Page 101 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

national courts of other states often mention that the min- Vienna Conference on Diplomatic Relations. In a letter
, istry of foreign affairs has certified the diplomatic status of quoted in 7 Whiteman, Digest of International Law 260
the person involved in the case, thus suggesting that deci- (1970), an Assistant Legal Adviser in the Department of
sion-making by the executive with respect to diplomatic State of the United States maintained:
status is widespread. * * * The Governments represented at the Vienna Conference were
5-13. The Reach of Diplomatic Immunity. a. The Vien- unable to agree on a defmition of family, for purposes of privileges and
na Convention divides the personnel of a diplomatic mis- immunities. All governrnents are in general agreement that the wife of a
sion into four categories and assignes different privileges diplomatic agent, his minor children, and perhaps his children who are
full-time college students or who are totally dependent on him, are en-
and immunities to each. In assessing the difference in titled to diplomatic immunity. All governments tend to agree that other
treatment of each of these categories, it is useful to know relatives forming part of his household who are gainfully employed are
who the persons are in each and what they do. The infor- not entitled to diplomatic immunity. Other cases, e.g. unmarried adult
mation below is a simplified table of organization of a dip- daughters, dependent parents, and sisters acting as official hostesses, are
lomatic mission. decided on the basis of the facts in the particular situation and the prac-
tice in the receiving state. Under the Vienna Convention, members of
(1) The first category is the diplomatic staff. Its the family of a diplomatic agent who are nationals of the receiving state
members have diplomatic rank. They are the individuals are not entitled to diplomatic immunity.
engaged in the performance of the diplomatic function in d. U.S. practice with respect to the immunity of service
the strict senbe of the term. These diplomatic agents, as hasbeen to grant service staff the same immunity as diplo-
they are called in the Vienna Convention, include the matic agents. In one incident, the driver of the Minister of
chief of mission (ambassador, or minister or charge Iran was arrested in Maryland for speeding and both he
d'affaires) ,counsellor or deputy chief of mission, the first, and the minister taken to the police station. A justice of
second and third secretaries (of embassy), the military at- the peace dismissed the driver's fine. Upon protest from
taches (air, army, navy) and such other attaches (for com- Iran, the police officers were prosecuted, fined, and
merce, labor, treasury and other matters) as the receiving removed from duty. 33
state may agree to recognize as diplomatic agents.
(2) The next two categories-which may be looked (1) While neither diplomatic representatives nor
upon as part of the "official" family of the diplomatic their drivers are subject to arrest or detention for parking
agent--are the administrative and technical staff on the violations, they are expected to pay the charges involved.
one hand and the service staff on the other. The adminis- If they fail to do so, the Department of State will not
trative staff includes administrative officers, persons in authorize the issuance to them of DPL plates. 34
charge of communications (code and mail), secretary- (2) Under Article 37 (3) of the Vienna Convention,
typists and file clerks. The service staff includes drivers of the members of the service staff have no immunity from
the mission cars, butlers, cooks, maids and gardeners. criminal jurisdiction and have immunity from civil juris-
The last category-which may be looked upon as part of diction only for acts performed in the course of their
the "personal" family of the diplomatic agent-nsists duties. However, the article does not bar the United States
of private servants. from granting the broader immunity given them under its
b. No immunity is required for private servants un- present law and practice.
der the Vienna Convention. Before the Convention, the e. U.S. practice with respect to administrative and tech-
United Kingdom, like the United States, granted com- nical staff. The practice of the United States has been to
plete immunity to the private servants of diplomatic give members of the administrative and technical staff the
agents. Many other states did not. Under Article 37(4) of same immunity as is given diplomatic agents. Under Arti-
the Convention, private servants of members of the mis- cle 37(2) of the Vienna Convention, the U.S. is not re-
sion are entitled to immunity only to the extent the receiv- quired to give these individuals immunity from civil juris-
ing state wishes to grant it. The statutes by which the diction for acts performed outside the course of their offi-
United States gives complete immunity to private servants cial duties. However, neither is it barred from granting
are derived from the Act of April 30, 1790, chap. 9, 55 them the broader immunity given them under present law
25-27, 1 Stat. 117. Thus,as noted above, Section 252 of and practice. Article 37 of the Vienna Convention does,
Title 22 of the U.S. Code expressly bars suits against any however, grant to families of the members of the adrninis-
"domestic" or "domestic servant" of diplomtaic agents. trative and technical staff the same immunity as is granted
c. Immunity of family members and dependents of the members of that staff themselves. Until the Vienna
diplomatic agents under the Vienna Convention. Under Convention came into force for the United States, it has
Article 37 (1) of the Vienna Convention, the members of been its practice not to grant any immunity to their
the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of his house- families.
hold are entitled to the immunity he personally has. Who
the "members of the family" are, however, is left unclear 33. See Reeves, The Elkton Incident, 30 Am. J. Int'l L. 95 (1936).
and so is the notion of "household." There was a great 34. Announcement of April 1, 1964, 58 Am. J. Int'l L. 1001
diversity of views on the meaning of these terms at the (1 964).