1. law, govt and politics
2. government
3. embassies and consulates

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-Chairperson’s Address
-Introduction
Topic Area: Diplomatic Responsibility with special emphasis on Diplomatic Protection
-The Concept of Diplomatic Responsibility
- History and Origin
-Correlation with Human Rights
-A. Functions of Diplomat to State
a) Diplomatic Training
b) Diplomatic Missions
c) Role of Diplomats in War Zones
d) Need for Universal Code of Conduct
-B. Diplomatic Protection
a) Definition
b) The Background
c) Existing Protocols
d) Scope
e) Restrictions and criticism
f) Diplomatic Immunity
-Bloc Positions
-Questions a Resolution Must Answer
-Position Paper Requirements
- Suggestions for Further Research
- Closing Remarks
CHAIRPERSON'S ADDRESS
“Many commit the same crimes with a very different result, one bears a cross for his crime, another a
crown.”- Juvenal
Dear Delegates,
As the Chairperson of the Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs Committee of the sixth edition of
LMCMUN, I feel privileged to welcome you to this committee. For me Model United Nations has never
simply been a display of one’s oratory skills, or a clash of intellect-it is a seed placed in young minds that
develops to transcend all barriers and shapes them to come together-if not to take humanity to heaven, then
to definitely save it from hell. It is for this very reason that I will be chairing the SOCHUM, because we can
only strive for global peace, if we break free from the social fetters that hold us down.
It is of prime importance to me, as a Chairperson, that what we discuss is pertinent in today’s world, that the
debate is relevant to the pressing problems that we face now. I can only hope that at the end of three days of
conference, each delegate will walk away with an awareness that will sensitize them to the genuine
problems confronting humanity at the moment. Thus the topic under discussion “Diplomatic responsibility
with special emphasis on Diplomatic Protection”, although unconventional, is one which has an
undeniable impact on a global scale. Although such an agenda may seem complex initially, once the two
fold concept of diplomatic responsibility-the responsibility of the diplomat to the state, and the responsibility
of the state to protect its nationals – is understood, it becomes quite clear and what will strike you is the
sheer scope of human right violations under it. Hence delegates, be prepared to look under the surface,
because what you will see initially is the mere tip of the iceberg. As the SOCHUM, it is your prerogative to
come to a consensus on how to tackle each facet of this problem delicately. Keep in mind, delegates, each
decision you take is worth millions of lives.
Coming to your Executive Board, I’m currently in the twelfth grade, studying science and aspiring to
pursue medicine. My experience with MUN has spanned over the last 4 years and I’d like to believe it’s
been a successful journey. Apart from world affairs, my interests vary from psychology, food, music and
travelling to human rights. Also note I have an unhealthy obsession with babies, books and berries of all
kinds (No, attempting to bribe me with any of these in committee will not fetch you brownie points.)
Moving on to the two people who have been the pillars of support for this committee – your directors.
Meghna Bahry, a student of science in the eleventh grade, is not only one of the most experienced and
vociferous debaters you’ll ever meet but also one of the most gregarious persons you’ll ever come across.
She has varied interests, ranging from photography and painting to the Middle East -her enthusiasm is sure
to catch up with each of you. Kaushiki Das, your Co-Director is currently pursuing humanities and has an
avid interest in the cultural arts. She has an overwhelming fondness for singing and cooking, and her devout
love for reading borders on fanaticism.
To conclude, delegates, we have endeavoured to devise a committee which will keep you on your feet
throughout the three days, and we expect thorough research on the agenda, encompassing all the facets of
the issue at hand; excellent oratory and analytical skills will see through. Delegates remember, you
deliberate not to resolve a new crisis, but you deliberate to resolve a war that has been raging ever since the
inception of the concept of Diplomatic Responsibility, one which has its roots so deeply rooted in our
society that there has been no solution till date.
I look forward to seeing you in May! Till then good luck and feel free to contact me for any queries.
Thanking you,
Chandni Agarwal,
Chairperson,
Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs Committee.
INTRODUCTION
The Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs Committee, or simply the “Third Committee” is one of the
six specialized bodies of the United Nations General Assembly. Established after the United Nations
Declaration of Human Rights (1948), its aim is to secure basic human rights around the world. This body of
the GA aims at establishing universal codes to be followed by states to establish an environment of
liberalization, security and peace. It allows for international dialogue on issues ranging from minority rights
to drug control and prevention of crimes, the right to self-determination, protection of children and
development of women.
3
In this session, we will consider one of the most unconventional agendas ever bought before the SOCHUM:
Diplomatic Responsibility with special emphasis on Diplomatic Protection.
This Study Guide aims to give you a background into the agenda which we hope sets the base for your
research. Giving you a historical progression of the problem as well as the current scenario and bloc
positions, this guide is designed to give you an overview of the situation and delegates are encouraged to go
beyond it with their research and explore the world of humanitarian rights. Decorum at all times and respect
for the members of the Secretariat as well as fellow delegates is expected. Plagiarism in any form and the
use of un-parliamentary language in committee will not be looked upon favourably by the Chair.
DIPLOMATIC RESPONSIBILITY WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS
ON DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION
THE CONCEPT OF DIPLOMATIC RESPONSIBILITY
Diplomatic responsibility is essentially a two-fold concept; one being, the duty of the diplomat towards the
host state in ensuring mutually beneficial, open, diplomatic relations between the two nations (home and
host) to promote international peace and security. The second aspect is the duty of the state towards its
diplomat in the way of providing them with special rights to help them carry out their duties without any
interference or disruption. This duty is termed as “Diplomatic Protection” and understanding its several
aspects and guises will serve as the rudimentary foundation for debate in committee. Whereas the concept of
diplomatic responsibility has been in existence for centuries, the definition remains equivocal and
codification insufficient, thereby leaving a wide scope for misinterpretation and abuse.
Over the three days of conference, committee will need to define diplomatic responsibility as well as the two
sides to it, which will serve to form a rigid demarcation between immunity and impunity amongst diplomats,
ultimately safeguarding human rights. With the introduction of absolute immunity, the scope for the abuses
of the immunity has also increased. Unless this immunity is used reservedly, and balanced by adequate legal
measures, the situation is bound to get out of hand. In present times, the numerous abuses facilitated by
diplomats point out several flaws in the system, which you must strive to remove.
HISTORY AND ORIGIN
Diplomatic Responsibility is a two-pronged concept. One part of it would be the responsibility the State has
towards the diplomat while the other part would be the responsibility the diplomat has towards the State.
The exact origin of diplomatic responsibility cannot possibly be pinpointed as it is an overall concept which
has grown and developed over time.
Falling under the State’s responsibility to the diplomat is diplomatic protection and immunity. Historians
recognize that diplomatic immunity was common to a wide range of states in ancient times, for example,
classical Greece. However the first major instance of a State intervening to protect their national was seen in
the 19th century. In 1847, an anti-Semitic Greek mob ransacked and burned to the ground the Athens home
of David Pacifico, a Portuguese Jew known as ‘Don Pacifico’. Born in Gibraltar and thus possessing a
British passport, Pacifico petitioned the British government for assistance in obtaining compensation, his
4
local Greek claim having proven unsuccessful. Lord Palmerston (then the British Foreign Minister) took up
Pacifico’s cause.
Ever since then, the concept of immunity has developed. As the times progressed, the emergence of absolute
immunity has also been observed. In this, the State provides complete immunity to the diplomat under all
circumstances. The principle that a State was entitled to protect a national injured abroad became a central
feature of relations between Western European States and the United States on the one hand and Latin
American States on the other during the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the
twentieth century.
The responsibility of the diplomat to the State started when countries established foreign relations with each
other i.e. international relations. This history of international relations dates back thousands of years, as far
as the Sumerian society conducting trade with other civilizations. As is obvious, the responsibilities of a
diplomat became more varied and complex as countries and societies developed. Right now the
responsibilities of the diplomat range from regulation of trade and commerce between countries, maintaining
peaceful relations between the home country and the host country, and ensuring protection of individuals of
the home country in the host country. Fundamentally, the diplomat serves as the spokesperson of the home
country in the host country.
CORRELATION WITH HUMAN RIGHTS
The concept of diplomatic responsibility has evolved from the idea that it is a basic right of the State to
protect each of its nationals. Thus, the root of diplomatic responsibility, and thereby diplomatic protection
and immunity lies in the fact that these concepts have become realities with one focus – that is, to protect the
rights of each national. The responsibility of the State to the diplomat is, in reality, nothing but the
responsibility of the State to uphold the basic human rights of its nationals.
However, there are two sides of each coin – while diplomatic responsibility aims to protect human rights of
the diplomat, the provision of diplomatic immunity also allows the scope of violations of human rights by
the abuse of the legal immunity given to the diplomat. One of the major causes of such abuse is the
provision of blanket immunity by some states. Due to this immunity, the diplomats cannot be prosecuted or
penalised for the violation of human rights, thereby blurring the lines demarcating immunity from impunity.
The prevalent abuse of diplomatic immunity leads to the question of whether diplomatic responsibility is
even relevant in today’s day and age. Some argue that with the formulation of human rights, the need for
diplomatic responsibility seems to have diminished. The human rights granted to each human, regardless of
nationality, sex, caste, religious affiliations, or race covers the need for the protection of the diplomats, and
indeed, any national of a State. However, the fact that there is rampant abuse of human rights seems to
substantiate the point to which many rise – that is, diplomatic immunity continues to be required. There
continues to be an ongoing debate on the matter, and it is up to the committee to arrive at a conclusion on to
whether diplomatic immunity is still valid and if so, to what extent.
A.FUNCTIONS OF THE DIPLOMAT TO STATE
A diplomat is a representative, appointed by a state, to conduct diplomacy and represent the state, its nationals and its
policies, in another state or an international organization. They are persons who work for the facilitation of
communication and transfer of information between two states and maintain friendly and cordial relations between
countries, for the promotion of cultural, economic, social and commercial relations between them. They play a major
role as mediators, negotiators and advisers, to their home country, in light of changing global dynamics.
5
1. Economic Diplomacy
Commercial diplomacy deals with the business community. Diplomats aim to improve trade
relations between the home and host countries and also to socially benefit international ventures.
Commercial diplomats are also known as trade diplomats. They perform the main activities in the
host countries, are usually staff members of a diplomatic mission or a trade promotion organization.
The types of activities covered are: (1) activities related to trade policy making and (2) business
activities. Commercial diplomats influence and regulate global trade and investment. They are
engaged in foreign services as well. They deal in investment, tourism and intellectual property also.
2. Public Diplomacy
It is defined as an interactive, global, and public aspect of diplomacy, which aims at influencing the
opinions and attitudes of people and intends to positively influence the perception of the State and its
reputation, among other States and organisations. It is a transparent medium through which a State,
provides the domestic and foreign public with relevant information, which will facilitate the process
of formation of opinions and information based decisions It may be used to build National reputation
and identity, boost economic performance, promote the culture and heritage of the country, and
facilitate the implementation of a country’s foreign policy. One of their major functions, under
Public Diplomacy, is responding to a crisis, on the basis of complete or incomplete information, and
dealing with the media.
3. Political Diplomacy
Diplomats negotiate with the agreements and take part in gathering information regarding the social,
cultural and scientific aspects of the country. Diplomats facilitate communication between political
leaders. They bring about peace between the nations and minimize friction and tension. They gather
views and policies of a countries political leadership.
Political functions also include the way they handle the peace treaties and misunderstandings
between the countries. The diplomats need to project the political views of their home country and
also protect the host country’s interests. They serve as the key negotiators especially in times of
unrest and by nature of their political work, are in general granted blanket immunity.
4. Management
Protection, in foreign state, of interests and its nationals, legal entity and physical persons, in
accordance with International Law, exercising the function of public notary for purposes of verifying
the signatures, transcripts, photocopies and authorizations ,passport and visa issuing , serving legal
documents ,protecting interests of nationals regarding heritage matters in receiving state, providing
help and protection in the case of arrest, servitude, or in a case of accident of nationals all span under
the various functions of diplomats under this wing.
5. Consular Diplomacy
Consular functions, as mentioned in Article 5 of the Vienna Convention on Consular relations of
1963 and the European Convention on Consular relations, mainly entails protecting and
safeguarding the interests of the state and its nationals, in the Receiving State—be it individuals or
bodies corporate, minors or other persons lacking full capacity. Consular functions not only include
the functions of reporting to the home state the conditions and circumstances in the host state, but
6
also to provide the host state with the necessary information. Consular officers also perform
subsidiary functions such as providing visas, travel documents and passports and administrative
duties such as acting as notary and civil registrar. In regards with nationals, they have to arrange for
representation of nationals before appropriate tribunals and other authorities, for the preservation of
their rights and privileges and advising them in relation with social security.
