Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unus inter plures? The EEAS, the Vienna Convention and International Diplomatic Practice

  • Chapter
The European External Action Service

Part of the book series: The European Union in International Affairs series ((EUIA))

  • 545 Accesses

Abstract

The European Union (EU, or Union) is increasingly a global diplomatic actor. It has a central role in the management of the Union’s diplomatic relations attributed to it by the Lisbon Treaty’s creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS, or Service). The Union delegations, the Service’s external arm, represent the Union as a whole in non-EU countries and at international organisations (Article 221(1) TFEU and Article 4(1) EEAS Decision). Like the EEAS itself, the 133 bilateral delegations, in total accredited to 163 countries, are placed under the authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (High Representative).1 The High Representative, the EEAS Headquarters, and — for ‘the powers conferred upon it by the Treaties’ (Article 5(1) EEAS Decision) — the European Commission instruct delegations and are informed by them of local developments (Wouters et al., EEAS Study, 2013, p. 67).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 115.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Barnhoorn, L.A.N.M. (1994) ‘Diplomatic Law and Unilateral Remedies’, Neth. Y.B. Int’l L, vol. 25, 39–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baroncini, Elisa (2014) ‘Le Delegazioni dell’Unione Europea dopo il Trattato di Lisbona. Struttura, Status e Funzioni’, Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional, vol. 6, 68–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barston, Ronald P. (2006) Modern Diplomacy, 3rd edn ( Essex: Pearson Education).

    Google Scholar 

  • Berridge, G.R. (2010) Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 4th edn ( Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Blockmans, Steven and Christophe Hillion (eds) (2013) EEAS 2.0: A Legal Commentary on Council Decision 2010/427/EU Establishing the Organisation and Functioning of the European External Action Service ( Brussels: CEPS ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brölmann, Catherine M. (2005) ‘Law-Making Treaties: Form and Function in International Law’, NJIL, vol. 74, 383–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, Andrew F. (2013) ‘The Changing Nature of Diplomacy’, in Andrew F. Cooper, Jorge Heine, and Ramesh Thakur (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy ( Oxford: Oxford University Press ).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Denza, Eileen (2008) Diplomatic Law: A Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations ( Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dimier, Veronique and Mike McGeever (2006) ‘Diplomats without a Flag: The Institutionalization of the Delegations of the Commission in African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries’, JCMS, vol. 44, 483–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Erian, Abdullah (1969) ‘Fourth Report on Relations between States and International Organizations’, UN Doc. A/Cn.4/218, reprinted in 1969 YBILC, vol. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013) ‘Vade-mecum for the Use of the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the European Union’, op. cit., and the Listing of Heads of Mission, available at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/corps/view/cdSearch/act_ showPDF.cfm?RepID=10003&DocType=3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feltham, Ralph (2004) Diplomatic Handbook, 8th edn ( Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers).

    Google Scholar 

  • Goebel, Julius (1923) ‘Equality of States’, Colum. L. Rev., vol. 23, 113–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grotius, Hugo (1625) ‘De Legationum Jure’, in De Jure Belli ac Pacis, II.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hestermeyer, Holger P. (2009) ‘Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, available at www.mpepil.com.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilf, Meinhard and Robin Geiß (2009) ‘Most-Favoured-Nation Clause’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, § 3, available at www.mpepil.com.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hocking, Brian (1999) ‘Catalytic Diplomacy: Beyond “Newness” and “Decline”’, in Jan Melissen (ed.) Innovation in Diplomatic Practice ( Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan ), pp. 21–42.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • International Court of Justice, Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran of 24 May 1980 (US v. Iran), I.C.J. Rep. 1980, 3 [referred to as ‘Tehran Hostages Case’].

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission (1958) ‘Draft Articles on Diplomatic Relations with Commentaries’, YBILC, vol. II.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission (1960) ‘Report Covering the Work of the ILC’s Twelfth Session: 25 April to 1 July 1960 A/4425’, YBILC, vol. II.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission (1978) ‘Draft Articles on Most-Favored-Nation Clauses with Commentaries’, YBILC, vol. II.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission (2001) ‘Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with Commentaries’, YBILC, vol. II.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, Michael and Langley Hardy (1968) Modern Diplomatic Law ( Manchester: Manchester University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jönsson, Christer and Martin Hall (2004) ‘Communication: An Essential Aspect of Diplomacy’, in Christer Jönsson and Richard Langhorne (eds), Diplomacy ( New York: Sage Publications ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi, Martti and Päivi Leino (2002) ‘Fragmentation of International Law. Postmodern Anxieties?’ LJIL, vol. 15, 553–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuijper, Pieter-Jan, Jan Wouters, Frank Hoffmeister, Geert De Baere and Thomas Ramopoulos (2013) The Law of EU External Relations: Cases, Materials and Commentary on the EU as an International Legal Actor ( Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindroos, Anja and Michael Mehling (2005) ‘Dispelling the Chimera of “Self-contained Regimes” in International Law and the WTO’, Eur. J. Int’l L., vol. 16, 857–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ling, Yu-Long (1976) ‘A Comparative Study of the Privileges and Immunities of United Nations Member Representatives and Officials with the Traditional Privileges and Immunities of Diplomatic Agents’, Wash. & Lee L. Rev., vol. 33, 91–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahbubani, Kishore (2013) ‘Multilateral Diplomacy’, in Andrew F. Cooper, Jorge Heine, and Ramesh Thakur (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy ( Oxford: Oxford University Press ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Marschik, Axel (1998) ‘Too Much Order? The Impact of Special Secondary Norms on the Unity and Efficacy of the International Legal System’, Eur. J. Int’l. L., vol. 9, 212–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odell, Andrew L. (1985) ‘Enforcing Reciprocity in US Diplomatic Relations: The Foreign Missions Act of 1982’, N. Y. U. J. Int’l L. & Pol., vol. 17, 817–850.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pancracio, Jean-Paul (2007) Droit et Institutions Diplomatiques ( Paris: Editions A. Pédone).

    Google Scholar 

  • Plantey, Alain (2000) Principes de Diplomatie ( Paris: Editions A. Pédone).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rensmann, Thilo (2009) ‘International Organizations or Institutions, External Relations and Co-operation’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, available at www.mpepil.com.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, Ivor (2011) Satow’s Diplomatic Practice ( Oxford: Oxford University Press) [referred to as ‘Satow’].

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, Jean (1994) Manuel de Droit Diplomatique ( Bruxelles: Bruylant).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sari, Aurel (2008) ‘Status of Forces and Status of Mission Agreements under the ESDP: The EU’s Evolving Practice’, Eur. J. Int’l L., vol. 19, 67–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schermers, Henry G. and Niels M. Blokker (2011) International Institutional Law: Unity Within Diversity, 5th edn ( Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, Malcolm (2008) International Law, 6th edn ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Simma, Bruno (1985) ‘Self-contained Regimes’, Neth. Y.B. Int’l L., vol. 16, 111–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simma, Bruno and Dirk Pulkowski (2006) ‘Of Planets and the Universe: Self-contained Regimes in International Law’, Eur. J. Int’l L., vol. 17, 483–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloane, Robert D. (2012) ‘On the Use and Abuse of Necessity in the Law of State Responsibility’, Am. J. Int’l L., vol. 106, 447–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Study Group of the International Law Commission (2006) ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law’, UN DOC. A/CN.4/L. 682 [referred to as ‘Koskenniemi Report’].

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhagen, Maxime and Henk Bleker (2011) ‘Economic Diplomacy in a Changing World’, The Hague J. Dipl., vol. 6, 171–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoeven, Joe (2000) Droit International Public ( Brussels: Larcier).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, signed in Vienna on 18 April 1961 and entered into force on 24 April 1964, U.N.T.S., vol. 500, p. 95, no. 310 [referred to as ‘VCDR’].

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellens, Karel C. (1994) ‘Diversity in Secondary Rules and the Unity of International Law: Some Reflections on Current Trends’, Neth. Y.B. Int’l L., vol. 25, 3–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, Jan, Geert De Baere, Bart Van Vooren, Kolja Raube, Jed Odermatt, Thomas Ramopoulos, Tina Van den Sanden and Yole Tanghe (2013) The Organisation and Functioning of the European External Action Service: Achievements, Challenges and Opportunities ( Brussels: European Parliament) [referred to as ‘EEAS Study’].

    Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, Jan and Sanderijn Duquet (2012) ‘The EU and International Diplomatic Law: New Horizons?’ The Hague J. Dipl., vol. 7, 31–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, Jan, Sanderijn Duquet and Katrien Meuwissen (2013) ‘The Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations’, in The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, 510–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, Eileen (1964) ‘The Development of the Law of Diplomatic Relations’, Brit. YB Int’l L., vol. 40, 141–182.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Jan Wouters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sanderijn Duquet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. European Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK

    David Spence (Senior Visiting Fellow) (Senior Visiting Fellow)

  2. Department of Political Science, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia

    Jozef Bátora (Associate Professor) (Associate Professor)

Copyright information

© 2015 Jan Wouters and Sanderijn Duquet

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wouters, J., Duquet, S. (2015). Unus inter plures? The EEAS, the Vienna Convention and International Diplomatic Practice. In: Spence, D., Bátora, J. (eds) The European External Action Service. The European Union in International Affairs series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137383037_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation