which departure is for a stated cause, such as the existence of conditions making the fulfillment of his mission impossible, or the violation of the principles of international law. (3) Diplomatic relations may be temporarily suspended, owing to friction between the states, as in the case of the suspension of diplomatic relations between Great Britain and Venezuela from 1887 to 1897, owing to dispute upon questions of boundary. In 1891 Italy recalled her minister from the United States on account of alleged tardiness of the United States authorities in making reparation for the lynching of Italians in New Orleans on March 14, 1891.1 (4) A diplomatic agent is sometimes dismissed either on grounds personal to the diplomat, or on grounds involving the relations of the two states. When, in 1888, the demand for the recall of Lord Sackville, the British minister at Washington, was not promptly complied with, Lord Sackville was dismissed and his passport sent to him. Lord Sackville had, in response to a letter purporting to be from an ex-British subject, sent a reply which related to the impending presidential election. His recall was demanded by telegraph, October 27. The British government declined to grant it without time for investigation, and his passport was sent him on October 30. In 1871, "The conduct of Mr. Catacazy, the Russian minister at Washington, having been for some time past such as materially to impair his usefulness to his own Government, and to render intercourse with him for either business or social purposes highly disagreeable," it was the expressed opinion of the President that "the interests of both countries would be promoted . . . if the head of the Russian legation here was to be changed." The President, however, agreed to tolerate the minister till after the contemplated visit of the grand duke. The communication also stated, "That minister will then be dismissed if not recalled." 2 1 For. Relations U. S. 1891, p. 658 ff. 24 Moore, § 639. departure. (d) The ceremonial of departure is similar to that of reception. (1) The diplomat seeks an interview according to the method outlined in the ceremonial of reception, Ceremonial of in order to present his letter of recall. (2) In case of remoteness from the seat of government the agent may, if necessary, take leave of the sovereign by letter, forwarding to the sovereign his letter of recall. (3) It very often happens that a diplomatic agent presents his successor at the time of his own departure. (4) In case of change of title the diplomat follows the ceremonial of departure in one capacity with that of arrival in his new capacity. (5) It is understood that the agent, after the formal close of his mission, will depart with convenient speed, and until the expiration of such period he enjoys diplomatic immunities. 80. Immunities and Privileges Few subjects involved in international relations have been more extensively discussed than the privileges and immunities of diplomatic agents. Many of the earliest treatises on international affairs were devoted to such questions. In order that any business between states might be carried on, some principles upon which the diplomatic agent could base his action were necessary. The treatment of the agent could not be left to chance or to the feeling of the authorities of the receiving state. Gradually fixed usages were recognized. These immunities and privileges may be considered under two divisions: personal inviolability, and exemption from local jurisdiction, otherwise known as exterritoriality. (a) The person of the agent was by ancient law inviolable. According to the dictum of the Roman Law, sancti habentur Inviolability of legati. In accord with this principle the physthe person of ical and moral person is inviolable. Any offense toward the person of the ambassador is in effect an offense to the state which he represents, and the agent. Basis of the privilege. to the law of nations. The receiving state is bound to extend to the diplomatic agent such protection as will preserve his inviolability. This may make necessary the use of force to preserve to the diplomatic agent his privileges. The idea of inviolability, as Calvo says, is absolute and unlimited, and based, not on simple convenience, but upon necessity. Without it diplomatic agents could not perform their functions for they would be dependent upon the sovereign to whom they might be accredited. In many states laws have been enacted during the last half of the nineteenth century fixing severe penalties for acts which affect the diplomatic agent unfavorably in the performance of his functions or reflect upon his dignity.2 The privilege of inviolability extends, (1) alike to agents of all classes; (2) to the suite, official and non-official; (3) to such things as are convenient for the performance of the agent's functions; (4) during the entire time of his official sojourn, i.e., from the time of the announcement of his official character to the expiration of a reasonable time for departure after the completion of his mission. This also holds even when the mission is terminated by the outbreak of war between the state from which the agent comes and the state to which he is accredited. (5) By courtesy the diplomatic agent is usually accorded similar privileges when passing through a third state in going to or returning from his post. Extent of the privilege. A diplomatic agent may place himself under the law, says Despagnet, so far as attacks upon him are concerned: (1) Limits of immunity. when he voluntarily exposes himself to danger, in a riot, duel, civil war; (2) when in his private capacity he does that which is liable to criticism, e.g., as a writer or artist, provided the criticism should not degenerate into an attack upon his public 1 "Droit Int.," § 1481 ff. 'Lehr, "Manuel," §§ 988-998. character; (3) when the attacks upon him are in legitimate personal self-defense; (4) when, by his actions, he provokes on the part of the local government precautionary measures against himself, e.g. if he should plot against the surety of the state to which he is accredited.1 Only in the case of extreme necessity, however, should any force be used. It is better to ask for the recall of the agent. In case of refusal or in case of urgent necessity the agent may be expelled. and exemption. (b) Exemption from local jurisdiction of the state to which a diplomatic agent is sent, or exterritoriality in a limited sense, flows naturally from the admitted right Exterritoriality of inviolability. The term "exterritoriality" is a convenient one for describing the condition of immunity which diplomatic agents enjoy in a foreign state, but it should be observed that the custom of conceding these immunities has given rise to the "legal fiction of exterritoriality," rather than that these immunities are based on a right of exterritoriality. The practice of granting immunities was common long before the idea of exterritoriality arose.2 The exemptions give to diplomatic agents large privileges. Agent exempt from criminal jurisdiction. (1) The diplomatic agent is exempt from the criminal jurisdiction of the state to which he is accredited. In case of violation of law the receiving state has to decide whether the offense is serious enough to warrant a demand for the recall of the agent, or whether it should be passed without notice. In extreme cases a state might order the agent to leave the country, or in case of immediate danger might place the agent under reasonable restraint. Hall considers these "as acts done in pursuance of a right of exercising jurisdiction upon sufficient emergency, which has not been abandoned in conceding immunities to diplomatic agents.' "13 1 Despagnet, "Droit international public," 2d ed., § 235; Heffter, § 204. 2 Grotius, "De Jure Belli," II, 18. Hall, p. 171. 3 (2) The diplomatic agent is exempt from civil jurisdiction of the state to which he is sent, and cannot be sued, arrested, or punished by the law of that state. This Agent exempt from civil rule is sometimes held to apply only to such jurisdiction. proceedings as would affect the diplomat in his official character; but unless the diplomat voluntarily assume another character, he cannot be so proceeded against. If he become a partner in a firm, engage in business, buy stocks, or assume financial responsibilities, it is held in theory by some authorities that the diplomatic agent may be proceeded against in that capacity. The diplomatic agent of the United States is distinctly instructed that "real or personal property, aside from that which pertains to him as a minister, . . . is subject to the local laws." 2 The practice is, however, to extend to the diplomat in his personal capacity the fullest possible immunity, and in case of need to resort to his home courts, or to diplomatic methods by appeal to the home government, for the adjustment of any difficulties that may involve its representative in foreign court proceedings. The real property of the diplomatic agent is, of course, liable to local police and sanitary regulations. In cases where a diplomatic agent consents to submit himself to foreign jurisdiction, the procedure and the judgment, if against him, cannot involve him in such manner as seriously to interfere with the performance of his functions. He cannot be compelled to appear as witness in a case of which he has knowledge; however, it is customary in the interests of justice for the diplomatic agent to make a deposition before the secretary of the legation or some proper officer. By the Constitution of the United States, in criminal prosecutions the accused has a right to have the evidence taken orally in his presence. The refusal of M. Dubois, the Dutch minister to the United States 1U. S. Rev. Sts., §§ 4063, 4064; Wheat. D., 308–310. |