Week: 6.04.-12.04.

2020

Diplomatic missions.

1. General considerations

a. Diplomatic representatives
The reasons for which the modern world turns to the establishment of diplomatic
representations are multiple. First, not the head of the state, nor the foreign minister, can
manage themselves alone the entire activity involving international life. Even in today's
conditions, when the participation of heads of states and governments or foreign affairs
ministers to international congresses and meetings is increasingly frequent, the meetings in
such meetings and the direct contacts of the state can only ensure a narrow approach to issues
of interest of the state and under no circumstances can they substitute the applied and
specialized permanent work that the more powerful development needs on more and more
areas of the relations between states.
This objective reality requires establishing and maintaining the state representative to
negotiate and act on its behalf in order to solve everyday problems that are becoming more
and more complicated.
It should be noted that a state, for the organization of conducting external relations has
at its disposal, in addition to organs within the state, which ensure the establishment and
continuity of relations with other states, a number of other external organs through which
there are maintained directly the international relations directly. These foreign organs are
called generically diplomatic missions or diplomatic representatives.
There are several criteria by which these foreign bodies can be classified. Primarily,
by purpose or objective, they can be missions may for political negotiations and missions for
ceremonial purposes, generally used to mark a gesture or to communicate some changes in the
state structure.
The second criterion, most commonly used, is the one that takes into account the
duration of the mission and here we are dealing with permanent missions and temporary
missions. The latter forms the so-called ad hoc mission or special missions and have several
forms of organization. On the one hand there are the visits or meetings of heads of states and
governments or political figures, and on the other hand, special proper missions, consisting of
persons appointed to fulfil particular missions, whether political or technical.

b. Diplomatic missions
The concept of diplomatic mission is used in several ways, such as that of bilateral
legal report of international law, the task entrusted by a state to its diplomatic agent, the group
of persons entrusted with diplomatic offices or assisting the diplomatic agent in the task, or
the most important as relevance to this chapter, a body of the sending state. In the latter sense,
the diplomatic mission is regarded as an institution itself, permanent and distinct from the
individuals who compose it, an institution which exists independently of the arrival or
departure from the post of any diplomatic agents.
Diplomatic missions nowadays represent the result of an evolution over time of the
institution itself, which started from the idea of personal representation of the ruler in the
medieval period of Italian republics, spread then later in Spain, Germany, France and
England, and afterwards, finally, generalized across Europe since the Renaissance period.
 After the Second World War, the institution of diplomatic mission was developed both
quantitatively and qualitatively. The emergence of new states on the world map, and the need
to develop means of peaceful settlement of any disputes between states has caused the
expansion of the number of diplomatic missions and the activity of diplomatic missions was
diversified to keep up with restructuring the whole international life in the economic, trade,
scientific-technical, cultural, military, labour market fields etc.
Also, the explosion of international organizations, with universal, regional or
specialized vocation in certain topics, has made the classic sense of the political-legal
diplomatic mission concept to be nuanced and completed with diplomatic representations
which states have begun to set apart from these subjects of international law, which are
derived as international organizations.
A universally accepted formula for the definition of diplomatic mission is the one
of organ of a subject of international law, established permanently attached to another
subject of international law and tasked with securing its diplomatic relations. Given the
establishment procedure, a diplomatic mission may also be defined as being the agency or
institution which a state establishes in another state, with the consent of the last, in order to
maintain diplomatic relations with it.
There must be made a clear distinction between the diplomatic mission as a body of
foreign policy of a state and its members, whose activity puts into practice, in the concrete
field of social and political life, the powers with which the institution of diplomatic mission is
endowed in theoretical terms.
Starting from this distinction between the form and substance of the activity of a
diplomatic mission, its establishing procedures are different from the ones of appointment of
its members. Also different are the procedures for termination of the position of a member
from the mission itself. Also, the diplomatic documents, which materialize the official acts
performed by the mission as an organ of foreign affairs towards the receiving state, they are
developed and drafted in the name of the institution and not the holder. However, personnel
changes do not affect the existence of the mission, and the privileges of the latter are distinct
from those given to its members.
The law applicable for the organization and functioning of diplomatic missions
has a dual character. Regarding the staff, the nomination procedure of the head of mission,
the organization and functioning of the activity within a mission, the relations between it and
the central administration is determined in accordance with the rules of domestic law.
But, the status of the mission, as a body operating in the field of external relations, has
also other meanings than those conferred by the domestic law. For example, even if the class
and rank of a diplomatic representation is of the competence of the sending state, it is applied
the rule of mutual consent that exists in the international law and is applicable to states which
are connected by a diplomatic report, based on which the two states agree by international
agreement the kind of diplomatic missions they are willing to open on their territory.

