Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Status of the Special Agent under International Law

  • Chapter
The Ad Hoc Diplomat: A Study in Municipal and International Law

  • 82 Accesses

Abstract

Special agents are individuals sent abroad by Governments on a specific assignment of limited duration. The nature of the assignment may or may not be similar to some aspect of the work normally assigned to a member of a regular diplomatic mission. There are four subdivisions of the category of special agents in foreign affairs. The agent may be a public or a secret agent. If secret his status may or may not be known by the receiving State. If public he may or may not have been given diplomatic rank. We shall not attempt, however, to examine these latter two categories of public agents separately.

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

  1. Oppenheim, op. cit., 7th ed., I, 490.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ibid., p. 491.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hall, op. cit., 8th ed., pp. 370–71.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ibid.; see also Moore, Digest, op. cit., IV, 427.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Foster, Practice of Diplomacy, op. cit., p. 198.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Eagleton, op. cit., p. 300.

    Google Scholar 

  7. United Nations General Assembly, International Law Commission, 12th Session, “Ad Hoc Diplomacy,” 11 March, 1960, A/CN.4/129.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ibid., para. 4 and 5.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hackworth, Digest, op. cit., IV, 413–14.

    Google Scholar 

  10. The Diary of Edward M. House, February 12, 1915, VI, 34, Yale University library (hereinafter cited as “House Diary”); Sherwood, op. cit., pp. 232, 321.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Louis Koenig, The Presidency and the Crisis, (New York: Kings Crown Press, 1944), p. 24; New York Times, August 22, 1942.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Alphonse Rivier, Principes du Droit des Gens, (Paris: Librairie Nouvelle de Droit et de Jurisprudence, 1896) I, 156.

    Google Scholar 

  13. “Ad Hoc Diplomacy,” A/CN.4/129, op. cit., p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1960, vol. 1, Summary Records of the Twelfth Session, A/CN.4/SER. A/1960, p. 261.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ibid., pp. 271–2.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ibid., p. 274.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ibid., pp. 273–75; “Ad Hoc Diplomacy,” A/CN.4/129, op. cit., art. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1960, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 273.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Flanders, op. cit., pp. 181–82.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wriston, op. cit., p. 293.

    Google Scholar 

  21. New York Times, March 18, 1941.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ibid., August 31, 1945.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Executive Order No. 9547, Federal Register, X, 4961.

    Google Scholar 

  25. New York Times, February 28, 1940.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hackworth, Digest, op. cit., IV, 414.

    Google Scholar 

  27. MS Department of State, file 715.1715/930, cited ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  28. New York Times, April 28, 1945.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ibid., January 23, 1947. The agent was Herbert Hoover who was sent on an economic mission to Europe. Hoover was one agent who was reported never to have accepted any pay for his special missions.

    Google Scholar 

  30. League of Nations, “Report to the Council,” С 196.M.70 1927 V. op. cit., p. 248.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hurst, “Diplomatic Immunities — Modern Developments,” op. cit., p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  32. League of Nations, “Report to the Council,” С 196.M.70. 1927 V. op. cit., p. 248.

    Google Scholar 

  33. David R. Deener, “Some Problems of the Law of Diplomatic Immunity,” American Journal of International Law, L (1956), 117–18.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Clyde Eagleton, International Government (3rd ed.; New York: Ronald Press Co., 1957), p. 147. It will be seen that the data gathered in this study do not completely support this conclusion.

    Google Scholar 

  35. League of Nations, “Report to the Council,” С 196.M.70. 1927 V. op. cit., p. 248.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ibid., p. 135.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ministry of Justice, German Federal Republic, Correspondence, April 21, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Chief of Protocol, German Federal Republic, Correspondence, September 16, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Oppenheim, op. cit., 8th ed., I, 827.

    Google Scholar 

  40. British Foreign Office, Correspondence, September 4, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Embassy of the Republic of China, Washington, D.C., Correspondence, September 4, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  42. French Embassy, Washington, D.C., Correspondence, October 13, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Washington, D.C., Correspondence, November 3, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Department of State, Correspondence, August 9, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  46. MS Notes to Foreign Legations, II, 327, cited in Moore, Digest, op. cit., IV, 441.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Francis Wharton, A Digest of the International Law of the United States (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1886), p. 625.