DIPLOMATIC TRAINING
Diplomats are chosen through a certain set procedure which varies depending upon the country’s
requirements. In general, they have to take special training and give an examination before they are
qualified to be diplomats. They are given lectures and speeches about the policy and agendas of the country,
knowledge about the safeguarding of their country’s goals, provided specialized knowledge and given life
skill training, perform internships at embassies, practical skills to operate in the overseas environment. It is
important to give the diplomats training as it helps them to improve and advance themselves in the required
fields. It improves the efficiency of the diplomats and brings about quality work. They help how to deal with
situations in times of emergency. They are taught to present the goals of the home country and improve the
relations between the host and home countries. Training is carried out in specials institutes set up for the
training of diplomats.
Improper training and selection of diplomats leads to impunity and provides a wider scope for abuse to the
rights provided to them. For example, the 1984 Libyan Embassy firing in London where diplomats from the
embassy started firing at a peaceful walk which lead to the death of a policewoman Yvonne Fisher and
ultimately ended with Britain ending all diplomatic relations with Libya till 1999.
DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS
Global span of Diplomatic Missions
Due to the need for diplomatic interactions, diplomatic offices are required to facilitate interactions and
allow diplomats to analyse and transfer information and formal messages. A diplomatic mission from one
State or organisation, like the United Nations, includes persons who are sent to another State with the
7
purpose of representing their Home State, establishing and maintaining diplomatic relations.
According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, a diplomatic mission has the
responsibility of not only representing the Sending State but also negotiating with the Receiving State, and
protecting the interests of nationals and the Sending State. The members of the mission send reports about
the developments and conditions in the Host Country to the Home country, but also developing cordial and
friendly relations between the two states, and promoting cultural, commercial, scientific and economic
relations.
Established through mutual consent between the two states and addressed in The Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations of 1961, multiple kinds of diplomatic missions may be sent- which include:

Embassies
A larger and permanent mission generally established in a country’s capital and the head of the mission is
the ‘Ambassador’- the highest official in the embassy, acting as the chief representative spokesperson and
diplomat for their Home government. An embassy is generally present in sovereign countries, to maintain
foreign relations, and assist travelling Nationals. Embassies are important for the maintenance of good
relations, as they render a full range of services of a diplomatic mission. A Military Attaché is a military
expert who is sent along with the mission, who serves in the embassy.

High Commissions
An embassy of a Commonwealth located in another country which is a part of the Commonwealth, headed
by ‘High Commissioners’.

Consulates
A consulate is a smaller version of an embassy, and may be located in multiple important cities of a country
and the head of the Consulate is referred to as the ‘Consul’. They handle relatively minor issues like travel
documents, visas and passports, taking care of tourists and facilitating trade relations. According to the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, it assists individuals and body corporates, and performs
any functions entrusted by the Sending State, which is not prohibited by law.
A consulate may also be headed by an Honorary Consul, who is not a professional consular officer and
performs a limited range of activities.

Consulate General
It is a mission located in some major city and provides a large range of services, including consular services,
headed by a consular officer known as the ‘Consul General’, who may also be responsible for a Consular
District.

Permanent Mission
It is a mission, to a major international organisation, headed by a ‘Permanent Representative’, such as those
to any of the United Nations Offices. They are accredited to the International Organisation, at which they are
representing their home country and not to the Head of the State of the country.
A diplomatic mission not only includes members of the mission, but also members of the diplomatic staff,
members of the staff of the mission- service, administrative or technical who are granted special mission
premises, used for the purposes of the mission, including the residence of the Head of the Mission, which
are inviolable, and cannot be entered, without permission. The host country must not search the premises,
nor seize its documents or property.
Due to these factors itself, this privilege is widely abused as it provides a shield and scope for illegal
activities, concentrated within the premises, such as the harbouring of fugitives and storage of arms and
8
weaponry, brought into the country, through illegal means. Cases involving the abuse of inviolable mission
premises were registered, such as when in 1973, Pakistani police forces found a huge consignment of arms
in the Iranian Embassy.
ROLE OF DIPLOMATS IN WARZONES
Strong and stable international relations are the only way the world can move forward by maintaining peace
and security, and this is the responsibility of all diplomats. Diplomats form the very base of the domino that
is the fragile network of international relations. Diplomats are representatives of their State; they are
embodiments of the ideologies that constitute their native States. Thus, each and every step taken by a
diplomat reflects on the sending State. The actions of a diplomat are of prime importance in the maintenance
of peaceful relations between the sending and receiving States.
The importance of these functions is increased manifold during times of war and crisis. With a diplomat lies
the power to start or stop a war. It is through the deliberations in which a diplomat takes part, that the
courses taken by many wars are set.
Hence by virtue of the vital task that diplomats carry out, they also run the highest risks during wars. Thus,
to protect them and the missions that they need to carry out, it is essential to provide them with diplomatic
immunity. Sometimes, governments even provide immunity to diplomats who are sent to undertake covert
missions for the government. Thus, diplomats play multiple vital roles in times of war, and their protection
is of prime importance.
However, due to the fact that wars also give rise to a number of crises and needs, it allows diplomats a large
scope of exploitation of their immunity. The absolute immunity granted to diplomats in these situations
often provides for the opportunity to facilitate gross human rights violations by the means of rampant human
trafficking and arms trafficking.
Hence despite the necessity of immunity and protection in times of unrest, one cannot undermine the scope
for exploitation it creates. As the SOCHUM, we need to keep the rights of these diplomats in mind but
ensure that these are not yielded at the rights of others.
NEED FOR UNIVERSAL CODE OF CONDUCT
One of the rudimentary problems facing this committee is the lack of any form of international agreement or
an international code of conduct binding on the diplomats of all countries. In reality, far from having a
universal code of conduct, most countries do not even have a basic form of legislature governing the actions
of their diplomats. Thus, diplomats of different countries follow different procedure, and most countries are
yet to lay out a basic framework of penalties to be given to diplomats in case they commit crimes during the
course of their duties.
Even in the case of the few countries that have formed – or are in the process of forming a code of conduct
for their diplomats, most of them simply put forward conventions, in which case it is the diplomat’s
discretion whether he/she follows them or not. No country as of yet has come up with a comprehensive code
of conduct, which is binding on all diplomats representing that country.
Furthermore, even if States do initiate a process to form legislature regarding the duties of diplomats, and
consequences of their actions, there is bound to be disparity between the ideologies of different States,
leading to international friction. What may be considered a crime in one State may not be so in another
State. Thus, the only solution that seems to present itself is the formation of a universal code of conduct,
9
which will serve as the code to be followed by each country ratifying it in its dealings with diplomats. This
will ensure that there are no discrepancies as to how the actions of a diplomat are to be penalised, in case
they are of a nature abusive of the diplomatic immunity granted to the diplomat.
B. DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION
The origins of Diplomatic Protection were first explained by Swiss Jurist, Emmerich Vattel, who wrote:
“Whoever ill-treats a citizen indirectly injures the State, which must protect that citizen” (The Law of
Nations, Classics of International Law, Book II). Diplomatic Protection is essentially a way for a State to
implement diplomatic and other action, against another State, on behalf of a citizen or citizens, whose rights
or privileges have been denied or affected. It may include an international proceeding, where there is an
appeal by one State to another, for the performance of the obligations, growing out of rights and duties that
are mutually existent.
DEFINITION
The Draft Article adopted by the International Law Commission in 2006, clearly defines Diplomatic
Protection. In this sense, "diplomatic protection consists of the invocation by a State, through diplomatic
action or other means of peaceful settlement, of the responsibility of another State for an injury caused by
an internationally wrongful act of that State to a natural or legal person that is a national of the former
State with a view to the implementation of such responsibilities.”
THE BACKGROUND
The origins of Diplomatic Protection reach far back into the records of history and International Law. It was
not until the occurrence of further social and legal developments through the 19th century that diplomatic
protection became an established and legitimate doctrine of international law. The concept of a State
protecting its national abroad was essential for the fostering of relations, in the latter part of the nineteenth
century. An increase in trade and industrialization lead to an increase in travel of people to different
countries and the need for the State to assist such nationals, through diplomatic means. Upon engaging in
disputes with volatile and unstable governments, visiting nationals of another state sought assistance from
their National State for protection. Quantities disparity in Diplomatic Protection lead to opposition by the
Latin American Countries, expressed by Carlos Calvo, who stated that, as long as local justice was
available, there would be no scope for International Complaint.
In the inter-war years, attempts were made for the codification of the aspects governing Diplomatic
Protection and the treatment of aliens, such as that in a Conference at Hague in 1930 and treaties such as
The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad (1919) were drafted.
The post -World War II developments, lead to the Bilateral Investment Treaties and the Settlement of
Investment Disputes between states and nationals of other states, 1963, which reduced appeals for
Diplomatic Protection in property claims.
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and The Vienna Convention on Consular
Assistance, of 1963, The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally
Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, of 1973, followed by the Draft Article on Diplomatic
Protection adopted by the International Law Commission, in 2006, were historic attempts, made for the
development of the concept of Diplomatic Protection. Diplomatic Protection, today, remains a part of the
assistance available, to prevent imminent injury of a representative, in a foreign country.
10
EXISTING PROTOCOLS
DRAFT ARTICLES ON DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION (2006)
(TEXT ADOPTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION AT ITS FIFTY EIGTH
SESSION.)
In 2006, a set of nineteen articles laid down the secondary rules- Rules that address the conditions that have
to be met, for the bringing of a claim for Diplomatic Protection, for and on behalf of, legal and natural
persons.
The important Draft Articles and their key terms are cited below:
Article 1 lays down the definition of Diplomatic Protection on behalf of Natural and legal persons who are
Nationals of a particular State and have suffered an injury due to an ‘International Wrongful Act’ of another
State, in which the National was present. It allows an ‘invocation by a State, through Diplomatic Action or
other means of peaceful settlement’.
Articles 2 and 3 deal with the right of a state to exercise Diplomatic Protection.
Emphasis is given to the fact that only the State to which the victim is a national has the right to exercise
Diplomatic Protection, but under no International law, is it obliged to.
Article 4 deals with “the State of Nationality of a natural person”. It states that the person should have
acquired this Nationality by no means that are inconsistent with customary International Law. It highlights a
list of factors that are generally grounds for adoption of the Nationality of a State, such as birth, succession,
descent, Naturalization and succession of States.
Article 5 highlights the essentiality of “Continuous Nationality of a Natural Person” in order to receive
diplomatic protection.
Articles 6 and 7 deal with the cases of “Multiple nationality and claim against a third state” and “Multiple
Nationality and claim against a State of Nationality”. Despite several attempts, there remains vast ambiguity
in these clauses as relative terminology has been used and predominance has not been defined.
Article 8 departs from the traditional view, that only persons having a specific Nationality may be subject to
the privileges of Diplomatic Protection and provides for such persons who either, have no bond with a State
(Stateless Persons) or cannot approach their home country for protection (Refugees).
11
Articles 9 and 10 provide for the determination of State of Nationality of the Corporation and emphasize
the need for continuous nationality as a criterion to be fulfilled for diplomatic protection to be meted out.
Articles 11 and 12 deal with diplomatic protection to and by Shareholders.
Article 13 highlights the extension of diplomatic protection to other “legal persons”.
Articles 14 and 15 highlight the conditions that need to be fulfilled before diplomatic protection can be
yielded.
Articles 16, 17, 18 and 19 deal with other miscellaneous details which help fine tune the document.
Hence despite being a very comprehensive document in itself, this draft article has several loopholes which
provide for the scope of abuse of diplomatic protection and hence provide for human right violations. As the
SOCHUM, it is your duty delegates to examine in detail these flaws and formulate a document which does
not allow any scope to do so.
THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF CRIMES AGAINST
INTERNATIONALY PROTECTED PERSONS, INCLUDING DIPLOMATIC AGENTS (1973)
Drafted by the International Law Commission, the Convention was signed on 28th
December, 1973,
as a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly. It essentially safeguards the rights of
“Internationally Protected Person” that is diplomats from actions such as murder, kidnapping and all such
other actions or threats of the same which would hamper the liberty of such individuals. It also provides for
the procedure to be followed if any of these rights are violated.
The most relevant articles have been highlighted below:
Article 1 provides a clear definition of who an “Internationally Protected Person” is considered to be and
states that ‘sufficient evidence’ must be gathered to pronounce a person an ‘Alleged Offender’.
Article 2 presents an exhaustive list of actions that are subject to penalisation which include an actual
performance of any sort of violent attacks, or the threat or attempt to do so. It places an obligation on the
State to undertake ‘appropriate penalties’ which will be in accordance with their grave nature.
Article 4 lays down preventive measures that the State must exercise to prevent crimes from taking place.
Article 5 provides for a situation where if, the alleged offender has fled the premise, a coordinated effort
must be made, through the United Nations, to obtain and maintain all such information that is accessible by
States, regarding the alleged offender.
Article 6 lays down the procedure to be implemented, once information has been obtained.
Article 7 again protects the sovereignty of a State as proceedings are conducted in accordance with the laws
of the State, where the alleged offender is present.
Article 8 provides for the procedure to be followed during the extradition of the alleged offender.
Article 13 addresses peaceful and judicial means of settlement in case of a dispute between two or more
parties, regarding the interpretation or application of the convention.
