Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:39:19.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Aspects of the Vienna Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Ernest L. Kerley
Ernest L. Kerley*
Affiliation:
United States Delegation
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities met at the Neue Hofburg in Vienna from March 2 to April 14, 1961, pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 1450 (XIV) which stated the Assembly’s decision to convene an international conference of plenipotentiaries to consider the question of diplomatic intercourse and immunities.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , January 1962 , pp. 88 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* The author expresses his appreciation to Warde M. Cameron, Deputy United States Representative, and to Misses Betty Gough, “Virginia Meekison, and Sylvia Nilsen of the Delegation for assistance and good advice. The views expressed herein should not, of course, be attributed to them or to the Department of State.

1 The following states participated: Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cambodia, Canada, Central African Republic, Ceylon, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo (Leopoldville), Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Federal Republic of Germany, Federation of Malaya, Finland, France, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Viet Nam, Rumania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia. U.N. Doc. A/CONF.20/10, April 15, 1961, Final Act; 55 A.J.I.L. 1062 (1961).

2 International Labor Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, League of Arab States, Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee. The International Atomic Energy Agency was also represented by an observer delegation. Ibid.

3 International Law Commission, Report covering Its 10th Session, 1958, U.N. General Assembly, 13th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9 at 11–27 (A/3859) (1958); 53 A.J.I.L. 230 at 254 (1959).

4 The Commission’s articles on ad hoc diplomacy were transmitted to the General Assembly in the I.L.C. Report covering Its 12th Session, 1960, U.N. General Assembly, 15th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9 at 36–37 (A/4425) (1960); 55 A.J.I.L. 223 at 303 (1961). By Res. 1504 (XV), the General Assembly referred these articles to the Conference. U.N. General Assembly, 15th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 16 at 59 (A/4684) (1960). A special committee set up to consider these articles at the plenary meeting considered that a substantial period of discussion would be required to incorporate the articles in the convention under preparation, and concluded that the topic should be referred back to the General Assembly with the recommendation that the Commission be requested to give this topic further study. The recommendation of the Committee on Special Missions was subsequently adopted by the Conference. U.N. Doc. A/CONF.20/SE.4 at 2 (1961). It should be noted that this and subsequent footnotes cite the provisional Conference records, since the final records were not available at the time of preparation of this article.

5 55 A.J.I.L. 1062 (1961).

6 The Federal Government of Austria, in addition to providing facilities for the Conference and a number of social events for the delegates, compensated the United Nations for the increased cost of holding the Conference in Vienna rather than at the European Headquarters of the United Nations at Geneva. U.N. Doc. A/4370 at 10 (1960).

7 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/10/ Add. 1 at 3 (1961).

8 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.175 (1961).

9 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.20/C.1/L.289 (1961); Mexico had originally proposed this title in U.N. Doc. A/CONF.20/C.1/L.193 (1961).

10 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.311 (1961).

11 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.313 (1961).

12 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.l/L. 332 (1961).

13 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SE.41 at 11 (1961).

14 I.L.C. Report covering its 10th Session, U.N. General Assembly, 13th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 9 at 11, footnote (A/3859) (1958); 53 A.J.I.L. 230 at 253 (1959).

15 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/8E.4 at 2 (1961).

16 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.6 (1961).

17 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.l/SB. 7 at 10 (1961).

18 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.l/SE. 7 at 8–11 (1961).

19 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.148 (1961). The proposed preamble also incorporated a proposal previously sponsored by the Rumanian Delegation. U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.29 (1961).

20 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.127 (1961).

21 U.N. Doe. A/CONF. 20/C.l/SE. 20 at 9 (1961).

22 Emphasis added. I.L.C. Report, cited note 3 above, at 16–17.

23 The representative of Yugoslavia. U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.l/SE. 20 at 4–5 (1961).

24 The representative of Venezuela. Ibid, at 4.

25 The representative of Rumania. Ibid, at 8.

26 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.l/L. 318 (1961).

27 The report of the Committee had been issued as a Conference document. U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/6, Annex I at 1 (1961).

28 General Assembly Res. 1236 ( X II), U.N. General Assembly, 12th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 18 at 5 (A/3805) (1957).

29 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.329 (1961).

30 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.323 (1961).

31 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.322 (1961).

