The Courtiers of Civilization: A Study of Diplomacy

Chapter 3: Conventions and Rituals

23 3    Conventions and Rituals Diplomatic conventions and rituals are often described as unnecessary relics of the past; as petty details and formalities anchored in a conservative tradition barely influenced by the changing international reality; and for the most part devoid of substance. Wicquefort, a keen observer and a canny pragmatist, already complained of the tendency to pay attention to matters of representation and ceremony rather than to diplomatic bargains.1 It is fair to ask why diplomatic protocol and rituals persisted for so long, and were not replaced by new methods. The answer seems to be quite clear. Diplomatic conventions have purpose and meaning. The protocol persists because it is an integral part of the diplomatic encounter . Practices and ceremonies that have their origins in the European court have retained their relevance, and have been transformed to serve the modern international society.2 Diplomats are social agents who conduct their business according to a distinctive code of behavior and accepted rules of the game.3 There is no clear boundary between form and substance; the formal and the informal interact with each other, as the ceremonial and the substantial are bounded together. The formality and the ritualistic style of diplomacy are there to fulfil an intended purpose, namely, to facilitate dialogue and to serve mutual interests. Thus, conventions have been incorporated into the foundational propositions about diplomatic norms of behavior that constitute the diplomatic culture.    Diplomats have duties that they perform formally. This is possible only by the most firmly established diplomatic convention—the continued 24 The Courtiers of Civilization observance of the inviolability of the diplomatic envoy. Both Rosier and Grotius asserted that the diplomat’s safety serves the public good. The immunity granted to envoys created metaphorical islands of ambassadorial security amid international anarchy. Diplomatic activity must be protected and not be subject to constraint. Immunity from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state should be granted, and security has to be provided to diplomatic envoys, as well as to the premises and property of embassies.4 Although abused from time to time, immunity is a necessity rather than a privilege. The guarantee of freedom of movement, and safety from all forms of interference, became the custom in the late middle ages, enshrined in the civil and canon law. In 1414, Henry V of England declared the violation of safe conduct an act of high treason against the crown.5 And from the seventeenth century on, juristic safeguards began to replace religious taboos and voluntary reciprocity. Grotius’s revolutionary assertion that the law of nations would remain valid even if God did not exist attests to the fact that international law progressed by the measure of its distance from religious sanctity. Civil and judicial principles advanced by philosophers and theologians like Grotius replaced Christian canon. Thus, the law of nations took roots along the law of nature, though international law became universal only in the last century. Reciprocity, convention, and international law were not always enough to protect diplomats. Until the Middle Ages and the early modern period, the exchange of hostages to guarantee the safety of the diplomat was a frequent occurrence.6 The immunity of diplomats had ultimately survived the challenge of revolutionary regimes, beginning with the French Revolution. The Enlightenment and the rise of Liberalism did not shield diplomats from attacks on their privileges on both sides of the Atlantic. Indeed, the immunity of diplomats has been abused in modern time more than in any period in history.7 In the nineteenth century, the triumph of functionalism, which restricted immunities and privileges to what ambassadors needed in order to accomplish their tasks, was, on the whole, beneficial to diplomatic reputation. The restrictive approach to diplomatic privileges was augmented by the Vienna Convention of 1961. The convention reserved intact what is essential for free and proper diplomatic activity—the exemption from both the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the receiving country. In addition, it has a duty to protect the mission and its premises , and to guarantee the freedom of both movement and communication . But, it is the duty of all persons enjoying these privileges to respect Conventions and Rituals 25 the laws and the regulations of the receiving state.8 Such immunities, of course, did not reduce the temptation to violate them, particularly by authoritarian regimes.    The standard tasks of a permanent mission have an enduring existence , since the interpretation...