Hence this document provides an exhaustive list of measures to protect diplomats and the relevance of these
articles cannot be understated specially in war-zones and other times of unrest.
12
THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS, 1961
States which have ratified the convention
States which have not ratified the convention
"The rules of Diplomatic Law, enshrined in the Vienna Convention, are the cornerstone of modern
international legal order.” -Eilen Denza
The Vienna Convention, signed on 18th April, 1961, was a historic attempt at codifying the rights and
privileges of Diplomats in foreign territories, and the formal introduction of the concept of Diplomatic
Immunity. Bearing in mind, the differences between Diplomatic Protection and Consular Assistance, a
separate Convention was drafted for the purpose of regulating consular actions and assistance, enshrined in
the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963. The Vienna Convention is more than 50 years old
now, and people are of the opinion that with the changing face of global diplomacy, an amendment and
revitalization of the Convention is necessary.
Some of the key provision are cited below:
The Vienna Convention is based on the assumption that, “that an international convention on diplomatic
intercourse, privileges and immunities would contribute to the development of friendly relations among
nations, irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems.” and that “customary international
law” would govern all such doubts and questions which would arise due to provisions not explicitly stated in
the Convention. The Preamble to the convention deals with the concern of extending blanket immunity and
explicitly states, that the Vienna Convention was not drafted for Individual benefit.
In an attempt to codify Diplomatic Law,
Article 1 presents a hierarchical order of Diplomatic Representatives, and all those who qualify as such
representatives. It includes The Head of the Mission, members of the mission, members of the staff received
along with the mission- who may be diplomatic, administrative, technical and service staff. Here, a
distinction is cited between members of the service staff and a private servant- the latter who is not
employed by the State, to represent it.
Article 2 emphasizes that the diplomatic mission may only be set up when there is mutual consent of both
the Home and Host State.
13
Article 3 highlights the need for and the role that Diplomats play in the developing world, in accordance
with the objectives of the UN Charter- that is, to make a coordinated effort, for developing economic, social,
political and cultural relations.
Article 6 recognizes the concept of dual and multiple Nationalities, whereby it states that “Two or more
States may accredit the same person as head of mission to another State, unless objection is offered by the
receiving State.” In practice though, if the Diplomat may find himself conflicted, and may pay greater
importance to the concerns of one State and neglect the other, which would prevent the proper and complete
execution of the diplomatic tasks that he or she is required to perform.
Article 14 provides for a distinct division and classification of the heads of missions, into three main
categories: The first-Ambassadors and nuncios, which are accredited to the Heads of States, the secondenvoys and ministers, and the third-the ‘charges d’affaires’. It explicitly states that except in matters
concerning the order of precedence and etiquette, there shall be no distinction between the heads of
missions, on the basis of their class.
Article 37 deals with immunity provided to family members of diplomats.
The Principle of Inviolability
Article 22 highlights the fundamental principle of the inviolability of the mission premises of any mission
received by a host State. This constitutes one of the many important privileges granted to diplomats, for
protecting the internal affairs and secrets of another State and giving the diplomats the freedom to regulate
the affairs of their state in secrecy and protect maintain documents and other files. The premises,
transportation and furnishings, shall be ‘inviolable’ which broadly means that the receiving state cannot
conduct searches in such, except without consent of the Head of the mission.
Article 24 further expanding on the principle of inviolability provides that all archives and documents of the
mission are inviolable at any time and place.
Article 27 provides for the inviolability of all official correspondence- that includes all such correspondence
between the mission and its functions.
Article 28 states that the person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable, and they shall not be subject to
arrest or detention.
Article 30 states that not only shall the official premises and documents enjoy inviolability; the same shall
be recognized for the personal premises of the diplomat and all their papers, correspondence.
The Diplomatic Bag
Article 27 deals with the often debated provision of the Diplomatic bag, and its inviolability, wherein it
states that the diplomatic bag cannot be “opened or detained” and must contain official documents and
articles only. However, this does not exempt the bag from scanning and the use of trained dogs to detect
whether the bag contains harmful articles.
Article 36 states that the bags can only be examined when there are serious grounds for presuming that the
bag contains articles that are prohibited by the law, and such inspection can only be made in the presence of
the diplomat.
The Vienna Convention provides for a list of remedies available in case of abuse of Diplomatic power:
14
1. Article 9 provides for one of the most important remedies available in case of any abuse of diplomatic
protection and diplomatic immunity. It allows the receiving state to declare a diplomat “persona non grata”
or not acceptable. The sending state then has to recall the diplomat or terminate the functions of the
diplomat. This severely tarnishes the diplomat’s reputation and their ability to exercise their powers in any
state. The provision of persona non grata has been used in many cases, such as when Pakistani forces
undertook a raid in the mission premises of Iraq and found a huge consignment of arms, the Iraqi
ambassador was declared persona non grata.
2. Article 11 introduces a provision where the receiving state can limit the size of the mission received, in
light of the circumstances and conditions of the receiving state. They also have the power to refuse the
acceptance of officials of a particular category. Post the firing by a Libyan diplomat in the United Kingdom,
the British IN 1985, adopted stricter terms, limiting the size of the mission and its premises.
3. Article 29 concerns diplomats’ immunity from arrest and detention.
4. Article 31 provides the diplomats immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state, however,
they may face jurisdiction in the sending state.
5. Article 32 provides that the immunity from jurisdiction of diplomatic agents and all persons enjoying
Diplomatic immunity may be waived by the sending state.
THE CALVO DOCTRINE
In 1896, a distinguished jurist from Argentina, Carlos Calvo, advanced the Calvo Doctrine in his
‘International Law of Europe and America in theory and practice’ where he declared that “The
responsibility of Governments towards foreigners cannot be greater than that which these Governments
have towards their own citizens.” Adopted by Latin American States, Mexico and many other such States,
it affirms that as long as provisions under local law and jurisdiction under the host country are available,
there is no need for Diplomatic Protection and that in Legal Principle, which finds application in
International Disputes, aliens should have no other rights than that of citizens of a sovereign state. Since it
aimed to equate foreigners with Nationals, the policy was often referred to as the ‘National Standard’, in
opposition to the ‘International Minimum Standard’ followed by Western countries.
The Calvo Clause was developed from the Doctrine and adopted into the constitutions of States, and in
contracts between foreigners and the State and the Central and South American governments. It was based
on the provisions that “equality, sovereignty and independence are the paramount rights of the States” and
that “aliens have to abide by local laws, and not invoke diplomatic protection, that is until local remedies are
exhausted”
However, there are variations in the clauses adopted by different States.
