|
| |
diplomatic relations |
|
| |
|
|
| |
The situation enjoyed by two states that can communicate with each other unhampered by any formal obstacles. This is the prerequisite for normal diplomacy (sense 1), and states finding themselves in this situation are said to have or be in diplomatic relations with each other. Thus each may address the other, express views to the other, and reach agreements with the other, such business usually being done through diplomatic agents. Moreover, those agents may interact freely with each other. In the absence of diplomatic relations none of these activities is likely to be straightforward, and may even be impossible: when two states are not in diplomatic relations either is fully entitled to refuse any contact with the other. Thus, being in diplomatic relations is the usual (and easy) means of maintaining permanent contact between two states. Contrary to a popular view, diplomatic relations does not necessarily entail the despatch by either state of a resident mission or even a non-resident mission to the other. Such a development often follows the establishment of diplomatic relations, but there is no necessity for it to do so. Another misunderstanding is represented in the exchange of resident missions sometimes being spoken of as creating ‘full’ diplomatic relations. In fact, there are no degrees of diplomatic relations; any pair of states is either in this condition or not.
Diplomatic relations are established by agreement. That agreement is often explicit, but it may also be implicit. A precondition for it is the recognition of each state by the other. Especially in the case of a new state, recognition and the establishment of diplomatic relations may take place simultaneously. More generally, it is now unusual for two states that recognize each other not to be in diplomatic relations.
As to the ‘level’ of diplomatic relations, this term is often employed when two states agree to exchange diplomatic missions, the rank of the heads of mission being said to be the level at which diplomatic relations exist. Thus two states may announce that they have established relations at ambassadorial level. Strictly speaking, however, the idea of levels is better applied to diplomatic representation than to diplomatic relations, as its use in the latter context mistakenly suggests that diplomatic relations is a variable rather than an absolute concept.
Whereas the establishment of diplomatic relations is a bilateral affair, their downgrading or breach occurs through a decision to that effect by just one party to the relationship. ‘Downgrading’ is a nontechnical term which refers to the temporary withdrawal of the head of mission or (although now it rarely happens) to the replacement of a head of mission by one of lesser diplomatic rank (sense 1). Such developments, however, are distinct from the breach of diplomatic relations. This is a formal, unilateral decision which has the consequence that neither state can maintain a diplomatic mission in or accredited to the other. By contrast, the mere withdrawal of a diplomatic mission, either temporarily or permanently, is not tantamount to a breach of diplomatic relations. It used to be the case that an outbreak of war also involved the breaking of diplomatic relations. But this is no longer seen as an automatic accompaniment of armed conflict (sense 1).
If two states have broken diplomatic relations it does not necessarily mean that they do not communicate with each other, despite the fact that that would seem to be the logical consequence of a breach. A form of relations may be continued through protecting powers, the establishment of interests sections in the missions of third states, occasional messages being passed via third parties, or through signalling. Ad hoc meetings may also be arranged, or encounters may take place in third states or at international organizations, the extent and openness of such contacts being dependent on the political relationship of the two states, and perhaps also on the personal relationship of the diplomats concerned. But in all these circumstances the diplomatic process is likely to be much more complex and tortuous, and perhaps less efficient, than it is when states are in diplomatic relations.
The re-establishment of diplomatic relations requires a new agreement – any proposal for which must, by custom, come from the state which instigated the breach.
The condition of the political relationship between two states, as in the observation: ‘there was a sharp deterioration in their diplomatic relations’. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Bookmark this page:
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
<< former term |
|
next term >> |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