32 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.l/SR. 39 at 5 (1961).

33 Ibid, at 11–12.

34 The representative of Ireland. Ibid, at 11.

35 U.N. Doe. A/CONF. 20/SR. 4 at 2 (1961).

36 U.N. Doc. A/OONF. 20/L.3 (1961).

37 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.3 (1961).

38 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.33 (1961).

39 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.l/SR. 8 at 3 (1961).

40 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.27 (1961).

41 In addition, note the comments of the representative of the U.A.R. on the applicability of Art. 40. U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.l/SR. 8 at 5 (1961).

42 Ibid, at 9.

43 Ibid. at 6.

44 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.82 (1961).

45 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.l/SR. 8 at 3,8 (1961).

46 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.30 (1961).

47 U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1958 at 92–93 (58. V.1, Vol. 1) (1958).

48 U.N. Docs. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SE.8 at 9, 12, 14; A/CONF. 20/C.1/SE.9 at 3,4 (1961).

49 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SE.8 at 10 (1961).

50 Ibid, at 12.

51 Ibid, at 10–11 (Spain), 11 (Mali, Viet Nam), 13 (Ireland, Israel); U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB.9 at 3 (Burma) (1961).

52 U.N. Docs. A/CONF.20/C.1/SE.8 at 13 (Argentina), 14 (Union of South Africa), 15 (Colombia); A/CONF. 20/C.1/SE.9 at 2 (Norway, Liberia), 3 (Burma) (1961).

53 Ibid. at 4–5.

54 Only Rumania and the Soviet Union spoke, each twice. U.N/. Doc. A/CONF. 20/SE. 4 at 5,7,8 (1961).

55 Ibid, at 7 (Argentina, Switzerland), 8 (Malaya).

56 Ibid. at 6 (Ghana), 8 (U.K.).

57 Ibid. at 10.

58 I.L.C. Report, cited note 3 above, at 14.

59 Ibid. at 56.

60 U.N. Doc. A/4164 at 43 (1959).

61 I.L.C. Report, cited note 3 above, at 56–57.

62 U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SEB, A/1958 at 112 (58. V.1, Vol. 1) (1958).

63 U.N. Doe. A/4164 at 17 (1958).

64 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.119 (1961).

65 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.65 (1961), withdrawn at the fourteenth meeting of the Committee of the Whole. U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SK.14 at 6 (1961).

66 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.86 (1961).

67 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.88 (1961). The thesis that the diplomatic missions exchanged between two states should be of the same size had previously been expressed in the 1957 Japanese comments to the Commission. I.L.C. Report, cited note 3 above.

68 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.80 (1961).

69 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.l/SE. 14 at 11 (1961).

70 Ibid.

71 Ibid. at 12.

72 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/SR.5 at 7 (1961). The text of Art. 10 had been slightly revised by the Drafting Committee.

73 Ibid. at 9.

74 Ibid.

75 U.N. Doe. A/CONF. 20/C.l/SE. 14 at 8 (1961).

76 I.L.C. Report, cited note 3 above, at 17.

77 Ibid.

78 The amendment was proposed by Bulgaria and the Byelorussian S.S.E., U.N. Doe. A/ CONF. 20/C.1/L. 25 (1961), and subsequently amended by Japan, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.305 (1961).

79 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.113 (1961).

80 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.122 (1961).

81 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.128 (1961).

82 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.20/C.1/L.142 (1961).

83 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.157 (1961).

84 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.160/Rev. 1 (1961).

85 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.169 (1961).

86 See statements of sponsors. U.N. Docs. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SE. 20 at 10, 11; A/ CONF. 20/C.1/SE. 21 at 2–4 (1961).

87 Ibid, at 4.

88 Prior to the withdrawal of other proposals the Soviet representative, while supporting the Indian proposal, suggested that it be amended by the addition of the second paragraph of the Venezuelan proposal. U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SE.21 at 3 (1961). After the withdrawal of all other proposals, including the Venezuelan, the statement of the Indian representative did not respond to the Soviet suggestion. Ibid, at 5. The Soviet representative then noted that India had not objected to his suggestion, and that the second paragraph of the Venezuelan proposal could thus be retained. Ibid. The Soviet tactic appears to have been an effort to gain for the second paragraph of the Venezuelan proposal the status of an amendment to the Indian proposal accepted by the latter. As such, it would have been voted on with the original Indian proposal as a single proposal. While the proposition that suggestions are deemed accepted unless their recipients specifically reject them is disputable, the tactic was adroitly handled and initially successful. It was countered, however, by Norway, which requested a separate vote on the second paragraph. Ibid. The effect of the Soviet effort, therefore, was merely the reintroduction of the second paragraph of the Venezuelan proposal.

89 Ibid.

90 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/SE.6 at 3 (1961).

91 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 21 at 4,5 (1961).

92 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.H6 (1961).

93 “A special application of this principle [of inviolability] is the rule that no writ may be served within the premises of the mission, and that no summons to appear before a court may be served in the premises by a process server.. .. There is nothing to prevent service through the post if it can be effected in that way.” I.L.C. Report, cited note 3 above, at 17.

94 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 22 at 13 (1961).

95 U.N. Docs. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 21 at 9 (Mexico), 10 (Argentina); A/CONF. 20/ C.1/SB. 22 at 3 (Spain), 7 (Ghana), 10 (Turkey) (1961).

96 Argentine statement: “The Argentine delegation approved the idea behind the Japanese amendment but, if it were to be interpreted as permitting the service of a writ through the post, it would vote against it. “U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 21 at 10 (1961).

97 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 129 (1961).

98 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L.163 (1961).

99 1 I.L.C. Yearbook (1957) 57–60 (A/CN.4/SBB.A/1957).

100 1 I.L.C. Yearbook (1958) 127–130 (A/CN.4/SBE.A/1958).

101 Ibid, at 129–130.

102 I. L. C. Report, cited note 38 above, at 57–58.

103 U.N. Doc. A/4164 at 43 (1959).

104 See statements of Argentina and Spain. U.N. Docs. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB.21 at 10; A/CONF. 20/C.1/SE.22 at 2 (1961).

105 Ibid. at 3.

106 Ibid. at 14. The receiving state would in any event not lack a remedy in such cases. During the Commission’s discussion of this problem Mr. Bartos recalled an analogous case in which the Yugoslav Government, after formally recognizing the |rights of the diplomatic agent, declared him persona non grata on the grounds that he lacked human feeling. 1 I.L.C. Yearbook (1958) 130 (A/CN.4/SEE.A/1958).

107 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 161 (1961).

108 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 22 at 3 (Spain), 6 (Yugoslavia), 7 (Ghana) (1961).

109 Ibid. at 7.

110 1 I.L.C. Yearbook (1958) 132–134 (A/CN. 4/SEE.A/1958).

111 I.L.C. Report, cited note 3 above, at 17–18.

112 U.N. Doc. A/4164 at 43 (1959).

113 U.N. Docs. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SR. 21 at 10 (Argentina); A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 22 at 2 (Spain), 4 (Tunisia), 12 (Indonesia), 14 (U. A. B.) (1961).

114 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SR. 23 at 2 (1961).

115 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/SE. 6 at 4 (1961).

116 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 114 (1961).

117 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SE. 22 at 15–16 (1961).

118 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 1 at 4 (1961). See the U. S. statement at the second meeting, which was more specific than the summary record suggests. U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SE. 2 at 3 (1961).

119 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 1 at 5 (1961).

120 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 2 at 2 (1961).

121 U.N. Doe. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SE. 22 at 10 (1961).

122 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SE. 21 at 10 (1961).

123 Ibid, at 8.

124 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SE. 22 at 15 (1961).

125 Ibid. at 16.

126 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 123 (1961).

127 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SE. 22 at 12 (1961).

128 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 168 (1961).

129 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SE. 21 at 7 (1961).

130 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SE. 22 at 10 (1961).

131 Ibid, at 13.

132 U.N. Doe. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 132 (1961).

133 In the French text: ameublement. I.L.C. Report, cited note 3 above, at 17.

134 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SE. 21 at 7 (1961).

135 Ibid. at 9.

136 See, e.g. ibid, at 10 (Norway); U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SR. 22 at 5 (Yugoslavia), 10 (Turkey), 11 (Rumania).

137 Ibid. at 11 (U. K.), 16 (U. S., Ukrainian S.S.R.).

138 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/L.2/Add. 1 at 7 (1961).

139 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SR. 22 at 16 (1961).

140 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/SR. 6 at 3 (1961).

141 Ibid, at 4.

142 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SR. 21 at 6 (1961).

143 Above, at p. 104.

144 I.L.C. Report, cited note 3 above, at 18.

145 Ibid. at 58.

146 U.N. Doc. A/4164 at 45 (1959).

147 One amendment did not relate to this question. Belgium proposed to add after the words “head of mission” the words “acting as such.” At the suggestion of its sponsor (U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SR. 23 at 10 (1961)) it was referred to the Drafting Committee (Ibid. at 15), which did not incorporate it in its draft articles.

148 U.N. Doe. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 130 (1961).

149 U.N. Doe. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 143 (1961).

150 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 159 (1961).

151 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 166 (1961).

152 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 23 at 9 (1961).

153 Ibid, at 11.

154 Ibid, at 13.

155 Ibid. at 10 (U. K.), 11 (Nigeria, Venezuela, France, Italy, U. S.), 12 (Liberia, Brazil), 13 (Ceylon, Malaya, Morocco, Chile, Luxembourg).

156 Ibid. at 10 (U. K.), 11 (France, Italy, U. S.), 13 (Malaya, Morocco, Luxembourg).

157 Ibid, at 12.

158 Ibid, at 11.

159 A number of states spoke against the amendment later in the debate. Ibid, at 12 (Ghana), 13 (Iraq), 14 (Senegal, Tunisia).

160 Ibid, at 14.

161 Ibid, at 14–15.

162 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/SE. 6 at 4.

163 Ibid, at 5.

164 Ibid.

165 I.L.C. Report, cited note 3 above,

166 1 I.L.O. Yearbook (1957) 74 (A/CN.4/SEK.A/1957).

167 Ibid. at 76.

168 Ibid.

169 Ibid. at 76 (Padilla Nervo, Zourek), 77 (Khoman).

170 Ibid, at 76 (Zourek, El Erian).

171 Ibid. at 77.

172 1 I.L.C. Yearbook (1958) 142 (A/CN.4/SEE.A/1958).

173 U.N. Doc. A/CONP. 20/C.1/L. 147 (1961).

174 U.N. Doc. A/CONP. 20/C.1/L.140 (1961).

175 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 145 (1961).

176 U.N. Doc. A/CONP. 20/C.1/L. 158 (1961).

177 U.N. Doc. A/CONP. 20/C.1/L. 165 (1961).

178 U.N. Doe. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 131 (1961).

179 U.N. Doc. A/CONP. 20/C.1/L. 154 (1961).

180 U.N. Doc. A/CONP. 20/C.1/L. 138 (1961).

181 U.N. Doc. A/CONP. 20/C.1/L. 264 (1961).

182 U.N. Doc. A/CONP. 20/SE. 25 at 9 (India) (1961).

183 Ibid. at 11 (India).

184 Ibid. at 16.

185 U.N. Doc. A/CONP. 20/SE. 26 at 4 (1961).

186 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/SE. 25 at 9–10 (1961).

187 U.N. Doe. A/CONF. 20/SE. 26 at 4 (1961).

188 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/SE. 25 at 7 (U.S.), 9 (India) (1961).

189 U.N. at 16.

190 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/SE. 26 at 10 (Iran), 19 (Libya) (1961); but see the statement of Israel that the use of radio transmitters reduced the expenses of smaller states, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/SE. 25 at 17 (1961).

191 U.N. Doe. A/CONF. 20/SE. 26 at 8 (Tunisia), 11 (Morocco) (1961).

192 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/SE. 29 at 13 (Nigeria) (1961).

193 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/SE. 26 at 11 (1961).

194 Ibid.

195 Ibid.

196 The Soviet representative supported the Spanish motion on the grounds that his government “had always believed that decisions should be reached by persuasion.” Ibid.

197 The U. K. representative supported the Spanish motion on the grounds that the rapid pace of debate had left little time for consultation among delegations. Ibid, at 12.

198 Ibid.

199 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/SB. 29 at 11 (1961).

200 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 291 (1961).

201 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/SB. 29 at 11 (1961).

202 ibid, at 12.

203 Ibid. at 17.

204 Ibid, at 14. The part of the U. S. amendment to the first paragraph which extended the right of communication to officials of the sending state in the receiving state and third states was not withdrawn. It failed of adoption by a vote of 19–19–28. Ibid. at 18.

205 Ibid. at 13 (Nigeria), 15 (Tunisia), 16 (Spain, Colombia).

206 Ibid, at 18.

207 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/SE. 6 at 7 (1961).

208 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/L.15 (1961).

209 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/SB.6 at 10 (1961).

210 1.L.C. Report, cited note 3 above, at 19.

211 I.L.C. Yearbook (1957) 77–83, 208–209, 227 (A/CN.4/SER.A/1957).

212 Ibid. at 81.

213 Ibid. at 82.

214 Ibid. 82 (Spiropoulos, Padilla Nervo, Matine-Daftary, Tunkin, Salle), 83 (Zourek).

215 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 125 (1961).

216 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 154 (1961).

217 U.N. Docs. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 151, L. 151/Rev. 1, L. 151/Rev. 2 (1961).

218 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 294 (1961).

219 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 25 at 6, 9 (1961).

220 Ibid, at 8.

221 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SR. 29 at 14 (1961).

222 Ibid, at 19. 22s Ibid.

224 Ibid.

225 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 154 (1961).

226 U.N. Doe. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SE. 29 at 15 (1961).

227 Ibid. at 18.

228 Ibid. at 19.

229 U.N. Doe. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 286 (1961).

230 U.N. Doe. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SE. 29 at 20 (1961).

231 U.N. Doe. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 154 (1961).

232 U.N. Doe. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SE. 29 at 21 (1961).

233 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 133 (1961).

234 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 29 at 20 (1961).

235 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 286 (1961).

236 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SE. 29 at 21 (1961).

237 U.N. Doe. A/CONF. 20/SE. 6 at 9–10 (1961).

238 1.L.C. Report, cited note 3 above, at 58.

239 U.N. Doe. A/CN.4/116 at 8 (1958).

240 U.N. Doe. A/4164 at 46 (1959).

241 U.N. Doe. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 186 (1961).

242 U.N. Doe. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 186/Rev. 1 (1961).

243 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 215 (1961); this amendment was also issued, apparently inadvertently, as U.N. Doe. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 217 (1961).

244 U.N. Docs. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SK. 27 at 9 (Switzerland), 11 (Yugoslavia); A/ CONF. 20/C.1/SR. 28 at 6 (Italy) (1961).

245 U.N. Docs. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SR. 27 at 8 (U.S.S.R.), 15 (Czechoslovakia), 16 (Hungary); A/CONF. 20/C.1/SR. 28 at 3 (U.S.), 4 (U.K.), 5 (Finland), 6 (Rumania), 7 (U.A.R.) (1961).

246 U.N. Docs. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SR. 27 at 8 (U.S.S.R.); A/CONF. 20/C.1/SR. 28 at 5 (Finland) (1961). Two states supported it : U.N. Docs. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SR. 27 at 11 (Yugoslavia); A/CONF. 20/C.1/SR. 28 at 6 (Italy) (1961).

247 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SR. 28 at 8 (1961); the roll-call vote was requested by Belgium, which .voted in favor of the amendment.

248 Ibid.

249 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 173 (1961).

250 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 174 (1961).

251 I.L.C. Report, cited note 3 above, at 20.

252 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 27 at 5 (1961).

253 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 156 (1961).

254 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 27 at 5 (1961).

255 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 36 at 3 (Netherlands, Venezuela, Argentina, Chile), 4 (Sweden, Belgium, France, Ecuador), 5 (Guatemala, Liberia, Brazil, Mexico, Peru), 6 (Japan, Italy, Portugal, U. K., Viet Nam, Norway), 7 (Malaya and India, El Salvador) (1961).

256 Ibid. at 4 (Spain).

257 Ibid. (France).

258 Ibid, at 6 (Norway).

259 Ibid. at 7. Art. 40 (bis) became Art. 42 of the Vienna Convention.

260 Ibid.

261 Ibid, at 6.

262 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 27 at 9 (1961).

263 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 288 (1961).

264 It was commented on only by the Delegation of Finland, which accepted the principle of the Australian amendment but expressed doubts as to the desirability of embodying it in the convention. U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 28 at 5 (1961).

265 Ibid. at 8.

266 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 176 (1961).

267 1 I.L.C. Yearbook (1957) 104 (A/CN. 4/SEE.A/1957).

268 Ibid.

269 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 195 (1961).

270 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 27 at 7 (1961).

271 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 260 (1961). With regard to the first part of the U. S. amendment, the Commission’s commentary had taken a different view:

“. .. [T]he Commission considered whether paragraph 2 of the article should not contain an exception to cover the cases referred to in paragraph 1. The Commission concluded that these cases should not be mentioned. It is debatable whether the question of the obligation to give evidence is relevant in cases where the diplomatic agent is himself party to the suit. At all events—and this was the decisive point in the Commission’s opinion—in such cases the diplomatic agent is called upon to testify in his own interest and, if he fails to do so, he must accept the consequences.” I.L.C. Report, cited note 3 above, at 20.

272 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 221 (1961).

273 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SR. 27 at 4 (1961).

274 Ibid, at 15 (Czechoslovakia), 16 (Hungary). Yugoslavia also supported the Soviet amendment. Ibid, at 12.

275 See the statement of the Soviet delegate on this point. Ibid, at 14.

276 U.N. Doc. No. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SR. 28 at 5 (1961).

277 Ibid, at 8.

278 Ibid.

279 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 229 (1961).

280 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 186 (1961).

281 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 221 (1961).

282 U.N Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SR. 27 at 8 (U.S.S.R.) (1961).

283 Ibid, at 13.

284 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SR. 28 at 5 (1961).

285 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 186/Rev. 1 (1961).

286 It is the author’s recollection that the Spanish amendment was withdrawn by its sponsor at the twenty-eighth meeting of the Committee of the Whole, prior to the voting. This is confirmed by the failure of the Spanish representative to object when his proposal was not voted on. The provisional record contains no indication, however, that the Spanish amendment was withdrawn.

287 TLN. Doc. A/CONF. 20/L. 17 (1961).

288 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/SE. 6 at 12 (1961).

289 See statement of representative of Italy, ibid.

290 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/SE. 7 at 5 (1961).

291 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/SE. 6 at 2 (1961).

292 Ibid, at 3.

293 Ibid.

294 Ibid.

295 Ibid, at 5.

296 Ibid.

297 Ibid, at 6.

298 Ibid.

299 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.13/L.57; 52 A.J.I.L. 862 (1958).

300 l I.L.C. Yearbook (1958) 184–191 (A/CN.4/SEE.A/1958); 1 ibid. (1957) 151–155, 223 (A/CN. 4/SEK.A/1957).

301 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 296 (1961).

302 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 302/Corr. 1 (1961). In introducing his delegation’s amendment, the representative of China appears to have contemplated that the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction under Art. 36(2) of its Statute obviated the need for a specific provision in the convention. U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 37 at 10–11 (1961).

303 U.N. Docs. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 139 and L. 139/Bev. 1 (1961).

304 U.N. Docs. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 316 and L. 316/Add. 1 (1961).

305 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 307 (1961).

306 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 299 (1961).

307 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/L. 325 (1961).

308 U.N. Docs. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SR. 37 at 12 (Japan), 13 (U. S., Switzerland), 14 (Yugoslavia), 15 (Sweden); A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 38 at 2 (Israel), 3 (France), 4 (U. K.), 6 (Philippines, Colombia), 7 (Ecuador) (1961).

309 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 37 at 13 (1961).

310 Ibid.

311 U.N. Docs. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 37 at 11 (Poland), 13 (Bulgaria), 14 (U.S.S.B.); A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 38 at 2 (Czechoslovakia), 3, 5 (Rumania), 6 (Albania) (1961).

312 U.N. Docs. A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 37 at 11 (Argentina), 14 (Guatemala); A/CONF. 20/C.1/SB. 38 at 4 (Tunisia, Viet Nam), 5 (Indonesia) (1961).

313 Ibid, at 8.

314 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/L. 16 (1961).

315 U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 20/SB. 11 at 2–3 (1961).

316 Ibid, at 3 (U. S., Philippines), 4 (Norway, Belgium, Iran), 5 (Italy, France, Colombia), 7 (Sweden, Mexico) (1961).

317 Ibid, at 3.

318 Ibid, at 9.

319 Ibid.