Constitutions, such as that of Mexico and Peru, exempt the use of Diplomatic Protection in all
circumstances, and in Mexico only disputes relating to NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement)
are exempt, while those such as Bolivia give aliens the right to Diplomatic Protection, only in cases of
denial of justice. The Constitution of Nicaragua provides for Diplomatic Protection only after the denial of
justice and that violation of this provision would result in a loss of the right to reside in the country.
Constitutions such as those of Cuba, do not explicitly adopt the ‘Calvo Clause’ but are guided by the same
principle- that all aliens residing in the territory of Cuba shall be regarded as equal to Cubans, and shall
enjoy the same rights, privileges and protection, provided to persons, except those granted solely to
Nationals.
The Calvo Clause, which when included in an International Investment agreement, introduces five main
provisions:
15
1. Submission to local legislation
2.Application of Local Law
3.Assimilation of foreigners to local contracting arrangements
4.Waiver of Diplomatic Protection in a foreigner’s home state
5.Surrender of rights under International Law exclusion.
The main purpose of this Clause is to compel and motivate the use of internal courts, by foreigners, before
they resort to diplomatic protection. In matters relating to foreign investment, it attempted to subject foreign
investors to the laws and jurisdiction of the State, in which they were investing. However, this clause was
faced with great resistance by States, in light of the growing need for Diplomatic Protection of foreigners. It
is argued that this clause excludes the responsibility of Host States towards foreigners. The British
Government, argued that “the clause could not be applied to torturous acts of revolutionary forces or the
wilful destruction of aliens’ property, and that in such claims, the governments have the right of espousing
the claims of their nationals” Bearing in mind, the disparity in the Internal Laws of each State, the
applicability of the Calvo Clause is still a subject of International debate.
SCOPE
A State is entitled to protect its subjects, when injured by acts contrary to international law committed by
another State, from whom they have been unable to obtain satisfaction through the ordinary channels.
Conditions for provision of Diplomatic protection are as follows:
1. Nationality
A state can only extend diplomatic protection to its own nationals. There must be no ambiguity as to the
nationality of the injured party. In addition to this nationality must be continuous. The person concerned
must be a national of the state at the time of the injury and at the time the complaint is lodged.
In the past, multiple nationalities have proven as an obstacle to diplomatic protection. In principle,
diplomatic protection may not be exercised against another state of which the injured party is also a national,
as the person concerned is regarded by that state as its own national. To tackle this, the International Court
of Justice pronounced on the establishment of predominant nationality.
2. Breach of international law
For diplomatic protection to be exercised, the injury suffered must be the result of a direct breach of
international law by the host state. Examples include the denial of justice, imprisonment without trial,
discriminatory or arbitrary expropriation, nationalisation or confiscation without compensation.
3. Prior exhaustion of local remedies
A state can only provide diplomatic protection and seek a remedy or file a complaint if the host state
concerned has already exhausted all local remedies to the extent possible and as could be reasonably
expected. The effect of this condition is to turn diplomatic protection into a subsidiary mechanism. It would
be premature for one state to accuse another state of a breach of international law if it had had no
opportunity to right the wrong.
The prior exhaustion of remedies in the responding state is not required in all circumstances, for example
where there are no available, effective or adequate local remedies.
Diplomatic protection cannot be extended if the prescription period has expired. The same applies if the
claim of the home state of the injured person has failed.
16
However, it is difficult to reconcile with the requirements applicable to diplomatic protection (prior
exhaustion of local remedies and nationality of claim) which do not apply if a state is in reality claiming its
own rights. Even if injury to its national may affect the rights of his or her national state, this is only because
through the operation of the fiction the violation of individual right enable the state to exercise diplomatic
protections and demand reparation. As a consequence, instances of protection of nationals have generally
been interpreted as diplomatic protection rather than self-defence. Several debates have taken place in the
ILC where governments have argued the abandoning of the fiction as Diplomatic protection doesn't involve
the state's rights and that the individual should have complete control over the procedure. 'The fiction' refers
to the exercise of constituting an individual injury as the injury to the individual's national state.
Despite the use of Diplomatic Protection in the past, its application and its purpose are still subject to debate.
Its scope can be traced by examining a wide range of Inter-State Procedures, as being a part of the
mechanism of Diplomatic Protection and the quest for its revitalization by increasing its relevance and
application.
RESTRICTIONS AND CRITICISM
With reference to the State’s obligation to protect its Nationals abroad, Diplomatic Protection should be a
means to protect the human rights of individuals when they represent their country on foreign soil. The
notion that Diplomatic immunity helps to safeguard human rights has not been accepted universally, as there
is conjecture as to the suitability of Diplomatic Protection to protect an individual’s rights, when it is entirely
in the State’s discretion. It is believed that this instrument is used by economically stronger states against
weaker ones, in this world. The political condition and stability will play an important role in shaping the
nature of action taken. Diplomatic Protection is often criticised, especially in the sphere of its enforcement,
because it does not encompass the addressing of the general human rights situation in a foreign country as
this would pose a serious threat to the relationship between the host and home country, irrespective of the
fact that the representative was one of the many injured, resulting from a general disrespect for human
rights. Moreover, the procedure for exercise of diplomatic protection has been lengthy in the past. Deciding
the admissibility, deliberation and its implementation is often time consuming in contrast to adequate
procedures required to address urgent human rights situations.
DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
17
DEFINITION
Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures diplomats are given safe passage and are not
considered susceptible to lawsuits or prosecution under the host country's laws, although they can still be
expelled.
SCOPE AND RESTRICTIONS
A diplomat may not be prosecuted in the host country; the family members are also provided with
diplomatic immunity. Not only are diplomatic bags not allowed to be searched, but also all personal
belongings of the diplomat cannot be searched or checked by the host country . However, the diplomat may
be expelled from the host country or be declared a “persona-non-grata” (an unwelcome person) in which the
diplomat is recalled to the home country on request from the host country. Under some circumstances,
however, diplomatic immunity may be waived or lifted by the home country.
CRIMINAL IMMUNITY
Immunity from criminal jurisdiction does not mean that the receiving state authorities are precluded from
interrupting certain dangerous criminal actions that present an immediate threat to public safety (e.g.,
stopping a diplomat who is driving dangerously). However, Foreign Service employees serving abroad need
not perform duties under the threat of being treated as a common criminal by the law enforcement and
judicial authorities of the receiving state
CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE IMMUNITY
Civil and administrative actions are those in which a person or business (or a government) files a complaint
(often seeking monetary damages) against another person before the civil or administrative authorities of the
receiving state. Diplomatic agents enjoy comprehensive immunity in this respect, with three exceptions:
actions connected with real property in the receiving state; actions where the diplomat is an executor or
beneficiary of an estate in the receiving state; and actions relating to professional or commercial endeavours
engaged in by the diplomat outside the scope of official functions.
DIPLOMATIC BAGS
18
A diplomatic pouch (or “bag”) is any properly identified and sealed package, pouch, envelope, bag, or other
container that is used to transport official correspondence, documents, and other articles intended for official
use, between:

Embassies, legations, consular posts, and the foreign office of any government;

The headquarters or any other office of a public international organization and its regional offices in
a foreign country; or

The foreign office of any country with full membership in a public international organization and its
mission to that organization.
In accordance with Article 27.3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR), properly
designated diplomatic pouches “shall not be opened or detained.” Although inspection of a pouch by X-ray
would not physically break the external seal of the shipment, such an action constitutes the modern-day
electronic equivalent of “opening” a pouch.
Since diplomatic bags serve as the perfect method of smuggling items they are used to serve the varied
purposes which include many cases of arms, drugs, organs and even human trafficking up to some extent.
PROBLEMS REGARDING DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
19
When you remove the threat of the possibility of prosecution for crimes in a foreign land and then send that
person to the foreign land, you create an extremely tantalizing situation. In theory, a person with diplomatic
immunity is still under the jurisdiction of their home land’s laws and in some cases; emissaries who have
broken the law in a host country are tried in their home countries for the crime. In practice, though, people
with diplomatic immunity exist in a lawless state. Technically they can be arrested and detained for a crime,
but under diplomatic immunity the courts of the host county have no jurisdiction to prosecute them and so
charges would inevitably be dropped.
Diplomatic immunity can prevent victims of crimes and civil wrongs from successfully seeking reparation
for the abuse that they have suffered. FCO statistics revealed that in 2007, 78 alleged criminal offences were
committed by diplomats, ranging from actual bodily harm to speeding. Yet there appears to be nothing that
victims can do to enforce their legal rights where diplomatic immunity is raised as a defence, short of hoping
that the home state will waive immunity.
Human rights may be safeguarded by preventing their violation in the first place, by adequate punishment of
violators, and by providing for a satisfactory remedy.
In the human rights context, prevention primarily relates to removal of structural obstacles that are at the
root of injustice. Since diplomatic immunity shields accredited persons against domestic jurisdiction, it
practically interferes with the intended operation.
One way of solving the problem in the context of human rights is to change diplomatic law so that violations
will carry sufficient punishment to satisfy the principle of retribution.
EMPLOYER ABUSE AND SLAVERY
Diplomatic employees neither fall under the jurisdiction of the host country or the home country nor thus are
under impunity. Taking advantage of their diplomatic immunity many diplomats abuse their employees.
Ignoring and abusing all the labour laws of the host country, violating the rights of these employees. There
have been innumerable cases of diplomats not paying minimum wages and violating their working hours. In
worst cases diplomats have saved their employees taken away their passports, imprisoned them in their
20
homes, and deprived them of their earned wages and food. Violated their maximum working hours, abused
them physically and mentally and torturing them to slavery.
TORTURE
Torture refers to “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession.”
Numerous diplomats sent on covert missions have often been found to make use of torture to obtain the
necessary information under the protection of diplomatic immunity.
BONDED LABOUR
Bonded labour or debt bondage is a corollary of human trafficking, and although it has not been legally
defined yet, it can be understood to be a person's pledge of their labour or services as security for the
repayment for a debt or other obligation. The services required to repay the debt may be undefined, and the
services' duration may be undefined.
Diplomats simply enslave refugees of trafficked persons in their households and embassies, knowing that
the property is protected by their diplomatic immunity. However, sometimes diplomats may make promises
of better living standards or better pay to entice workers to come with them, and then put them to forced
labour.
There have been innumerable cases made of forced labour and debt bondage against diplomats; very few
have been proved – even fewer penalised
ORGAN TRAFFICKING
Organ smuggling is a trade involving visceral human organs, which may be used for transplantation. Organ
trafficking is a thriving business, and no number of international protocols and agreements have managed to
shut it down completely yet. Organ smuggling is something that diplomats indulge in, especially since they
know that the home States will want to protect their own diplomats.
ARMS TRAFFICKING
Trafficking of armaments and weaponry is prevalent worldwide, especially under the protection of
diplomatic immunity. Tonnes of illegal weaponry may be – and are, shipped or flown from one country to
another in a diplomatic bag, thereby eliminating all chances of the traffickers being exposed. Thus,
trafficking via diplomats if one of the most fool-proof ways of trafficking armaments.
For example, a Venezuelan general wanted in the United States on drugs charges and arrested in Aruba was
released after the Venezuelan government protested his diplomatic immunity and threatened sanctions if
Aruba did not release him.
DRUGS TRAFFICKING
The illegal narcotics trade is a lucrative market with almost inexhaustible resources, and diplomats have the
added power of diplomatic bags. Thus, many diplomats have aided and abetted the drug cartels; some of
them may even have chosen to work individually. There have been a few reported cases of persons making
use of their immunity to traffic drugs on an international and sometimes national level.
21
For example, Saudi prince Nayef bin Fawwaz Al Shalaan allegedly moved roughly 2 tonnes of cocaine from
Colombia to Paris using his diplomatic status, in a royal family 727 jet in 2004. This, unfortunately, is not an
isolated incident, in reality, there are thousands of such cases where diplomats, in spite of aiding the black
market trade of narcotics, are not penalised as the home States choose to protect them
BLOC POSITIONS
Diplomatic responsibility with special emphasis on diplomatic protection is a topic which requires close
deliberation of international policy. At the outset, there can be two distinct blocs established, one consisting
of countries in favour of doing away with the concept of diplomatic responsibility and protection, and the
other, believing in its validity. Following this format, blocs can be further divided into those countries which
believe legislature governing diplomatic protection needs to be reformed, and those who believe that
diplomatic responsibility is needed to exist in its current form. Among countries which believe in the
abolition of diplomatic protection, views would differ with respect to the viability of alternatives. While
some may support the Calvo Doctrine, other States may have other alternatives. Many countries that are
governed by different ideologies will have a different outlook on the agenda altogether. The board will be
expecting every delegate to stick by their country’s foreign policy, at any given circumstance.
LATIN AMERICA
Latin America follows the Calvo doctrine. With respect to the suitability of diplomatic protection as a
mechanism for the protection of individual rights, its exercise is entirely subject to the discretion of
individual states. Latin American countries are against diplomatic protection as they have been used in an
abusive manner. The Latin American countries support the Calvo clause, which is an alternative for
diplomatic protection. The part of the Calvo clause, most pertinent to the agenda, as interpreted by the ICJ
states that governments cannot help an individual by exercising diplomatic protection if local authorities
deny the claim. Latin American countries are against the use of diplomatic immunity by the diplomats for a
few valid reasons- It results in violating the territorial sovereignty, Diplomatic immunity results in violating
the judicial independence of the host countries. Latin American countries simply follow the Calvo doctrine
22
and are against the Vienna Convention because the diplomatic rights, privileges and immunities are misused
by the diplomats to perform tasks which cause destruction.
MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRIES
The Middle East is extremely powerful financially. However, larger and more powerful nations like the
United States of America have been intervening in the internal issues of the Middle East for many years.
Due to this reason the Middle East feels the need to protect its citizens and their human rights. They strongly
support the presence of diplomatic immunity for all their diplomats and also believe in the practice of
Diplomatic protection. However, the Middle Eastern countries find it difficult to allow foreign states to
practice diplomatic protection for the foreign diplomats living in their countries. Some of the countries like
Iran are obligated under the Vienna Convention to protect the security and safety of foreign diplomats living
in their countries. Moreover, these countries need to uphold their obligations under the Vienna Convention
to protect the security and safety of foreign diplomats.
AFRICAN UNION
The African Union as a whole supports the exercise diplomatic protection by foreign countries for foreign
diplomats living in their country. The African Union strongly supports the provision of diplomatic immunity
to all its own diplomats. Some African countries like South Sudan have set up units and department, for
example the Diplomatic Protection Unit, which is under the South Sudanese police. South Sudan does not
follow the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations as it has neither signed nor ratified it. In some
African countries like South Africa and Zimbabwe, the government does not exercise diplomatic protection
for its citizens however, a citizen does have the right to request the government to provide it with diplomatic
protection, and this means the government has a corresponding obligation to consider the request and to deal
with it consistently with the Constitution.
EUROPEAN UNION
Treaty on Functioning of the European Union states that , "every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory
of a third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, be entitled to
protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State, on the same conditions as the
nationals of that State". The general verdict towards diplomatic protection by the European states tilts
favourably towards it, with an addition of provisions for diplomatic protection and immunity in their
constitutions. The European Diplomatic Programme is a common programme between the EU states and
institutions that helps diplomats create networks that foster a European identity and foreign policy and raises
awareness among national diplomats regarding a specifically European dimension of diplomacy.
QUESTIONS A RESOLUTION MUST ANSWER
23
1. How would you propose to define diplomatic responsibility? Given the current scenario, is there
a need to re- evaluate the existing protocols?
2. Is it possible to establish a uniform international code of conduct for diplomats’, which would
cater to the needs of all countries equally? How would this code of conduct help tackle the
existing corruption amongst diplomats?
3. What action will be taken against those diplomats who fail to comply with these provisions?
4. What restrictions should be implemented while giving immunity? On what basis should the
crimes where immunity can be waived be classified?
5. Is it justified to give family members of diplomats’ immunity as well? If so, to what extent
should this immunity be granted?
6. How would the predominance of nationality be determined in case of dual or multiple
nationalities?
7. How would you define the extent of local remedies that can be yielded and establish that they
have been exhausted by the host country?
8. In extreme cases where diplomats have injured the rights of nationals in the host country,
should the jurisdiction lie with the receiving state? If so, how would you classify “extreme
cases”?
9. How can the United Nations work towards combating impunity? Would the involvement of the
United Nations be justified in the issue and how will they ensure efficiency in this matter?
10. Is the Calvo Doctrine a feasible alternative to diplomatic protection? What other alternatives
could be practically implemented?
11. Given the inviolability of diplomatic bags and embassies, how would you combat the
trafficking and smuggling of arms, drugs, organs and humans which takes place through it?
12. What additional powers, if any, should be granted to diplomats during peace negotiations in
areas of conflict? Also what measures should be taken to ensure that these extra privileges are
not exploited?
13. Seeing that there is a direct link between human right violations and abuse of diplomatic
privileges, what measures do your propose committee should undertake to tackle these various
problems mentioned in the study guide?
14. How will this resolution involve the use of non- governmental organisations and other agencies
to make sure that all resources are available to the U.N?
15. Keeping in mind the changing role of diplomacy what is the time frame within which this
resolution will come into play before it is supplemented by a more updated one to accommodate
the changes in the global society?
POSITION PAPER REQUIREMENTS
Position Papers are an essential part of any MUN. It allows the delegates to gain familiarity with their own
country policy as well as the situation at hand. For this committee, it is mandatory for each delegate to
submit ONE position paper. Position papers should include a header with information about:
 The delegate’s full name,
 The topic area of the position paper,
 The country being represented,
 The delegate’s school.
They should be single-spaced and in Times New Roman, size 12. Each paper should have a minimum of
450 words and a maximum of 650 words. Ideally, each paper should be divided into three distinct parts. The
first part should consist of a general overview of the agenda; the second should comprise of your country
policy on the agenda and any role and any relevant steps that your country has taken; and the concluding
section should be a comprehensive set of potential solutions that your country believes could solve the
problem and the measures your country will take in solving it. If your country has no definitive stance on the
problem, it is recommended that you research on the broader policy of your country and try to find solutions
24
keeping that in mind. Please note that delegates who fail to submit position papers on time will be penalized.
For the date of submission of the position paper kindly refer to the Conference Handbook.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_8_2006.pdf
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/12538/01.pdf?sequence=12
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/uk0314_ForUpload.pdf
http://www.zaoerv.de/66_2006/66_2006_2_a_351_398.pdf
http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/17/2/79.pdf
http://www.worldwidewords.org/topicalwords/tw-dip1.htm
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/25618/1/Hooge_Nicholas_T_201011_LLM_thesis.pdf
http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1602&context=auilr
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/dhuman.htm
http://www.thenation.com/blog/203617/us-soldiers-and-contractors-sexually-abused-least-54-childrencolombia
http://www.juridicainternational.eu/public/pdf/ji_2003_1_110.pdf
CLOSING REMARKS
Delegates, I hope that you have found this guide both informative and helpful. You are encouraged to go
beyond this guide and expand your knowledge on the agenda. Familiarity with the agenda, knowledge of
your countries policy and a grasp on the concept will see you through in committee. You are encouraged
you to be aware of the events that take place between your initial reading of this document and the
commencement of committee. If you have any questions or queries, please feel free to contact me at
ga3lmcmun15@gmail.com or chandni_ag@hotmail.com or +91-9007856402. I look forward to meeting you
in May. Thank you and good luck!
25