedures had to govern the adoption of
international treaties which were used for establishing
peace, building alliances, etc.

 In the later Middle Ages, European diplomacy took an

institutional leap relative to that in the non-Western world
under the impact of two factors. On the one hand, the
belief in the unity of Christendom – republica christiana
– that introduced a high level of harmony among the
emerging political entities.
 On the other hand, the weakness and fragmentation
experienced by the Roman Empire at its latest timed had
enforced it to seek for the establishment of a
universalistic foundation for regulating diplomatic
relations. In more details, the Romans since then had to
heavily depend on diplomatic tools to maintain its
dominance and influence on surrounding states to avoid
their dangerous and to seek the establishment of a
universalistic foundation for regulating diplomatic
relations.
 The main form of diplomatic representation during the
early Middle Ages in Europe was the nuncius, an agent
whose main function was to provide a channel of
communication between rulers and to explore
opportunities for concluding treaties and alliances. It was
agreed that the nuncius had to enjoy a status of immunity
from the harm that could be inflicted upon him, often
based on religious grounds.
 In the later Middle Ages, the increased complexity of
European societies and the growth of diplomatic
interaction rendered the establishment of a new official
post, the procurator, with increased powers of
representation and negotiation.

 Consular systems also continued to grow widely in the

medieval ages, because of the notably growth of trade
between the European states and the East, and thus the
need to protect state interest in trade and commerce
increased.
 In the early medieval period, kings used messages to communicate
with each other in order to prepare for personal meetings. In this
communication process, the nuncius was often described as a ‘living
letter’, because he was supposed to communicate the messages in a
way that was as near a personal exchange as possible. The
significance of the use of a nuncius instead of a letter laid in the
meanings a person can convey beyond the written word. Indeed, his
attitude, his actual wording and his responses to questions were of
vital importance to the communication between principals. Letters of
instructions were particularly important in cases of negotiation as
they provided specific guidelines and often the exact words the envoy
had to use for extracting and making concessions.

 It was also agreed that Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) used to send

messengers abroad for religious or political purposes to each of
Byzantium, Egypt, and Ethiopia.
 Although the practice of exchanging envoys amongst the previous
political entities was as old as history, the establishment of
permanent missions is of a comparatively recent origin. It was not
until the Renaissance age that the Italian cities had known the
resident diplomacy - in its modern meaning - in the second half of
the fifteenth century. As before the I5th century the European
princes normally sent temporary diplomatic missions which were
to be terminated as soon as the particular purpose of the mission
had been fulfilled. It was the Italian Republics, and Venice in
particular, which were the first to recognize the advantages of
maintaining permanent diplomatic missions at each other's
capitals and introduced the practice of so doing.
 The origins of Modern Diplomacy

 Only in 1648 when the Treaty of Westphalia had

established a new order of relationships which adopted
the principle of exchanging diplomatic relations on a
regular base.

 French diplomatic system, with the introduction of a

resident Embassy headed by a citizen of the sending
State, was adopted. This French system of the 17th and
18th centuries are recognized as the first developed
system of diplomacy and the basis of the bilateral
communication network whose framework was used
during the formation of permanent conferences
 It was however the Congress of Vienna which codified more
concretely the new world of diplomacy. Its regulation of 1815
established an agreed basis for diplomatic representation
including precedence and effected the recognition of
diplomatic services as a distinct profession within the public
service governed by its own international accepted codes.

 The settlement at the Congress of Vienna was remarkable in

rebuilding international order broken by the Napoleonic wars.
Later on, It was observed that the French diplomacy which was
characterized by its secretiveness in the gathering and
protection of information as well as the conduct of
negotiations, was considered the main reason behind the
occurrence of the First World War, and as a result there were a
lot of calls for putting into place open covenants, openly
arrived at by President Woodrow Wilson.
 The Right of Legation

 What does it mean?

 Active Right of Legation: the right to send diplomatic

envoys to represent its interests in the other states.

 Passive Right of Legation: the right to receive diplomatic

envoys from the other states which it send them their
envoys.
 Right or Competence?

 1st opinion : It's a Right deprived from the Sovereignty of

concerned state.
 Only sovereign states have the ability to make use of this
right.

 2nd opinion : It's a Competence as it doesn't mean that
state is obliged to send or receive diplomatic envoys.
 Being a sovereign state doesn't mean that you have to
exchange diplomatic envoys
 Legal Base of establishing
diplomatic relations:

1. International Legal Personality.

2. Mutual International Recognition.

3. International Agreement among the concerned states

about the mean of representation.