between the interested parties. The further step of agreement upon the individual diplomat to be sent and received has already been noted.

Once received by the foreign power, the diplomat is accorded certain concessions of jurisdiction in view of his position and functions.1 International law defines the immunities which the receiving state is bound to accord to the foreign representative, and the national laws set forth these rules with a view to their application in the courts of the nation. These immunities include the ancient privileges of personal inviolability and independence of personal action, including freedom from arrest for acts under civil or criminal law. The diplomat enjoys the same relief from customs duties and personal taxes, witness duty and other similar burdens, as does his colleague, the consul, but in a more definite manner and to a greater extent.3

The original view of these immunities seems to have been that they were necessary in view of the impropriety and discourtesy of enforcing upon a foreign sovereign or his agent the local law, and to the fact that no state was entitled to enforce its own will upon another state, equally sovereign, or its head or diplomatic representative. It is now seen that these privileges are essential to the effective operation of the system of diplomatic representation, and that they must be supported and defined with a view to that desirable end, irrespective of any theory of sovereignty.

One result of this change of view as to the foundation of diplomatic immunities is seen in the alteration of the rules of the law of nations on the subject of asylum in legations and embassies. The right of extending asylum to fugitives, formerly claimed by foreign representatives and reluctantly conceded to them in view of the doctrine that the embassy was foreign territory enjoying exterritorial

1 On immunities in general sec Hershey, Diplomatic Agents, Part II. Foster, Chap. VIII; Satow, Chap. XVIII, §§ 279-300 (inviolability and independence), and Chap. XXII (passage through third states). Satow, §§ 308-311, and Chap. XIX.

status, has been curtailed in various ways. Particularly significant is the principle that a foreign representative must not receive and accord asylum to fugitives from justice, coupled with the rule that the grounds and buildings of the embassy are inviolable, even when so used.1 The reasons for this ambiguous position are found in the conflict between the desire to accord as much immunity to the diplomatic establishment as is necessary for its effective operation and the unwillingness to accord any unnecessary immunity to it. Likewise, the diplomat may worship his own God in his own way in his own chapel, and fellow nationals may join him in this worship; but he must not make this a cause of disturbing the public peace.2

All these privileges are regulated, as has been said, by local law. The home government of the diplomat will instruct him regarding the immunities which he is to claim for himself and these will correspond to the privileges accorded by his own government to foreign representatives in its territory, including those from the state to which he is accredited. By this process of reciprocity, practice on diplomatic immunities is generalized until the common rules of international law on the subject appear as a summary of the practices of all the nations. Meanwhile the diplomat is controlled exclusively by his own government in respect to the special costume which he shall wear, if any, the way in which he shall conduct the internal affairs of the embassy, and the reception of gifts and decorations at the hands of the government to which he is accredited. The result is that the rules governing the operations of the diplomatic system are found in general international law, written and unwritten, and in the national legal systems of all the states, including in the last the various codes of administrative regulations issued for the guidance of the national civil servants. The diplomat, hardly less than

1 Satow, Chap. XX.

Same, Chap. XXI.

He is commonly prohibited from receiving such gifts. Foster, 141-155;

Satow, SS 396-406.

the consul, needs to be provided with manuals and guides wherewith to inform himself on the vast amount of law and procedure connected with the conduct of his office.1

Finally, a diplomatic mission may be terminated in several ways. The person holding the mission may die, retire automatically by virtue of age, resign, or be recalled to make way for a new appointee. These are entirely matters of national law and have no bearing on international relations. Of real importance in the international field, however, is the recall of the head of the mission, leaving affairs in charge of a subordinate-here the mission is not interrupted-or a discontinuance of the mission entirely by withdrawal of all diplomatic representatives. So much a part of normal international relations is the exchange of diplomatic representation that such action is construed as unfriendly and is the usual prelude to war. More striking and emphatic in tone, but of less consequence internationally, is dismissal of a diplomat by the receiving state. In such a case, although continuance of diplomatic representation between the two countries is not interrupted, diplomatic relations between them is bound to be gravely disturbed. It is of some significance that the institution of international representation is stable enough to persist through an episode of this kind.2

1 For example: Martens, Guide, entire.

Diplomatic corps at Warsaw in 1921 (Annuaire Général, 1058; for abbreviations see, below, Appendix A, Document No. 3, note 2):

Germany: Ch. Oberndorff.

