Consular Privileges and Immunities

Abstract

The fundamental distinction that exists between diplomatic representatives and consular officers is reflected most in the matter of their privileges and immunities. Whilst international law guarantees the observance of diplomatic immunities by all nations, consular privileges and immunities are based on provisions of treaties and practice of states. There has been a general reluctance on the part of states to accord diplomatic privileges to consular officers, and the extent of consular immunities and privileges has varied considerably depending on the terms of respective treaties and municipal legislation. In fact, of all the immunities and privileges a consul may claim, only two have been universally recognised, that is, the inviolability of consular archives and non-liability for acts performed in official capacity.1 It has, however, been maintained by several authorities that consuls, as being agents of the appointing state and as recipients of exequaturs from the receiving state, must be given those immunities and privileges as are essential to the discharge of a consul’s functions, as otherwise the admission of these representatives would serve no useful purpose.2 Some of the recent writers have questioned the wisdom and logic of retaining the age old distinction between diplomatic agents and consuls in the matter of immunities and privileges, and it is asserted that consular officers at important posts have to assume greater responsibilities than the chief of a mission in smaller countries.3