2. Classification of diplomatic missions

A first classification criterion is the duration of the diplomatic mission and on this
basis we have permanent diplomatic missions, which are not fixed in time in terms of
existence and are designed to manage the entire set of diplomatic relations between two states
and temporary missions, which develop their activity over a limited period of time and have
punctual tasks for resolving what they were sent for.
Another criterion of diplomatic mission’s delimitation is the category of the
international law subject with which a state wants to develop diplomatic relations. Thus, we
have classic diplomatic missions, which have a bilateral character, such as embassies,
nunciature or, the less common nowadays, legation and internunciature and the new ones,
some of which have bilateral character, and others a multilateral character. From the latter
category we mention the high commissioners, permanent delegations, missions of
international organizations in different countries.
A final criterion for the classification of diplomatic missions is the kind of subjects
that establish diplomatic relations, case where we meet two hypotheses: the diplomatic
relationship between states which is eminently bilateral and the diplomatic relationship
between subjects of international law which may take both the bilateral form and multilateral
form (between states, between states and international organizations, between international
organizations).
In the first category we find the embassy, the nunciature, the legation, the
internuntiature and the High Commissioner.

a. The Embassy represents the most important diplomatic mission, with the highest
rank and the most common in the practice of states.
The head of this category of diplomatic mission has the rank of ambassador, being in
the top of the diplomatic hierarchy. Exceptionally, an embassy can be led by a person in
charge of ad interim affairs or by a permanent one. In the practice of states nowadays there is
no longer used the person in charge of permanent affairs. The person in charge of ad interim
affairs is that head of mission operating in the following situations: immediately after the
establishment or resuming diplomatic relations, waiting for the appointment of an
ambassador, in special or conflict cases (when a state reduces the rank of the diplomatic
mission from another state thus indicating a tense political state between them), for reasons of
economy, during the temporary absence of the ambassador from the residence state, for
whatever reason, etc.

b. Legation is a diplomatic mission which has an inferior Rank compared to the

embassy and performs the same functions as an embassy, but it is headed by a minister who,
usually, has the title of plenipotentiary minister or resident minister and is part of the second
class of diplomatic agents. In this category is also the person in charge of affairs, whether
permanent or ad interim. Unlike embassies, states are using increasingly less the solution of
legations and there should be noted that this form of representation is increasingly rare
nowadays, becoming almost a model of diplomatic law history.

c. The Apostolic Nuntature is the name under which we know the diplomatic mission
established by the Holy See in a state in order to establish foreign relations with it.
The Apostolic Nuntature has the same rank of an embassy, but with the particularity
that it carries out, on behalf of the Holy See, both ecclesiastical and diplomatic functions. In
this sense, the Nuntature has official relations with the receiving state, governed by principles
and rules of public international law, and secondly, it establishes and maintains relationships
with the national Catholic body from the receiving state, the latter being governed by the
canon law.

d. Apostolic Internuntature is the pontifical diplomatic representation that has the

same rank as legation and represents the Holy See where there is no Nuntature. The head of
that category of mission is called internuncio and has, within the diplomatic hierarchy, a
similar rank to the extraordinary envoy. In terms of functions performed in the receiving state,
nuntature fulfils the same role as the Apostolic Nuntature.
 e. The High Commissioner is the diplomatic mission established between two states
linked between one another by particularly close interests and that have a series of
particularities.
The best example is that of the states belonging to the Commonwealth, who have
found a common referential and, consequently, agreed that this should be evidenced by a sui
generis representation such as the High Commissioner, not naming it classically, the
Embassy, even if the tasks they have to fulfill are the same. The element that makes the
Commonwealth states have particular features is the British crown. In the past, there were
some countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand) who had, at one time, as head of state the
same individual - the Queen of England, and other countries (Pakistan, India, Cyprus etc.)
although are constituted as sovereign and independent republics, recognized in the queen the
Commonwealth head.
Consequently, the diplomatic missions established between the states of the British
Commonwealth are named High Commissions and they have the same rank as the embassies.
The head of this category of missions is called the High Commissioner and has the ame rank
as an ambassador, both occupying the same position in the diplomatic hierarchy.
The emergence of this institution was realized in the context of decolonization when
the colonial states gained their independence, and the governor function was replaced by the
high commissioner, transformation accepted by the parties involved since independence did
not affect the special relations involved by the membership in Commonwealth.
Related to this institution, there is required another clarification, namely that the rank
of high commissioner is granted between Great Britain and former colonies, so the Member
States are represented in London by a high commissioner and Britain sends in the capitals of
these states also a high commissioner. Following the same logic mentioned in the context of
the emergence of the high commissioner institution, in the context of the same historical
process, we also find the French version as the High Representatives, and, consequently, the
high representatives, but they are much smaller in number than the British model.
Although with different names, the functions that these diplomatic missions meet are
the same as those of Embassies. Moreover, the very states that are using this form of
representation are concerned to maintain the equivalence of these institutions with those
recognized in the general practice of states. On the other hand, there is no legal impediment
that would prevent two states or a group of states to enact a special name for its diplomatic
missions, even if they meet the same function as those recognized for embassies.

f. The diplomatic representations or permanent delegations

This category of diplomatic missions is characteristic for multilateral diplomacy, being
accredited by states near international organizations. Differently from the classical functions
of a traditional diplomatic mission, diplomatic representations perform specific functions that
can be deduced by analogy.
Thus, regarding the characteristic features of the law subject near which there exists a
diplomatic representation, there is a peculiarity, that the international organization is a matter
of derived law, having a limited legal personality, most often specialized in a particular or
more specific activity field and, consequently, a restricted international legal capacity. Based
on this logic, the international organization can have rights and can assume obligations
within the powers assigned to it by the constitutive act of the founding states, to which,
most often can adhere also other countries.
One can speculate that, not coincidentally, there was chosen the name of permanent
mission that previously defined those missions of a state in capitals of states that recognize
only de facto the sending state. In the same logic there can be included the names of
permanent mission, delegation or permanent office, used frequently for diplomatic
representatives of national liberation movements in Africa and Asia.
From the above, it can be concluded that diplomatic relations define relations between
two countries that have full international legal personality and full capacity to have rights and
assume obligations, unrestricted by external factors, under principles of international law.
So, the difference between an embassy and a permanent representation is not only in
relation to their name, but also to the functions each perform, unlike the embassy, nuntature or
high commission which perform the same diplomatic functions.
From these observations we can understand the reasoning for which there are
differences to the establishment and maintenance of a classical diplomatic mission.
Regarding the body that issues credentials, this is often the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, while for the ambassadors and ministers there is the head of state. Differentiation
exists also regarding the organ that receives accreditation, meaning that the head of the
traditional diplomatic mission is accredited next to the head of the receiving state, whereas in
the case of the permanent representative there is no uniform practice, since the procedure
depends on how it is regulated in the constitutive act or customary of each international
organization, as there is no express provision regarding the right of active or passive legation
for the international organization. As an example, in the UN, the body that receives
credentials of the permanent representative is the general secretary and, in its specialized
institutions, the general manager, who has this responsibility.
Regarding the form in which the accreditation must be performed, the solemn
ceremony practiced in the traditional setting of a diplomatic mission is replaced with a
substantially simplified one.
The functions of a permanent representation will be related to the work of
international organizations and not to the one of the state, and are, therefore, more specialized,
according to the specificity of the organization. In this context, it should be noted that the
permanent representation next to an international organization has its headquarters in the
territory of another sovereign state that houses an organization and is not the predominant
subject of activity of the permanent representative, the permanent mission of the host state
remaining distinct from that near which it is accredited.
Regarding the inverse ratio of representation, the mission of an international
organization in a state may be accredited both in a Member State and in a non-member state
of the same organization.
Both diplomatic missions and permanent representations are located in the host state
capital. This custom has its explanation in the fact that the head of a traditional diplomatic
mission is accredited next to the head of the receiving state or the Foreign Minister of it, such
as the case of the person in charge of the ad interim affairs, and, consequently, the offices of
the mission is natural to be in the town in which there are government institutions and that is
the capital of that country.
Another argument in favour of placing the diplomatic mission in the capital of the
receiving state is the commitment that the receiving state takes before the sending state by the
permission it gives for the establishment of the diplomatic mission on its territory, to provide
a degree of protection to the mission and its staff, a difficult thing to do if the diplomatic
mission offices are dispersed on its territory and not in the capital. The inconvenience of
placing the mission outside the capital of the receiving state appear not only in what it regards
it but also in terms of the diplomatic corps, as a whole.
Based on this argument, the codification of diplomatic and consular law recorded, in
the text of the Vienna Convention, the obligation of the receiving state to grant consent for the
exceptional cases where the sending state wishes to establish its mission offices outside its
capital.
 3. Structure and organization of the diplomatic mission