America: E. E. & M. P. Gibson.

Belgium: E. E. & M. P. van Ypersele.

Spain: Ch. Contreras.

Finland: Ch. Gyllenbogel.

France: E. E. & M. P. de Panafieu.

Great Britain: E. E. & M. P. Rumbold.

Hungary: Ch. de Zsombolya.

Italy: E. E. & M. P. Tommassini.

Norway: E. E. & M. P. Eyde.

Roumania: E. E. & M. P. Frorescu.

Holy See: Nuncio Ratti.

Jugoslavia: Ch. Taditch.

Sweden: Ch. Danielson.

Czechoslovakia: Ch. Radinsky.

T

CHAPTER IX

CRITICISM OF MODERN DIPLOMACY

is impossible to give any attention to the conduct of modern diplomacy without realizing that there has developed in recent years a very serious body of criticism directed against the historic diplomatic institutions. That criticism dates back at least to the end of the eighteenth century, but it has increased in recent years, especially since 1870 and, further still, since 1914. The collapse of international comity in 1914 is attributed to the failure of the diplomats, when it is not attributed to their positive machinations. The appalling sorrows and burdens of the past six or seven years are ascribed to the incapacity and the peculiarly vicious character, as it is felt, of modern diplomacy.1

Such a school of thought,-if anything so popular and spontaneous can be so formally described, deserves attention and a considered reply. To have deliberately brought on the events of 1914-18, or the lesser events of *1870-71, or even to have allowed them to transpire by ineptitude, would be too serious a crime to be excused or defended merely by ignoring the accusation. The circumstances are such as to demand some defense or explanation of the relations between the diplomacy of the past century and the results in the field of international relations proper.

One reason for the current feeling of hostility and critical suspicion toward diplomacy will be discovered when one contrasts the practice of diplomacy with consular practice. The external style and manner of the consul is 'See literature cited, below, Appendix B, § 9.

of much less importance and attracts much less attention than the substance of his work. On the contrary, the style and manner of the diplomat are striking and spectacular, and in many ways they are characterized by traits found outside of diplomacy only in a bygone age; while the substance of the work of diplomacy is not apparent on the surface and is sometimes carefully hidden.1 In any case, the major work of the diplomat eventuates in the field of international political relations, not in the ordinary affairs of daily life. As we have seen, it is practically impossible to give a statement of the work of a diplomat comparable to the analysis which can be made of the work of the consul. This is to be considered in connection with the fact that the effects of the activity of the diplomat, although less in quantity than the work of the consul, are often far greater in magnitude and more significant in kind. An alliance concluded by diplomatic representatives outweighs in importance and consequence the work of many consuls for years. The effect of all this is to disturb public confidence in diplomacy. What is this thing which is so ceremonious, so pretentious, so powerful, and yet so elusive in its real operations? And are its inherent capabilities, and the capabilities of those engaged in it, equal to its pretensions? Closely allied to this, of course, if, indeed, it is not the principal factor in the case,-is the question of secrecy in diplomacy. Much of the criticism of diplomacy is based upon ignorance of what the diplomat is really doing. More is based upon resentment at being compelled to remain in ignorance. Still more arises from the fact that the defense of secrecy on the part of the diplomats has been notably incomplete. As in the consideration of so many of these questions, it has seemed to the accused sufficient to shrug the shoulders and remain silent. That may conceivably

1 Attempted statements in Foster, Chaps. V, VI, and Satow, §§ 147, 148. It will be noted that these statements relate more to the manner and form of diplomatic work than to its substance.