Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:34:28.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities as a Subject for Codification1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Yuen-li Liang
Yuen-li Liang*
Affiliation:
Division for the Development and Codification of International Law, United Nations Secretariat
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes on Legal Questions Concerning the United Nations
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , July 1953 , pp. 439 - 448
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This note was prepared in collaboration with Mr. Bsuan-Tsui Liu, Legal Counselor, Legal Department, United Nations Secretariat.

**

In the past three years, it has been the practice of the writer to devote the notes on legal questions concerning the United Nations in the July issue each year of this Journal to the review by the General Assembly of the work of the International Law Commission. At its fourth session in 1952, however, the International Law Commission did not complete its work on any subject of international law and its report on that session therefore did not contain any final draft. Consequently, the General Assembly merely adopted a resolution (No. 683 (VII)) taking note of the report. The report of the Commission (General Assembly, 7th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9, A/2163) has been printed in full in this Journal, Supp., Vol. 47 (1953), pp. 1-26.

References

1 Report of the International Law Commission Covering Its First Session, General Assembly, 4th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 10 (A/925), pars. 16–17; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 44 (1950), pp. 6–7.

2 Report, par. 20.

3 Resolution 374 (IV) of Dec. 6, 1949.

4 Report of the International Law Commission Covering Its Second Session, General Assembly, 5th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 12 (A/1316), par. 18; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 44 (1950), p. 109.

5 Report of the International Law Commission Covering the Work of Its Third Session, General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9 (A/1858), par. 85; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 45 (1951), p. 138.

6 Resolution 685 (VII) of Dec. 5, 1952.

7 “Report to the Council of the League of Nations on the Questions which Appear Ripe for International Regulation,” April 2, 1927, League of Nations Doc. C.196. M.70. 1927. V., p. 7; this Journal, Spec. Supp., Vol. 22 (1928), p. 5.

8 “General Report on Procedure” submitted by the Committee of Experts to the Council of the League, April 2, 1927, League of Nations Doc. C.197. M.71. 1927.V., p. 1; this Journal, Spec. Supp., Vol. 22 (1928), p. 39. The two governments which were opposed were those of the British Empire and India. The United States was “favorable in principle.” See League of Nations Doc. C.196. M.70. 1927.V., p. 267.

9 “Report of the Polish Representative, Mr. Zaleski, Approved by the Council on June 13th, 1927,” in League of Nations Doc. A.18. 1927.V., p. 5; this Journal, Spec. Supp., Vol. 22 (1928), p. 222.

10 “Report of the First Committee to the Assembly,” Sept. 23, 1927, League of Nations Doc. A.105. 1927.V., p. 2; this Journal, Spec. Supp., Vol. 22 (1928), p. 346.

11 League of Nations Official Journal, Spec. Supp. No. 53, p. 9; this Journal, Spec. Supp., Vol. 22 (1928), p. 231. The subjects submitted to the Conference were: Nationality, Territorial Waters, and Responsibility of States for Damage done in their Territory to the Person or Property of Foreigners.

12 “Questionnaire No. 10: Revision of the Classification of Diplomatic Agents,” April 2, 1927, League of Nations Doc. C.203. M.77. 1927.V; this Journal, Spec. Supp., Vol. 22 (1928), p. 111. The report of the subcommittee is annexed thereto. The questions submitted to governments were: “Is it desirable to revise the classification of diplomatic agents made by the Congresses of Vienna and Aix-la-Chapelle? In the affirmative case, to what extent should the existing classes of diplomatic agents be amalgamated, and should each State be recognized to have the right, in so far as existing differences of class remain, to determine at its discretion in what class its agents are to be ranked?”

13 “Second Report to the Council of the League of Nations on the Questions which Appear Ripe for International Regulation,” adopted by the Committee of Experts at its Fourth Session, held in June, 1928, League of Nations Doc. A.15. 1928.V., June 27, 1928, p. 6.

14 The convention was signed on Feb. 20, 1928, and is in force between 12 states. The United States signed but did not ratify it. The text of the convention is printed in this Journal, Supp., Vol. 22 (1928), pp. 142–151.

15 Explanatory Memorandum submitted by Yugoslavia, U.N. Doc. A/2144/Add. 1, General Assembly, 7th Sess., Official Records, Annexes, Agenda Item 58, pp. 2–3.