There is no ideal scheme of a diplomatic mission and not because one would not know
the role and general functions of a diplomatic mission, but due to numerous variables that
intervene in establishing the organizational and personnel chart of diplomatic missions.
For example, the practice of states has shown that the extent of diplomatic functions
depends not only from one state to another but also within the same state, from one mission to
another. It also depends on the economic or military power of the sending state that can
determine the size and structure of its diplomatic mission in the receiving state.
There often matter the interests that states have within the bilateral relations or in the
multilateral diplomacy game. In this context, an important factor is the political scale of the
receiving state in an international, regional or bilateral plan.
Also relevant for the composition of a diplomatic mission is the importance that the
capital of the receiving state has, thus influencing the particular functions of a diplomatic
mission.
Regardless of the variables involved in determining the organizational structure of a
diplomatic mission, there are certain elements, generically common to all diplomatic
missions.
Firstly, the existence of a head of mission accredited by the sending state, as an
essential element of a normally comprised team. Then, the functions that the diplomatic
mission will have to satisfy determine the personnel structure, justifying the creation of posts
in the mission.
In other news, the organization of diplomatic missions, in all cases, is the exclusive
jurisdiction of the sending state. Basically, to face its duties, the diplomatic mission is
structured, even if only fictional, in several compartments.
The chancery is the backbone of the organizational structure of the mission, the place
where there are received, prepared and transmitted documents within the competence of the
head of mission. From this it follows and guides the work of all other departments and, here
are also the archives and diplomatic codes.
The political department is performing its original work of a diplomatic mission,
although, lately, the share of political activity, in relation to other activities that have enriched
the content of the functions of the missions is declining.
In most cases, the political problems of the mission are dealt with by the head of the
mission himself, with one or more contributors, coming from the Foreign Affairs Ministry
staff.
The economic and commercial department is in charge of developing relations
between the receiving state and the sending state. The importance of this behavior is growing
and started an upward path once the economic relations started to gain an increasing share in
the relations between states.
Among the objectives of the diplomats in charge of developing these relationships, we
can note:
 assisting the delegations from the receiving state in the process of negotiation or in preparing
negotiations of trade agreements;
 prospecting concrete possibilities of amplification and diversification of trades, promotion of
products sourced from the sending state (through participation in fairs and exhibitions,
business relations) etc.
The department allocated to cultural relations is of recent provenance, being
enshrined in the years before the Second World War. It has been further developed with the
emergence of new states, responding to needs of population's access to cultural resources,
constituting a barometer of relations in the international community by the volume of
exchanges of cultural values and contacts between people. The main tasks of this department
are to make known, in the country of residence, the national culture of the sending state; to
develop cooperation in the cultural field with the receiving state, approaching as many
representatives of the local public opinion; to prepare and negotiate cultural agreements
between the sending and the receiving state.
Recently, the extent to which this sector of activity has taken lately led to the creation
of a real current of opinion on the detachment of an important branch in diplomatic law,
namely cultural diplomacy.
The department of information and press is relatively recent, being established after
World War I.
However, the information has always been one of the most important concerns of
diplomats, them having the mission to make known their country abroad.
The current development of this sector was made following three main vectors:
expanding its object in all fields, especially the political, economic, commercial and cultural
field, widening the audience by encompassing the general public, introducing new techniques
(oral, written and audio-visual) and using these new means of communication.
The work of this department is conducted in two ways. The first, directed from the
receiving state to the sending one, offers the most diverse information about the sending state.
The second direction, opposite to the first one, to the receiving state, provides useful
information about the sending state, providing presentation and synthetic materials about it,
context in which it is empowered to make corrections in the local media, to develop and
disseminate newsletters, organize press conferences, to establish and maintain relationships
with journalists and major newspapers and other mass media information means.
The consular compartment is where we find the focus of activities carried out to
achieve the diplomatic mission's consular function.
Unlike other sections of the diplomatic mission, the consular compartment activity
area is not always identified with the whole territory of the receiving state. Also, this
compartment cannot, in any way, contain the whole specific activity of consulates, resuming
to the specific activity of consulates resumed to work regarding passports and visas,
administrative (registrations and records), notary, judicial, assistance and consular protection
acts. For this reason, the consular compartment is organized within the diplomatic mission
where, when, contrary to practice, there does not operate a consulate of the sending state in
the receiving state capital.
The compartment of the military attachment received consecration with the
phenomenon of military cooperation between states which is always of interest to diplomatic
missions. It was developed with the progresses that the military activity has gained
internationally, the diversification of this area required the use of experts.
Since the application of science and technology in the military, especially in the
nineteenth century, the compartment of military attachment had responsibilities regarding
military issues, which were added to the aerial and naval ones.
Because of the importance of this sector of diplomatic mission’s activity, some states
have resorted, inclusively, to the solution of appointing a military as head of mission and the
codification of diplomatic law provided a different procedure for the appointment of military
attached compared with the other diplomats of the diplomatic mission.
Among the tasks of the military compartment, there may be cited as being main, two
objectives. Observation that is the classic task of the military attachment, focusing on
informing the sending state on the situation of the receiving state in terms of armament,
military training etc. In this context it is important to emphasize that the information is only
permitted by means deemed as lawful, such as official publications, personal observation,
official and private conversations that they can have. Also, the exchange of information with
local military authorities is a second major goal of the military attachment activity. Also, the
military attaché represents the receiving state during official ceremonies such as parades,
participation in military manoeuvres, etc. and advising the head of mission on specific issues.
At the end of this section it should be noted that, depending on the weight of some
categories of issues with which a diplomatic mission must deal in the receiving state, in
addition to the compartments mentioned, there can work also others, on specific issues such
as the technical, migration, scientific etc.

Establishment and termination of a diplomatic mission

1. Conditions of establishing a diplomatic mission

a. General considerations.
The establishment of a diplomatic mission can only be discussed under the conditions
in which the two countries (sending and receiving) are established diplomatic relations. In this
context, the establishment of a diplomatic mission comes as a natural consequence of the
diplomatic relations established. In some cases, the states agree that the establishment of
diplomatic relations and the establishment of diplomatic missions shall be done
simultaneously, a thing which does not affect the validity of the establishment of the
diplomatic mission.
The most important prerequisite to the establishment of diplomatic relations is the
existence of international legal personality of the two countries, since it gives the international
legal ability to send and receive diplomatic missions. A second condition is that the
international legal personality must have been recognized, reciprocally, by the two states.
Then comes assuming an agreement between the sending and the receiving state,
which is specified, intervening directly and immediately on the establishment of the mission.

b. Legal personality of international law

Since the diplomatic mission is the foreign policy body of a state or other international
body, it cannot be created unless the entity has international legal personality, as a
prerequisite to the rights and obligations it has in the international relations area, as well as a
prerequisite to exercise its rights or assume obligations with an international character.
The right to establish diplomatic relations is specific to states, since they have full
capacity to assume plenary rights and obligations, as primary / principal topics of Public
International Law, being the ones that can send and receive diplomatic missions. For reasons
of coherence and development of international institutional law, it was accepted in the
international practice and doctrine that this right should be extended to other subjects of
international law, known in the international doctrine also under the name of derivative or
secondary topics.
 Consequently, the first category which has the right of diplomatic representation is the
states that represent the primary topics category of Public International Law / Diplomatic Law
and possess a full international legal personality.
Then comes the category of derived or secondary subjects of Public International
Law/Diplomatic Law. Thus, the Holy See has gained the status of subject of international law
since ancient times in history, since the time of existence of the Pontifical State and the Papal
States. Despite the abolition of the so-called "Gentium christianorum republic", in 1870,
shortly after, in 1929, by the Treaty of Latteran, there was recognized the status of the Vatican
City and the supreme pontiff sovereignty on it, the active and passive right of legation of the
Holy See.
From the perspective of public international law, it is estimated that the special status
that the Holy See has lies in the fact that the Pope, as head of the Catholic Church, continued
to be recognized by a large number of countries as international personality, even after the
loss of sovereignty in the classical sense, in 1870, by the disappearance of the statehood
element which is at the origin of the attribute in question. Consequently, by virtue of this
recognition, the Vatican continued to maintain diplomatic relations with a large number of
states and is represented in them. Subsequently, the Italian state yielded for use an area of
land from its sovereign territory to the Vatican City, which could claim also the recognition,
in the classical sense, of its sovereignty and, thus, the right to develop diplomatic relations
with the states and other subjects of International Public Law / Diplomatic law.
Another subject of international law coming from the far history of mankind is the
Sovereign Order of Malta Military which, although in the absence of a territorial basis, is
recognized as an independent and sovereign entity and, therefore, its credentials belonging
usually only to sovereign states is recognized.
A special category of subjects of international law is the belligerents and insurgents
since their international legal personality is recognised only in certain circumstances, having a
limited (not being beneficiaries of all rights) and temporary character (because it begins and
ends with a state of war).
In a somewhat similar logic there are also the liberation movements, but the situation
differs from the previous one in that the peoples fighting for liberation has its rights fully
recognised, unlimited, at international legal standards. The recognition of legal international
personality for the liberation movements is the very legitimacy of the fight for its liberation
and support, hence derives the recognition of its international size, including the right to
establish diplomatic relations with states or other subjects of international law.
In the international doctrine there is also recognized the limited legal personality to
conclude treaties and to be represented to the parastatal entities such as unions of states or
international organizations.

c. Recognition
The institution of international recognition knows two forms of expression, a silent
one and an express one. While a de facto recognition allows the states concerned to the
exchange of official agents, who cannot be assimilated to diplomatic agents, a de jure
recognition is the only one able to stand as a prerequisite for the establishment of a diplomatic
mission.
It can be concluded that the establishment of diplomatic relations does not mean also
the establishment of diplomatic missions, while the establishment of a diplomatic missions
necessarily requires the existence of diplomatic relations, whose consequence is natural.
In conclusion, with the de jure recognition of a state, there can be established
diplomatic relations with them and then, normally, there can be set up diplomatic missions.
 d. The right of legation
The international doctrine knows a large number of studies through which some
authors recognize the right of legation as being authentic and self-contained, and others deny
it, saying that the state, as an entity with international legal personality, has limitless powers
and has a number of rights and indeterminate obligations, including the one of legation and,
accordingly, the latter is not intended to stand alone but appears as a natural, inevitable
consequence of the international legal personality.
Examining the practice of states, it can be observed that the right of legation
contains only the ability of a sovereign state to accredit an envoy in another state and to
receive diplomatic agents of a foreign state. Seen from this perspective, the right of legation
is a perfect right, in principle, but imperfect in practice as this capability (right of legation)
does not constitute a true and proper subjective right which corresponds to an obligation of
another subject. In other words, a state can send a diplomatic agent, but it is not required to do
so. Similarly, a state may receive a diplomatic envoy, but it is not obliged to receive him. On
the other hand, there is no obligation for any state to be represented in diplomatic terms in all
the countries it recognizes nor to receive their envoys.
Whether we accept the theory according to which the right of legation stands alone or
we follow the opinions of those jurists who argue that this right is fully included in the
character of the international legal personality, the right of legation exists, and has two
components: active and passive legation.
We will understand by the right of active legation the ability to accredit diplomatic
agents in other states, and, by the right of active legation, the ability to receive envoys of other
states.
A very important thing to note is that being considered a characteristic of the
international legal personality, all members of the international community who act as
subjects of international law have the right of legation. In this context, the international rule is
not to recognize this right to states that have a special condition, such as member states of the
federation, member’s states of a real union, the protected state, the vassal state, the state under
a mandate or under military occupation, colonies and colonial territories. Like any rule, it has
also experienced in history a series of exceptions on which we will not insist.
The right of legation is recognized under the privileges provided by the international
legal personality and, without exception, it is assigned also to the movements for liberation,
international organizations etc.

e. Condition of concluding an agreement between the two states in order to

establish the diplomatic mission
Since the establishment of a diplomatic mission is the result of an agreement of will of
the states concerned, the essential element for the establishment of the mission report is the
consent of the two states.
The establishment of diplomatic relations between two states creates the premise of
establishing diplomatic missions, but it does not imply their establishment, which is why it
requires an express agreement to that effect.
In this regard, there arises the idea that there are states that have established diplomatic
relations, but which are not represented by diplomatic missions established in their territory.
This example is not far from being an exception, but it is quite common in the practice of
states. This occurs because, before taking a decision on setting up a diplomatic mission in its
territory, there are analysed several correlative elements deriving from a positive response.
Thus, the state estimates its financial possibilities and the importance of its interests that need
to be protected in the sending state.
 Although the practice of states demonstrated that with the establishment of diplomatic
relations there also ends the agreement for the establishment of diplomatic missions, there are
plenty of preceding standing as exceptions. However, the agreement establishing the
diplomatic missions does not automatically come from the agreement establishing diplomatic
relations which in all cases precedes the first.
The form in which there may be agreed an understanding regarding the establishment
of diplomatic missions or exchange of diplomatic missions is not unique. It can be an
agreement as a written treaty, specially concluded for this purpose, it can be part of a treaty
with a wider content, which regulates conflicts and are put the foundations of new relations
between the two states.
The terminology adopted in the coding conventions of Diplomatic Law is of sending
state, for the one sending a diplomatic mission and receiving state, that in which it is
established or received a diplomatic mission.
The content of the agreement mentions several issues, such as regulating whether it is
the establishment of mutual diplomatic missions or just a single one, details on how the
establishment of the diplomatic mission will be or merely enunciating general principles, the
rank of the mission and the head of the mission, mission herd, operating categories that will
be part of the mission staff.
As a rule, according to the principle of reciprocity, both missions have the same rank,
without there being an obligation in this regard. The diplomatic mission starts its activity only
after an agreement has been agreed on this.

2. Transformation, suspension and termination of diplomatic missions

a. Transformation of diplomatic missions

By transforming a mission we understand changing its rank, which in most cases is
being done upwards.
The transformation of a mission comes as a result of a political decision of the states
they represent and which will highlight the growing role they want to give to the bilateral
relations or the fact that relations have developed to such an extent that it is necessary to raise
the level of representation.
The procedure needed for the transformation of a mission follows the same steps as
for its foundation. It is, therefore, necessary an agreement between the parties, stating all
items of the transformation. It is not mandatory to convert both diplomatic missions (of the
sending state in the receiving one and of the receiving one to the sending state).
In the agreement there can be specified the modification / conversion of a single
diplomatic missions, unilaterally. But the need of the existence of an agreement consists of a
general rule of law that specifies that a certain reality established by a legal act may only be
amended by a legal act of equal legally binding with the first one.
The diplomatic mission changes its rank with the entry into force of the transformation
agreement, which usually does not coincide with the date of the change in rank of the head of
mission, which means that until the holder takes his function, the mission will be headed by
an ad interim person in charge with affairs.
The modification, transformation of the mission rank must be given the necessary
publicity and also should be reflected in their credentials. Even if it maintains the same person
as head of mission, it will require new credentials with the appointment in the new rank.

b. Suspension of the diplomatic mission

Although the cases of suspension of diplomatic missions are not too frequent, they
have existed throughout history and, consequently, had consecrated this institution.
 We will understand by suspending a diplomatic mission the situation in which the
states maintain diplomatic relations but, for various reasons, cannot ensure the functioning of
their diplomatic missions, representing the interests of the sending state in the receiving one.
It is not necessary for the suspension to intervene for both diplomatic missions, the reciprocity
principle not being functional in this case. In this sense, it can be exemplified by the cases of
states occupied by the Nazis in the Second World War, who have transferred their
governments in other countries, especially in London.
With the cessation of the reasons that forced the suspension of the diplomatic mission
it can be proceeded to the reinstallation of the diplomatic mission for which there is no need
for an agreement in this respect, as the institution of diplomatic mission suspension does not
have the effect of interrupting the agreement establishing it, but only the prevention, for
various reasons, of the mission operation.
The suspension is imposed by external factors of the freely expressed will of the states
by concluding the establishment of their diplomatic mission, which is why this agreement
subsisted between states and does not need to be confirmed after the disappearance of the
cause that prevented the operation of the mission.
Regarding the procedure of accreditation, we face two hypotheses. First, the head of
the suspended mission remains also after resuming the functionality of the suspended
diplomatic mission, case in which there are no longer needed credentials, and the second,
when the sending state decides to appoint a new head of mission, case in which there should
be issued new credentials.

c. Termination of the diplomatic mission

Unlike the suspension, by ending the diplomatic mission we understand the complete
interruption of the diplomatic missions functions. In this case, the tasks of the heads of
mission and other members shall automatically terminate.
The reasons for interrupting the diplomatic mission are various, and can be divided
into two main groups. The first would be those cases due to the sending state and in this case
we face the dissolution of the diplomatic mission, and the second can be the consequence of
other circumstances (severance of diplomatic relations, the disposal of one of the subjects of
the mission report).
For a more accurate understanding of what the institution of cessation of the
diplomatic mission requires there are some comments that need to be added.
First, the severance of diplomatic relations automatically implies the cessation of the
diplomatic mission, as the legal foundation that based the conclusion of the mission
agreement disappears, respectively the agreement of establishing diplomatic relations.
The converse, however, is not valid, in the sense that the abolition of the diplomatic
mission does not imply the severance of diplomatic relations, but has the effect of continuing
the latter, and continuing the activity of the head of mission and its members.
The termination of the diplomatic mission has several causes, including the severance
of diplomatic relations, institutional changes of a state (changing the form of government in
the receiving state or in the sending one, abdication or death of the sovereign), occupying the
territory of the receiving state or its disappearance as a subject of international law,
withdrawal of recognition, declaration of persona non grata, expelling, recall or withdrawal.
On this subject it should be mentioned that the severance of diplomatic relations does
not imply the severance of consular relations or the termination of legal relations (other than
diplomatic) between the two states.
The abolition of a diplomatic mission may occur due to political reasons, to the
decision of the sending state or the request of the receiving state, form considered as showing
an increased tension in the bilateral relations or simply for economic, budgeting reasons,
making possible that the financial effort of the sending state becomes greater than it can bear
or unjustifiable against the interests posed by the work of the mission.