The History of Diplomatic Immunity
This is a massive book in more than one sense. It is over 700 pages long, including an invaluable bibliography which itself stretches over 70 pages. While dwelling chiefly on the Western tradition, it also takes in the Ottoman Empire and the Far East.
It begins in ancient times (though having less on the second millenium BC than Professor Raymond Cohen would no doubt like) and comes right up to the present. Though inevitably it is chiefly a work of synthesis, the argument is also strengthened by fresh research where gaps are left by the current literature. It is, finally, a work of massive learning. There are too many quotations for my taste and this occasionally clouds the argument, but in general it is also well organised, clearly written, and regularly adorned by a neat turn of phrase. As a result, I have little doubt that it will soon be a standard work of reference on its subjects. I say ‘subjects’ rather than ‘subject’ because it is a book which will be of great interest not only to diplomatic lawyers but to theorists of diplomacy, historians of diplomacy, and historians of international relations generally. I found the book especially useful on the right of chapel and the vexed issue of diplomatic asylum, as well as on Zouche, Bonaparte, and Laurent. I have, however, a few reservations.
To begin with there is the method which the Freys employ. By choosing to proceed by piling example on top of example, and case on top of case, they have produced a book which resembles more an early work of positive law than one of history. Perhaps partly as a result of this, certain key ideas and historical changes, together with their explanations, tend to get either submerged or handled a little loosely. For example, the acceptance into diplomatic law of the inviolability of the diplomat’s house, as opposed to his person, which was a key development of the early seventeenth century, creeps in almost unnoticed on page 145. More seriously, the principle of reciprocity, which stipulates that if one state acts in a certain way towards a second the latter is likely to reply in kind, is sometimes made to bear too heavy an explanatory burden in this book.
In the very first paragraph there is a splendid sentence, elegant and incontrovertible: ‘Rooted in necessity, immunity was buttressed by religion, sanctioned by custom, and fortified by reciprocity’. Reciprocity, then, meaning in this case ‘beat up our envoys and we’ll beat up yours’, is just one prop to immunity and not the most important. This is not surprising since in many bilateral relationships ambassadors have been sent but not received, and this remains true today; even in the pre-telegraphic era, diplomacy did not require ambassadors at both ends of a relationship. However, there are points in the course of this ambitious book where the authors tend to forget this. Thus diplomacy in the early Roman republic is spoken of as ‘predicated on the idea of reciprocity‘ (pp. 6, 61, emphasis added); of the mediaeval period we find it observed that ‘whether in Europe, the Middle East, or Asia, principals, that is, those who sent another, looked to custom, law, religion, and most obviously the threat of reciprocal action to safeguard their emissaries’ (p. 76, emphasis added); while ‘fundamental was the underlying issue of reciprocity’ during the Cold War (p. 487, emphasis added). I am not entirely convinced by any of this, and we might turn to the handling of the Ottoman Empire by the Freys to point up the dangers of attaching great historical significance to reciprocity without firm supporting evidence, that is, of relying too much on a priori reasoning.
In the chapter dealing with Turkey, the authors dwell on the mistreatment of ambassadors in Istanbul until the end of the seventeenth century. It is true that they emphasise, rightly, the military confidence and religious convictions of the Ottomans in accounting for this. However, noting that until the reign of Selim III at the end of the eighteenth century the Ottomans received but did not send resident ambassadors, they cannot resist adding that the maltreatment of diplomats in Istanbul was also a result of the absence of the constraining ‘force of reciprocity’ (pp. 397, 401). But this is assumed rather than proved. Indeed, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the authors have been led to believe that the treatment of ambassadors in Istanbul must have been bad because of the absence of reciprocity. In fact, while occasionally brutal and humiliating, the Ottoman treatment of ambassadors was not markedly worse than that occasionally meted out to them by any number of European governments, many instances of which are actually documented in this book; and in any case I have to say that I found the account here – relying heavily on the examples quoted in nineteenth century sources – somewhat exaggerated. (It is not true, incidentally, that ‘the first ambassador to be given his passport instead of a cell after war was declared was the Russian ambassador Andrei Iakovlevich Italinskii in 1806’. British Foreign Office papers record that Baron d’Herbert, the imperial internuncio in Istanbul, was permitted to return to Vienna despite Austria’s announcement at the beginning of 1788 that it was to join in war with Russia against the Ottoman Empire.) If these diplomats were routinely treated as badly in Istanbul prior to the eighteenth century as the Freys suggest, the European powers would hardly have been so keen to maintain permanent representatives in that city, where fire, plague, and periodic janissary rampages (not to mention the journey there and back) were themselves major hazards. As a rule, the Ottomans treated ambassadors well, even subsidising their embassies until long after this custom was abandoned in Europe – despite the fact that they were not constrained by the ‘force of reciprocity’. The Ottomans did this because they found these embassies flattering, valuable sources of information and alluring gifts, important to commerce (which included maintaining order among their nationals trading within the empire), useful mediators, and indispensable to the manipulation of the balance of power. This case shows, I think, that the significance of reciprocity – or its absence – here as elsewhere, can easily be over-estimated.
The very focus of this book on diplomatic immunity, with its attention drawn naturally to certain dramatic breaches and abuses of recent years, also encourages the authors to adopt an unnecessarily bleak view of the late twentieth century and – by implication – the future, including the future of diplomacy. ‘Diplomats and the New Barbarism’ is the title of the penultimate chapter and in its conclusion they say that ‘The erosion of the position of the diplomat was … symptomatic of the larger corrosion of the international system and the failure to forge an international community’. And again: ‘Little evidence surfaced in the late twentieth century of a common will or even a commitment to observe basic international norms, such as diplomatic inviolability’ (p. 526). This is going too far. Surely what is more worthy of note is how well the fabric of diplomacy has held up in the circumstances of the shift from an essentially European to a world system, and how indeed many other strands of this fabric have been strengthened since the 1960s. Perhaps this is too complacent but what I miss in the last chapters of this book, among other things, are even passing asides either to the reduced inclination of states to sever diplomatic relations for propaganda purposes or to the unambiguous acceptance since 1963 that in any case the severance of diplomatic relations does not result in the severance of consular relations. (There is nothing on consular immunities at all in the book, though in practice consulates often serve ‘diplomatic’ ends.) Nor do the Freys make any reference to the enthusiasm with which new states of recent years have created their own diplomatic services and sought outside help in their training to conventional standards, to the invention and increased employment of interests sections, the triumph of ‘consensus decision-making’ in multilateral diplomacy, or to the huge improvements in telecommunications which have made diplomatic missions so much more flexible instruments of national policy. These developments, among others, have to be set on the other side of the ledger when ‘the position of the diplomat’ and the general health of the world diplomatic system is being considered.
Despite these reservations, I shall certainly be recommending this book to my students.
Review by Geoff Berrdige
Related resources
A kind of diplomatic incantation: Exchanging British and Japanese diplomats in the Second World War
02 Feb, 2012
The languages of the Knights
17 Aug, 2001
Misunderstood: The IT manager’s lament
06 Aug, 2004
The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey
01 Aug, 2003
English Medieval Diplomacy
09 Aug, 1985
Lord Elgin and the Marbles
14 Aug, 1998
Nation, Class, and Diplomacy: The dragomanate of the British embassy in Constantinople, 1814-1914
15 Aug, 2008
Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World
13 Aug, 2004
Getting Our Way: 500 Years of Adventure and Intrigue: The Inside Story of British Diplomacy
13 Aug, 2011
Public diplomacy: Sunrise of an academic field
15 Aug, 2008
British Diplomacy in Turkey, 1583 to the Present: A Study in the Evolution of the Resident Embassy
04 Aug, 2009
Post Cold War diplomatic training
19 Apr, 2006
Just a Diplomat
17 Dec, 2008
The Queen’s Ambassador to the Sultan: Memoirs of Sir Henry A. Layard’s Constantinople Embassy, 1877-1880
10 Mar, 2010
Politics and Diplomacy in Early Modern Italy: The structure of diplomatic practice, 1450-1800
26 Apr, 2007
Years of Upheaval
20 Aug, 1982
Bertie of Thame: Edwardian Ambassador
04 Aug, 1990
Philosophy of Rhetoric
07 Aug, 1868
US Public Diplomacy: A Cold War Success Story?
10 Aug, 2007
The Professional Diplomat
21 Aug, 1969
The Office of Ambassador in the Middle Ages
18 Aug, 1967
FDR’s Ambassadors and the Diplomacy of Crisis: From the rise of Hitler to the end of World War II
24 Aug, 2013
The British Diplomatic Service 1815-1914
04 Aug, 1983
A Diplomatic Whistleblower in the Victorian Era
06 Aug, 2015
Ottoman Diplomacy
06 Aug, 2004
The History of Diplomatic Immunity
11 Dec, 1999
The Expansion of International Society
16 Aug, 1985
Japanese middle-power diplomacy
10 Aug, 2012
The Diplomats, 1919-1939
11 Aug, 1994
The Diplomats, 1939-1979
12 Aug, 1994
Machiavelli’s Legations
10 Aug, 2001
Munitions of the Mind: A history of propaganda from the ancient world to the present era
03 Aug, 2003
Beyond diplomatic – the unravelling of history
04 Aug, 2002
History and the evolution of diplomacy
06 Aug, 1998
A Manual of Greek Antiquities
04 Aug, 1895
The Breaking of Nations
19 Apr, 2006
Tilkidom and the Ottoman Empire: The Letters of Gerald Fitzmaurice to George Lloyd, 1906-15
08 Aug, 2008
The Forgotten French
01 Aug, 2003
The Imperial Component in Iran’s Foreign Policy: Towards Arab Mashreq and Arab Gulf States
19 Aug, 2011
Diplomacy and Secret Service
10 Aug, 2019
The Nineteenth Century Foreign Office
06 Aug, 1971
The Rise of Modern Diplomacy, 1450-1919
13 Aug, 1993
The Summer Capitals of Europe, 1814-1919
03 Aug, 2017
The Ambassadors and America’s Soviet Policy
08 Aug, 1997
The Turkish Embassy Letters
12 Aug, 1994
Renaissance Diplomacy and the Reformation
18 Aug, 1989
The evolution of diplomacy in the Caribbean
02 Aug, 2013
The Congress of Arras, 1435
25 Aug, 1972
The ‘Working’ Non-Aligned Movement: Between Belgrade, Cairo, and Baku – The NAM’s Leadership Visibility
07 Aug, 2020
British Envoys to Germany 1816-1866
09 Nov, 2006
Regionalism in the Post-Cold War World
11 Aug, 2000
The British Interests Section in Kampala, 1976-7
16 Aug, 2012
The Evolution of Diplomatic Method
17 Aug, 1977
The post-modern state and the world order
11 Aug, 2000
A Diplomat in Japan
04 Aug, 1921
Diplomacy in Ancient Greece
08 Aug, 1975
Peacemaking 1919
09 Aug, 1933