16 General Assembly, 7th Sess., Official Records, Sixth Committee, 313th meeting, pars. 2–21.

17 General Assembly, 7th Sess., Official Records, Annexes, Agenda Item 58, p. 3, A/C.6/L.248.

18 Ibid., 6th Committee, 315th meeting, pars. 2–6.

19 Ibid., pars. 12–15.

20 Ibid., 316th meeting, par. 54.

21 Ibid., 314th meeting, par. 38.

22 Ibid., 315th meeting, par. 7.

23 Ibid., par. 8.

24 Ibid., par. 21.

25 Ibid., 316th meeting, par. 8.

26 Report of the International Law Commission Covering Its First Session, loc. cit., par. 16.

27 General Assembly, 7th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 316th meeting, par. 66. The vote was 13 in favor, 24 against, with 13 abstentions.

28 U. N. Doc. A/C.6/L.251.

29 Report of the International Law Commission Covering Its First Session, loc. cit., par. 23.

30 Report of the International Law Commission Covering Its Second Session, loc. cit., par. 12.

31 Colombian-Peruvian Asylum Case, Judgment of Nov. 20th, 1950, I.C.J. Reports, 1950, p. 266; this Journal, Vol. 45 (1951.), p. 179; and Haya de la Torre Case, Judgment of June 13th, 1951, I.C.J. Reports, 1951, p. 71.; this Journal, Vol. 45 (1951), p. 781.

32 For text of Convention on Asylum, see this Journal, Supp., Vol. 22 (1928), pp. 158–159.

33 General Assembly, 7th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 315th meeting, pars. 26–28.

34 Ibid., par. 34.

35 Ibid., par. 29.

36 For instance, the Philippines, ibid., par. 37; India, ibid., par. 38.

37 Ibid., pars. 36 and 43.

38 Ibid., pars. 40 and 45; 316th meeting, par. 61.

39 The Convention on Asylum provides:

“Article 1. It is not permissible for states to grant asylum in legations, warships, military camps, or military aircraft, to persons accused of or condemned for common crimes, or to deserters from the army or navy.

“Persons accused of or condemned for common crimes taking refuge in any of the places mentioned in the preceding paragraph, shall be surrendered upon request of the local government.

“Should said persons take refuge in foreign territory, surrender shall be brought about through extradition, but only in such cases and in the form established by the respective treaties and conventions or by the constitution and laws of the country of refuge.

“Article 2. Asylum granted to political offenders in legations, warships, military camps, or military aircraft, shall be respected to the extent in which allowed, as a right or through humanitarian toleration, by the usages, the conventions, or the laws of the country in which granted and in accordance with the following provisions:

“1. Asylum may not be granted except in urgent cases and for the period of time strictly indispensable for the person who has sought asylum to ensure in some other way his safety.

“2. Immediately upon granting asylum, the diplomatic agent, commander of a warship, or military camp, or aircraft, shall report the fact to the minister of foreign relations of the state of the person who has secured asylum, or to the local administrative authority, if the act occurred outside the capital.

“3. The government of the state may require that the refugee be sent out of the national territory within the shortest time possible; and the diplomatic agent of the country who has granted asylum may in turn require the guaranties necessary for the departure of the refugee with due regard to the inviolability of his person, from the country.

“4. Refugees shall not be landed in any point of the national territory nor in any place too near thereto.

“5. While enjoying asylum, refugees shall not be allowed to perform acts contrary to the public peace.

“6. States are under no obligation to defray expenses incurred by one granting asylum.“

40 General Assembly, 7th Sess., Official Records, Sixth Committee, 316th meeting, par. 26.

41 Ibid., par. 60. See par. 3 of Art. 2 of the Convention on Asylum quoted in note 39.

42 Ibid., pars. 27–28.

43 Ibid., par. 66. The vote was 17 in favor, 24 against, with 10 abstentions.

44 Ibid., 314th meeting, pars. 1–2.

45 Ibid., par. 5. For French amendment see U. N. Doc. A/C.6/L. 249.

46 Ibid., par. 11.

47 U. N. Docs. A/C.6/L.250 and A/C.6/L.250/Corr.1.

48 General Assembly, 7th Sess., Official Records, 6th Committee, 314th meeting, pars. 17–18.

49 Ibid., 315th meeting, par. 8.

50 Ibid., par. 17; 316th meeting, par. 14.

51 Ibid., 316th meeting, par. 66. The vote was 20 to 14, with 15 abstentions.

52 Ibid., Plenary Meeting, 400th meeting, par. 9. The vote was 42 to 5.