    Google Scholar 

  48. MS Department of State, file 701.611/648, cited in Hackworth, Digest, op. cit., IV, 415

    Google Scholar 

  49. British Foreign Office, Correspondence, op. cit., To be noted here is the emphasis on the functional approach, discussed above.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Embassy of the Republic of China, Correspondence, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Canadian Department of External Affairs, Correspondence, March 10, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ibid., September 25, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  54. French Embassy, Correspondence, October 13, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Department of State, Correspondence, August 9, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Correspondence, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Chief of Protocol, German Federal Republic, Correspondence, September 16, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Heyermans, op. cit., p. 618.

    Google Scholar 

  61. L’Affaire Gravenhoff, op. cit., p. 1183.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Fenton Textile Association Ltd. v. Krassin and Others, Times Law Reports, XXXVIII, (1921), 259.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Re the Turkish Inspector of Students, Case No. 80, Annual Digest (1946), p. 177.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Trost v. Tompkins, 44 A 2d, 226, October 11, 1945.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ibid., my emphasis.

    Google Scholar 

  67. 88 Fed. Supp. 915.

    Google Scholar 

  68. 6 Halsbury’s Laws of England, 509, cited ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Raoul Genet, Traité de Diplomatic et de Droit Diplomatique (Paris: Revue Générale de Droit International Public, 1931), I, 83.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Joseph Kunz, Correspondence, April 14, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  71. G. F. Von Martens, The Law of Nations, trans. William Cobbett (4th ed.; London: William Cobbett, 1824), P. 209.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Sir Cecil Hurst, “Les Immunités Diplomatiques,” Recueil Des Cours, XII (1926), 154–55.

    Google Scholar 

  73. William W. Bishop, Jr., Correspondence, May 19, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  74. M. Charles Calvo, Le Droit International Théorique et Pratique (Paris: Librairie Nouvelle de Droit et de Jurisprudence, 1896), III, 192.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Sir Neville Bland, Correspondence, August 5, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Supra, pp. 123, 125

    Google Scholar 

  77. Hyde, op. cit., 2nd ed., II, 1233.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Ibid., p. 1231. As Appendix A indicates, this is an error.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Foster, The Practice of Diplomacy, op. cit., p. 198.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Edward S. Corwin, The Constitution and What It Means Today (nth ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954), p. 115.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Graham H. Stuart, American Diplomatic and Consular Practice (2nd ed.; New York: D. Appleton Century Co., 1952). p. 147.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Oppenheim, op. cit., 2nd ed., I, 489.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Ogdon, op. cit., p. 204.

    Google Scholar 

  86. J. С. Bluntschli, Das Moderne Völkerrecht der Civilisierten Staaten (Nordlingen: H. Beck, 1878), p. 155.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Bishop, International Law, op. cit., p. 457.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Bishop, Correspondence, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  89. August W. Heffter, Das Europäische Völkerrecht der Gegenwart auf den bisherigen Grundlagen (Berlin: H. W. Müller, 1888), pp. 455–56.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Elmer Plischke, Correspondence, May 20, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Ibid. This reflects France’s view.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Harvard Law School, op. cit., Article 1 (b), p. 43.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Ibid., Article 1 (e), p. 46.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Ibid., Article 1 (b) Comment, p. 43.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Ibid., Article 1 (b), Comment, p. 44.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Ibid., Article 1 (e), Comment, p. 46.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Ibid., Article 18, Comment, p. 99.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Ibid., Article 1 (g) gives to even “administrative personnel” a special status “because of their public character.” Ibid., p. 49.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Kunz, Correspondence, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Bland, Correspondence, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Von Martens, op. cit., p. 266.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Plischke, Correspondence, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Oppenheim, op. cit., 2nd ed., I, 489. In the 8th edition he says they are inviolable, p. 860.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Plischke, Correspondence, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Calvo, op. cit., III, 192.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Deener, Correspondence, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Bishop, Correspondence, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Stuart, American Diplomatic and Consular Practice, op. cit., p. 147; Corwin, The Constitution and What It Means Today, op. cit., p. 115; Wriston, op. cit., p. 299.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Siegmund Kauffmann, Die Immunität der Nicht-Diplomaten; ein Beitrag zur Kodifikation des Völkerrechts, (Frankfurter Abhandlungen Zum Modernen Völkerrecht, Hft. 33 [Leipzig: Robert Noske, 1932]).

    Google Scholar 

  110. Siegmund Kauffmann, Die Immunität der Nicht-Diplomaten; ein Beitrag zur Kodifikation des Völkerrechts, (Frankfurter Abhandlungen Zum Modernen Völkerrecht, Hft. 33 [Leipzig: Robert Noske, 1932]). p. 65.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Siegmund Kauffmann, Die Immunität der Nicht-Diplomaten; ein Beitrag zur Kodifikation des Völkerrechts, (Frankfurter Abhandlungen Zum Modernen Völkerrecht, Hft. 33 [Leipzig: Robert Noske, 1932])., p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Siegmund Kauffmann, Die Immunität der Nicht-Diplomaten; ein Beitrag zur Kodifikation des Völkerrechts, (Frankfurter Abhandlungen Zum Modernen Völkerrecht, Hft. 33 [Leipzig: Robert Noske, 1932]).,passim.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Siegmund Kauffmann, Die Immunität der Nicht-Diplomaten; ein Beitrag zur Kodifikation des Völkerrechts, (Frankfurter Abhandlungen Zum Modernen Völkerrecht, Hft. 33 [Leipzig: Robert Noske, 1932])., passim.

    Google Scholar 

  114. “Ad Hoc Diplomacy,” A/CN.4/129, op. cit., p. 14–15.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1960, op. cit., p. 262.

    Google Scholar 

  116. “Ad Hoc Diplomacy,” A/CN.4/129, op. cit., p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Eagleton, “The Responsability of the State for the Protection of Foreign Officials,” op. cit., p. 312.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Ibid., p. 309.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Ibid., p. 310.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Ibid., p. 313.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Oppenheim, op. cit., p. 489; Kunz, Correspondence, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Rivier, op. cit., I, 156.

    Google Scholar 

  123. New York Times, May II, November 17, 22, 1923, as cited in Stuart, op. cit., p. 235.

    Google Scholar 

  124. World Peace Handbook (World Peace Foundation), Appendix III, cited in Eagleton, “The Responsibility of the State for the Protection of Foreign Officials.” op. cit.., p. 307.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Harvard Law School, op. cit., Article 1, Comment, p. 44.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Supra, p. 88.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Supra, p. 88.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Supra, p. 90.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Massey (U.S. v. Mexico, 1927), U.S.-Mexico, Opinions 1927–8, p. 228, cited in Meron, op. cit., p. 98.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Minutes of the Third Committee, 1930, V. 17, p. 237, cited in Briggs, op. cit., p. 711.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Eagleton, “The Responsibility of the State for the Protection of Foreign Officials,” op. cit., p. 313.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Annual Digest, 1925–26, Case No. 163.

    Google Scholar 

  133. United States (Massey Claim) v. Mexico, cited in Briggs, op. cit., 2nd ed., p. 683.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Annual Digest 1927–28, Case No. 150.

    Google Scholar 

  135. William Way Claim, United States-Mexican Claims Commission, 1928, as cited in Wesley L. Gould, An Introduction to International Law (New York: Harper Bros., 1957), pp. 525–526.

    Google Scholar 

  136. Lyders v. Lund 32 F (2d) 308, as cited in Hackworth, Digest op. cit., II, 470.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1960, op. cit., p. 263.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Sherwood, op. cit., p. 321.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Lyons, “Conclusiveness of the Foreign Office Certificate,” op. cit., pp. 116–147.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Sherwood, op. cit., p. 321.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Maurice Waters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1963 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Waters, M. (1963). Status of the Special Agent under International Law. In: The Ad Hoc Diplomat: A Study in Municipal and International Law. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0897-1_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0897-1_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-015-0346-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-0897-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation