Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

old regime and the first empire, and the United Provinces from 1727 refused to receive native-born persons in this capacity. When, however, nationality has been transferred in accordance with the laws of the states concerned, there can be no objection against such ministers, unless it be of a personal nature. In some Catholic countries, again, in Austria, Spain, and France, the usage has prevailed that the sovereign of the land shall nominate the nuncio whom he receives from the Pope; the reason for which usage lay probably in the fear of papal interference, and of unacceptableness with the native clergy.

Sometimes smaller sovereigns have concurred in appointing the same person as their ambassador, and sometimes the same person has held this office for his sovereign at several courts.

When an ambassador is sent abroad, there must be some evidence of his official position. For this purpose he is furnished with credentials certifying his diplomatic character and rank; namely, with a letter of credence (lettre de créance), sometimes, also, with one of recommendation, and with a full power, indicating the subjects on which he is authorized to treat, and the amount of power with which he is invested. According to their rank some agents of foreign governments are directly accredited to a sovereign, and others to his minister of foreign affairs. Until such credentials are presented, a foreign government may reject, or on other evidence receive, the person claiming to be an ambassador, according to its pleasure.

Privileges of

dors.

§ 91.

An ambassador, from the time of his entrance into the foreign country in that character, until the time when, ambassa- at the expiration of his office, he leaves the country, has in modern days enjoyed very great privileges or immunities, which even the breaking out of war before he can leave the country will not terminate. Even before he has had opportunity to show his credentials to the proper department of government, he cannot be injured or obstructed without a violation of international law, if he announces his official

character; and should a government to which he is sent refuse to receive him, he must be free to withdraw without receiving marks of disrespect. If he is recalled, free exit and passports, where they are necessary, must be granted to him; but if he remain in the country after that a sufficient time for removal, denoted in his passports, has elapsed, he takes the jural relation of any traveller from his native land.

The more essential immunities conceded to the ambassador grow out of the consideration that he cannot do the business intrusted to him well, unless his person be safe, and he be independent of the control of the foreign government; and comity adds to these other less important privileges, as marks of respect to the representative of a foreign sovereignty. These immunities have been arranged under the heads of inviolability and exterritoriality. Such, for instance, is Klüber's classification. But to this it may be objected that exterritoriality may be taken in a narrower and a more extended sense. The term stands, as we have already explained it, for that legal fiction, which regards the agents of a government in a foreign land as being outside of the country where they discharge their functions, or as carrying with them into another territory almost as entire an exemption from its laws as if they were at home.1 But there is no such complete exemption, and hence it will be best, if we arrange the rights of ambassadors under these heads, to define what immunities are allowed; otherwise the term, by its vagueness, will lead us astray. De Martens remarks (§ 215), that the "extension of exterritoriality pertains only to the positive law of nations, to treaties or usage, and is susceptible of modifications, which in fact it undergoes; whence it is not enough always to appeal to exterritoriality, in order to enjoy those rights which may be derived from the extended notion given to the word."

1. When we speak of the inviolability of an ambassador, we mean that neither public authority nor private persons

1 This fiction was known to Grotius, who says (ii., 18, §§ 4, 5), that as legates "fictione quadam habentur pro personis mittentium, ita etiam simili fictione constituuntur quasi extra territorium."

1. Inviola

can use any force, or do any violence to him, without offending against the law of nations. It is not, however, intended that he may not be repelled by force, if he attempts to bility of am- injure other individuals or to violate the laws. The bassadors. right of self-defense cannot cease on his account, nor can he enter places closed to the public, nor do many other illegal acts without having passive resistance at least used against him. The state within whose bounds he resides, is bound to protect him against aggressions from its subjects, by law and penalty, and by troops or a police force, when necessary. In one case only, apart from the necessities of self-defense, can active force be exerted upon his person, and that is when, after committing some great crime, and being ordered home, he refuses to go: in such a case he may be removed, but without personal injury.

2. Inviolability of person could not stand alone, without protection to the house, furniture, equipage, and in fact, the people of the ambassador. We shall arrange these with other immunities under the head of exterritoriality, and toriality. shall consider first,

2. Exterri

A. His immunity from the jurisdiction of the country of his sojourn, both criminal and civil.

(a.) As im

criminal ju

risdiction;

If the ambassador were subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the foreign country, his person could not be inmunity from violate, as he would be liable to arrest, imprisonment, and punishment; nor would the nature of the acts inseparable from the processes of criminal laws be consistent with his freedom as a negotiator. This immunity is, therefore, conceded to ambassadors by all the nations of Christendom, and, although some of the earlier writers had some scruples in admitting it, or even contended against it, the modern writers are believed to be unanimous in regarding it as a part of international law. For the exceptions to this immunity which have occurred in extreme cases, see § 96.

In the case of a native of the country still owing allegiance, but representing a foreign sovereign, it has been questioned

whether jurisdiction over him, civil or criminal, is suspended during the discharge of his functions. The most noted case in which such a person felt the severity of the law, was that of Wicquefort, a native of Amsterdam, who, while he held an office under the States-General, became the Duke of Lüneburg's resident at the Hague, and while in the service of this prince, in 1675, was accused of betraying state secrets to foreigners, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment for life with confiscation of goods.1 In this case it might with justice be maintained that he held an office of responsibility and could not be released from penal liabilities as long as it lasted; if he took on him duties to a new sovereign, he was still accountable to the old one. He betrayed secrets to which in his office he had access, and ought therefore to suffer. But if a private citizen of a country is acknowledged by its government as an ambassador from another state, it is fairly to be inferred that all the immunities are conceded to him, which are considered to belong to that class of persons, and without which he could not freely discharge its duties. His sovereign had a right (§ 89) to refuse to recognize him in that relation to another sovereign; in so recognizing him he gives up jurisdiction over him for the time being.2

(b.) and

jurisdiction.

Opinions have been divided in regard to an ambassador's exemption from civil jurisdiction. Entire exemption in this respect cannot be argued from the nature of from civil his functions, and yet everywhere this exemption is allowed, so far as it can be derived from the notion of exterritoriality. At the least, according to Heffter, no step can be taken towards an ambassador which cannot be taken towards an absent stranger. No measures involving force can be used against his person, or the effects which he has with him.

Hence the private person to whom an ambassador owes money, has no remedy against him except through his sove

1 Compare Bynkersh., De For. Leg., 11 and 18, and Wheaton's History, p. 234. 2 So substantially, Wheaton, Elements, iii., 1, § 15. Heffter says the right of punishing is scarcely taken away from such an ambassador's sovereign. § 214. Bynkersh., u. s., holds the same opinion: "subditos nostros, quamvis alterius Principis legationem acceperint, subditos nostros esse non desinere." So others.

reign, or by suit in the ambassador's native courts after his return home. Such, at least, is the understanding and practice in most countries. Prussia appears to claim somewhat more of jurisdiction.1 In a case, the discussion of which is given at great length by Dr. Wheaton, the owner of a house at Berlin, occupied by the American ambassador, claimed under the Prussian civil code to detain the minister's goods found there at the expiration of the lease, on the ground that damages were due for injuries done to the house during his occupation of it. The government of Prussia sustained the claimant, but the discussion shows that while a pledge given by an ambassador for the security of a debt could have been detained by the lender, the goods in the house could not be kept from their owner without a violation of international law. The laws of the United States, accordingly, "include distress for rent among other legal remedies which are denied to the creditors of a foreign minister."

An ambassador is bound to observe the police laws in regard to public security and order within and without his hotel, but cannot be called to account for transgression of them, any more than for his pecuniary obligations.

One or two exceptions to this exemption are laid down by the writers beside that derived from the ambassador's acting in a capacity other than his official one, which we shall consider by itself. (§ 96.)

They are, (1.) When he is the subject of the state where he acts. (2.) When he is in its service. (3.) When he voluntarily recognizes the jurisdiction of the courts by appearing before them as a plaintiff, and thus submitting himself to the defendant's court.2

1 Comp. Wheaton, Elements, iii., 1, § 17, 274-287, and Vergé on De Martens, $ 216.

2 Comp. De Martens, § 216; Wheaton, Elements, iii., 1, § 15. Bynkersh., De For. Leg., 16. It does not appear that the ambassador has a right to do this without leave of his own government, for it may prevent the due exercise of his functions.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »