Consular Staff Research Articles

Foreign Consulates in Odesa (1920s – 1930s)

The purpose of the research paper is to highlight the history of repatriation missions and consular institutions of Poland, Albania, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Japan and Spain in Odesa during 1922-1938, analysis of the main areas of activity within the consular district and the consular staff’s characteristics.
 The scientific novelty. The general picture of the foreign diplomatic presence in Odesa, represented by the repatriation missions of Turkey, Albania and Poland, as well as five consulates, has been reconstructed. Their personnel composition and key areas of activity are shown.
 Conclusions. With the creation of Soviet Ukraine, Odesa continued to remain a strategically important city for both European and Asian countries, which, having restored diplomatic and consular relations with the USSR, opened their consulates here. During the 1920s and 1930s, the repatriation missions of Poland, Albania, and Turkey operated in the city first (during 1922-1925), and later the consular offices of three European countries – Germany, Italy, Spain, and two Asian countries – Turkey and Japan. The foreign consular institutions’ diplomatic staff consisted exclusively of representatives of the countries they represented and were career diplomats. In turn, among the representatives of the administrative and technical staff were citizens of these countries and Soviet Ukraine, and the service staff consisted with local residents.
 Since its establishment, foreign consular representatives have contributed to the development of trade, economic, cultural and scientific relations of their countries with the UkrSSR. Important spheres of consulates’ activity were protection of the citizens’ interests of their countries, organization of material assistance for them and promotion of their departure to their homeland. In the process of gathering information about the socio-political situation in the USSR, the consuls recorded the unfolding of the Holodomor, pointing out its culprits, noted the negative consequences of collectivization and industrialization, etc.
 But, despite the constantly emphasized friendship in relations between the USSR and the countries listed above, their consulates and employees found themselves under the Soviet special services close supervision, which considered any consulates representatives’ actions as espionage. In order to be fully effective, the special services recruited representatives from both consulate employees and persons who were in contact with the consul. And after the consulates were closed, they began the process of “cleaning” them. In 1937-1938, the USSR’s relations with Italy, Germany, Turkey, Japan, and Spain became strained, which led to the closure of the consular network in Odesa.

Repatriation of Slovenian Nationals During Mobility Lockdowns Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Repatriation due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic was the most extensive assisted return in Slovenia’s history. The article explores governmental responsiveness to the struggles and social risks experienced by Slovenian nationals stranded abroad during the global outbreak of COVID-19 from February to April 2020. It builds on a review of EU and national-level reports, a qualitative analysis of media sources, and expert interviews. The article highlights the lack of detailed systemic guidelines on transnational social protection in crisis situations and argues that the success in the repatriation of Slovenian nationals can be primarily attributed to the ad hoc measures set in place by highly motivated and inventive consular staff.

Радянські спецслужби vs японської дипломатії (на матеріалах японського консульства в Одесі в міжвоєнний період)

The article is devoted to the activities of the Japanese consulate in Odesa during 1926–1937, which since its opening has been under the “watchful eye” of the Soviet secret services. Throughout the period of the consulate’s existence in the city, it was closely monitored externally and internally, both for its work and for the contacts of consular staff in the city and abroad. The Odesa branch of the DPU established a network of internal agencies that worked directly at the consulate. The consulate was “served” by 11 secret staff, who provided daily relevant information on the activities of the consulate and its staff. The main reasons for such actions were the absence of Japanese citizens in Odesa and the lack of trade and economic relations through the port of Odesa. The Soviet secret services concluded that the opening of the consulate was aimed exclusively at espionage in the USSR. This inference was reinforced by the active study by Japanese employees of the political, economic, cultural, and military situation not only in the consular district but also in other cities of the USSR and the USSR in general, especially the Caucasus. This was facilitated by the constant travels of the Japanese consul in the cities of the USSR. Each employee of the Japanese consulate in Odesa was given a case-form, where the defendant received a nickname, intelligence materials about his activities, personal characteristics and a list of contacts with local citizens were collected, which then fell under the “development” of DPU special agents. The article reveals the process of recruiting “important” representatives of the consulate by Soviet special services. As a result, the translator S. Feldman, the courier-security guard of the Japanese consulate in Odesa M. Tsibulko, the technical secretary Livshits, the typist I. Zagorskaya and others were taken into “agency development”. Recruiters from the DPU’s counterintelligence department took a personal approach to each of them.

Hasty Departures: The Evacuation of American Citizens from Europe at the Outbreak of World War II

When World War II began in September 1939, upwards of one hundred thousand American citizens were residing and traveling throughout Europe. Over the next three months, nearly seventy-five thousand of these individuals would be returned to the United States on crowded passenger ships and merchant vessels. This evacuation, organized and facili­tated by the US government, shipping representatives, and labor organizers, proved to be difficult. Besides contending with logistical obstacles, officials leading the operations had to assist evacuees with bookings and other personal matters, contend with rowdy ship crews, and ensure that the vessels traveling across the Atlantic Ocean were safe from Ger­man U-boats. This article offers insight into the Americans who were assisted, the US government officials who orchestrated the repatriation efforts, and the ships that were involved in the transatlantic crossings. It also provides a unique glimpse into the activities of American consular staff in France, Britain, and Ireland during the early days of the inter­national conflict.&nbsp

Reconfiguring Desecuritization: Contesting Expert Knowledge in the Securitization of Migration

ABSTRACT This article introduces desecuritization as the missing supplement of the conception of securitization as a dispersed social process. It calls for the creative development of approaches that destabilise the credibility of security professionals’ claimed expert knowledge. To illustrate the potential of this approach, the article combines insights from the sociology of ignorance (agnotology) and the autonomy of migration literature to deconstruct the framing of migrants as cunning tricksters, a narrative that features prominently in processes of securitization. Within the Schengen visa regime discussed in this article, the trickster narrative emerges in the portrayal of visa applicants as deploying various modes of deception like ‘document fraud’ or ‘visa shopping’. Based on ethnographic fieldwork at consulates in North Africa, this article demonstrates, in contrast, that practices like applying at a consulate known for a more liberal decision-making practice constitute coping strategies by which migrants try to mitigate the uncertainty that a culture of suspicion, the discretionary power of consular staff and the heterogeneity of opaque decision-making criteria create for them. Ultimately, the analysis shows that security practices produce not only knowledge, but also various forms of nonknowledge which provoke the instances of ‘trickery’ that ever more pervasive security practices are supposed to forestall.

ЗАКОН РОДЖЕРСА 1924 РОКУ: СТАНОВЛЕННЯ ПРОФЕСІЙНОЇ ЗОВНІШНЬОЇ СЛУЖБИ США

The article is devoted to the analysis of the formation of the legal framework that made possible the existence and functioning of the US foreign service. The purpose of the article is to clarify the preface and the course of formation of the professional foreign service of the United States, which was reflected in the adoption of the Rogers Act. The methodological basis of the study. The study was based on the principle of historicism, which contributed to the consideration of the phenomenon under study in its development and made it possible to identify periods in the formation of a professional diplomatic service. The use of the problem-chronological method contributed to the preservation of the historical heredity and integrity of the picture; the application of the comparative method made it possible to identify significant changes that occurred after the adoption of Rogers’ Law, which was considered through the use of the method of analysis. A historiographical description of the main scientific works devoted to the research topic is given. Analyzed works A. Evans, T. Lay, I. Stewart etc., which became the basis for the study. The scientific novelty lies in the systematization of ideas about qualitative and quantitative changes in the diplomatic service after the adoption of the relevant law. The author concludes that before the adoption of the Rogers Act there was no control over the selection of diplomatic and consular staff and the negative consequences of such a decision were especially evident during the First World War. Therefore, the historical conditions in which America found itself at that time became a challenge for the continued existence of the consular and diplomatic services, and therefore the issue of restructuring and modernization of these services in the United States and its transfer to another, qualitatively new level. In general, the author emphasizes the change in the status of foreign service, which was introduced by relevant legislation, namely the Rogers Act, the need for which was caused by certain historical conditions of the American state and its place on the world stage. Prior to the enactment of the Diplomatic Service Act, there was virtually no control over the selection of diplomatic and consular personnel representing the United States on the world stage. After the First World War, it became clear that the diplomatic service needed to be restructured. That is why Rogers’ law was passed, which, in fact, was the first legislative attempt to resolve this issue.

BRITISH CONSULATES IN PORT CITIES OF THE NORTHERN BLACK SEA AND AZOV REGION OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE 19TH - EARLY 20TH CENTURIES

Summary. The purpose of the research is to study the history of British consular offices in port cities of the Southern Ukraine at the times of the Russian Empire. The research methodology is based on search and comprehensive study of representative complexes of primarily sources on the history of the British consulates in the region, in particular, the annual consular reports to London. The scientific novelty: changes in the network of consulates of the British Empire and in the configuration of British consular districts in the region have been tracked; lists of consular representatives in each consular office have been composed; the specifics of the consuls’ status, functions and working conditions have been researched. Сonclusions. The development of the network of British consular offices in port cities of the Northern Black Sea and Azov region, which took place after the end of the Crimean War, unambiguously demonstrated the understanding by official London prospects of the deployment of economic ties with the region. During the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries the consular district of Odessa turned into the largest British consular district on the territory of the Russian Empire in number of consular offices. Forming the consular staff, the British Empire for a long time preferred appointing «non-trading» consuls, or «consul de carriere», which required considerably more money, but allowed consuls to focus on their professional duties, while the majority of consular representatives of other countries in the region were engaged in business. On the other hand, approaches of official London to the formation of the consular staff, financing consuls and the regulation of their activities had a number of disadvantages, which ultimately led to a revision of these approaches. However, the dynamics of development of economic relations between ports of the Northern Black Sea and Azov region and the British Empire was affected by a wide range of factors, and, despite the efforts of the British consuls, this dynamics was not always positive. So, the consuls only had to report about such a state of affairs, recalling with nostalgia «better times» of British trade in the region.

Foreigners on America's Death Rows: The Legal Combat Over Access to a Consul by John Quigley

Reviewed by: Foreigners on America's Death Rows: The Legal Combat Over Access to a Consul by John Quigley Sandra Babcock (bio) John Quigley, Foreigners on America's Death Rows: The Legal Combat Over Access to a Consul (Cambridge, 2018), ISBN 9781108428231, 282 pages. Had it not been for the persistence of capital punishment in the United States, Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) would likely have remained an obscure treaty provision, little known and honored in the breach throughout the country. After all, the treaty generated little controversy in the two decades after the US Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification. Dedicated largely to the functions and immunities of consular posts, the treaty contains only a few provisions bearing on the rights of detained individuals. Article 36, however, provides that detained foreign nationals have the right to communicate with consular officials and to have consular posts notified of their detention—and further stipulates that the authorities must advise detained nationals of those rights "without delay."1 As of 1993, no US scholars—with the sole exception of Luke T. Lee2—had written about the implementation of Article 36 with respect to detained foreign nationals.3 In the early 1990s, a series of capital cases changed all that. In Foreigners on America's Death Rows, John Quigley has meticulously documented the slow awakening of US-based litigators to widespread violations of Article 36 in the cases of foreign nationals sentenced to death in the United States. Written in a style designed to be accessible to practitioners unfamiliar with international law, the book provides an exhaustive analysis of the diplomatic debates over the text of Article 36, the intent of the drafters, and the often-flawed analysis of the text by US courts. Professor Quigley has actively participated in litigation in both domestic and international courts over violations of Article 36. The book effectively combines scholarly research with the insights he has gained over decades of engagement in the cases of foreign nationals on death row. It is essential reading for any practitioner, scholar, or jurist grappling with the interpretation of Article 36. If the US Supreme Court ever grants certiorari to decide whether individuals have enforceable rights under the treaty (a question it has thrice refused to address directly), judicial clerks will be reaching for Foreigners on America's Death Rows to inform their bench memos. Along with Professor Quigley and a handful of other lawyers, I have been litigating violations of the Vienna Convention in capital cases for over two [End Page 1003] decades. In 1992, I became the first lawyer to litigate an Article 36 violation in a capital case. I was counsel to the Government of Mexico in Avena and Other Nationals (Mexico. v. United States) in the International Court of Justice4 and have been involved in the US Supreme Court cases of Medellín v. Texas5 and Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon6 as well as dozens of other cases in state courts—many of which are discussed in Foreigners on America's Death Rows. I thought I would have little to learn from Quigley's text, but I was wrong. The brilliance of Foreigners on America's Death Rows derives from Quigley's synthesis of diplomatic archives and legal records to support his argument that the rights enshrined in Article 36 are integral to the fairness of criminal prosecutions. As I read through it, I kept wishing that Professor Quigley had published the text before the litigation in Avena, and before the US courts adopted a series of poorly reasoned decisions denying individual remedies for violations of consular rights. The material on which he based much of the book did not yet exist, but it is hard for the informed reader to escape the sense of opportunities lost. Part I of Foreigners on America's Death Rows grounds the reader in the longstanding custom of consular assistance and its eventual codification into Article 36. The first chapter describes the evolution of consular practice in the United States under customary law. Focusing on intervention by US consular staff in support of Americans detained abroad, Quigley uses historical examples...

The Murder of Jamal Khashoggi: Immunities, Inviolability and the Human Right to Life

On 2 October 2018, Jamal Khashoggi, a dissident Saudi journalist residing in the United States, where he was a columnist for the Washington Post, was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. This article seeks to comprehensively analyze Khashoggi’s killing from the standpoint of the human right to life. It sets out the relevant legal framework, addressing inter alia the issue that Saudi Arabia is not a party to what would otherwise be the most relevant human rights treaty, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It examines not only the obligations of Saudi Arabia, but also those of Turkey and the United States, in protecting Khashoggi’s right to life from third parties, and ensuring respect through an effective investigation of his killing and mutual cooperation for the purpose of that investigation. It also looks at the extraterritorial scope of these various obligations.Finally, the article examines possible norm conflicts between state obligations under human rights law and their obligations under diplomatic and consular law, such as the inviolability of diplomatic and consular premises, agents, and means of transportation. The article argues that the fundamentals of the operation of the right to life in its various aspects regarding Khashoggi are reasonably clear. First, before the killing, the positive duty to protect Khashoggi’s life was triggered if Turkey and the United States knew, or ought to have known, of a real and immediate risk to Khashoggi’s life. It seems possible, if not likely, that these two states, and potentially others as well, did in fact possess such information so that the threat to Khashoggi’s life was reasonably foreseeable to them. If such was the case, at the very minimum these states had the duty to warn Khashoggi of the threat, which they did not do. Second, there is no doubt that Saudi Arabia was in flagrant violation of the negative obligation to refrain from arbitrary deprivations of life. As for Turkey, if it knew, or ought to have known, of the threat to Khashoggi’s life in the premises of the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, it would have been required by its obligation to protect his life to forcibly enter the consulate if that was the only way of saving his life. Third, Khashoggi’s killing engaged the procedural positive obligation to investigate his death. The article shows that many of the decisions that Turkey had made which compromised the effectiveness of the investigation, but which Turkey claimed it had to pursue in order to respect consular privileges and immunities, were in fact not required by consular law. For example, no rule of international law required Turkey to allow the Saudi agents to leave the country, to allow the consul-general and other members of consular staff to leave the country, or to ask Saudi Arabia for consent to search the consul-general’s residence or the consulate’s vehicles. The article concludes that regardless of whether accountability for Khashoggi’s killing is ever fully realized, this does not change the fact that his right to life was protected by international law, as was the right to life of countless other victims of authoritarian regimes worldwide. The murder was a violation of the rights Khashoggi himself had had under international law, not simply those of the Turkish state. It deserves to be discussed in those terms.

Public Notary Services In Malaysia

Starting January 5, 2015 the Embassy in Kuala Lumpur requires appointments for all notarial services. Please bring your appointment confirmation sheet and arrive at the embassy 10 minutes before the appointment time[1]. It can provide most of the same notarial services that a public notary is authorized by law to perform within the United States. Services are similary available as in U.S. and to foreign nationals with documents intended for use within the U.S. By following to the ACS Unit when requesting notary services: The documents to be notarized, including attachments, if any. The passport and one other photo identification. Witnesses, if required. (Consular staff are not alloitd to serve as witnesses.) $50.00 or the equivalent in Malaysian ringgit for each seal. Notary fees can be paid in cash or by credit card.Keywords: Notary, Management, Malaysia.[1] https://evisaforms.state.gov/acs/default.asp?postcode=KLL&appcode=1, Accessed on 15th February 2019

Family Matters: Claiming Rights across the US-Mexico Migratory System.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) created an immigration system favoring the immigration of spouses, children, and parents of US citizens, thereby establishing family unity as the cornerstone of US immigration policy. Despite this historical emphasis on family unity, backlogs and limited visas for non-immediate relatives of US citizens and legal permanent residents, the militarization of the US-Mexico border, punitive measures for those who enter without inspection, such as the forced separation of children from their parents at the US border, and an aggressive policy of deportation have made it more difficult for members of Mexican binational families to unify. How do members of Mexican binational families manage the hardships that result from US immigration policies that prolong and force family separation? Immigrants and return migrants alike may not be aware of their rights and the legal remedies that exist to enforce them. Structural barriers such as poverty, legal status, fear of deportation, lack of proficiency in English, and lack of familiarity with government bureaucracies no doubt prevent many migrants in the United States and return migrants in Mexico from coming forward to request legal assistance and relief in the courts. Despite these barriers, when it comes to family matters, members of some Mexican binational families can and do assert their rights. In this article, we analyze an administrative database of the Department of Legal Protection of the Mexican consular network that documents migrant legal claims resulting from family separation, along with findings from 21 interviews with consular staff and community organizations in three consular jurisdictions - El Paso, Raleigh, and San Francisco - to investigate the sociolegal processes of claims. Our investigation centers on the mediating role the Mexican state - via its consular network - has developed to assist binational families as they attempt to assert their rights and resolve child support and child custody problems resulting from prolonged and forced family separation. We find that the resolution of binational family claims in part depends on the institutional infrastructure that has developed at local, state, and federal levels, along with the commitment and capacity of the receiving and sending states and the binational structures they establish. These binational structures transcend the limitations of national legal systems to achieve and implement family rights and obligations across borders.

The possibilities of the implementation of data collection techniques in consular affairs

Consular affairs refer to the activities being restored by two countries within the framework of their consular relations on the basis of reciprocity, where consular functions are conducted on the territory of that other state. Consular relations are one part of the overall diplomatic relations between two countries based on the international legal documents and internal regulations of the national law. Collecting the relevant data in order to inform and protect the interests of both the state and its citizens represents a significant function in consular affairs. Timely and accurate information provide the successful implementation of the planned activities in the previously mentioned area. The author discusses the data collection techniques as well as the possibilities of their implementation for the realization of tasks of consular representatives. In the context of the available methods of data collection, it is possible to apply the techniques in the field of testing the social processes in the receiving country. The well-qualified consular staff has an essential importance for the quality implementation of the planned goals of diplomatic missions and the state interests in the receiving country.

To What Extent Is the Law of State Responsibility Regarding Attribution Adequate?

This paper examines the adequacy of the doctrine of attribution in the international law of state responsibility. This examination encompasses a discussion and analysis of the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts and its Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11. Furthermore this examination will be done in the light of the Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Case Concerning the Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua, Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic (Appeal Judgement) and United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran. Reference shall also be made to Behrami and Behrami v. France, Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Repporteur, Estate of Jean-Baptiste Caire (France) v. United Mexican States and LaGrand (Provisional Measures) case.

Armed Conflict, Effect on Treaties

Today the majority view seems to approve the general applicability of peacetime law during war in regard to certain types of peacetime treaties (see paras 5-11). The topic is still disputed as neither the UN Charter nor other multilateral treaties include rules in regard to the effect of armed conflict on treaties. The → Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) (‘VCLT’) only says that the Convention does not cover these questions (Art. 73: ‘The provisions of the present Convention shall not prejudge any question that may arise in regard to a treaty […] from the outbreak of hostilities between States’). This was due to the fact that the conduct of hostilities was seen wholly outside the scope of the general law of treaties to be codified in the articles of the VCLT by the drafters (Wetzel and Rauschning 480). Besides of this there is no decisive judgment or advisory opinion of the → International Court of Justice (ICJ) to the general question of the effects of armed conflicts on peacetime treaties (see United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran [United States of America v Iran], dealing only with the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations, see below para. 6; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons [Advisory Opinion], dealing with the question of the protection of the environment during armed conflict without giving a clear answer in regard to the question of the applicability of peacetime environmental treaties during armed conflicts, see below para. 10). After World War II, expert bodies dealt with the problem of the effect of armed conflict on treaties. The first important resolution was drafted by the → Institut de Droit international (‘IDI’) in 1985 (see the resolution ‘The Effects of Armed Conflict on Treaties’). The → International Law Commission (ILC) finally included this topic in its current programme of work in 2004 (UNGA Res 59/41 of 16 December 2004), a first report was drafted by special rapporteur Ian Brownlie in 2005 and in 2008 the ILC adopted, on first reading, a set of 18 draft articles on the effects of armed conflicts on treaties (‘ILC Draft Articles’). In 2010 Lucius Caflisch, the new special rapporteur, proposed a number of changes to the initial set of draft articles after these articles were commented by States. The most crucial topics of discussion have been inter alia the scope of the articles; effects of non-international armed conflicts; the indicia for identifying treaties which continue in operation; the types of treaties whose subject matter implies their survival in whole or in part; and the effects of international or civil war conditions involving a single State Party or several States Parties to treaties.

Do Unto Others: The Importance of Better Compliance with Consular Notification Rights

The right of a foreign national to contact his or her consulate upon arrest or detention in another country has been described as a fundamental and indispensible human right. It has also been part of U.S. law for decades. Yet U.S. authorities have repeatedly failed to provide foreign nationals and their consulates with notice as required by law. This failure is evidenced by the explosion in litigation of consular notification rights in recent years. This article explores some of the most interesting legal questions that are being raised in the area of consular notification rights. Drawing on the experiences and perspectives of a member of the consular staff of Mexico, an immigration attorney and a law professor, the authors provide real life examples that illustrate why consular notification is so important and how consular officers can assist when a foreign national is arrested or detained in the United States. The article analyzes litigation strategies that have been pursued to remedy noncompliance and the success or failure of those strategies to date. It discusses some state actions that have been taken or are proposed to increase compliance with consular notification rights. And finally, the article suggests some additional actions that may be taken in the future to better secure these important human rights.

Psychiatric Crisis Team Aids Americans Overseas

Psychiatric Crisis Team Aids Americans Overseas

Edge of Darkness: British ‘Front-line’ Diplomacy in the Spanish Civil War, 1936–1937

British policy during the Spanish Civil War was seen by many at the time as dishonest and dishonourable, and this is a criticism that has survived the opening of the official records to historical scrutiny. Research by Jill Edwards, Douglas Little and, most recently, by Enrique Moradiellos has presented the policy pursued by the British government as cynical, callous and objectively pro-Franco. Understandably, however, the literature on this subject, exemplified in the work of these scholars, has focused primarily on establishing how policy decisions were reached within the Foreign Office and other interested branches of government. What has tended to be neglected by historians (with some notable exceptions) has been the experience of British diplomatic and consular officials in the field. These were the men who carried the triple burden not only of being the eyes and ears of the Foreign Office in Spain, but also of negotiating with government and local authorities and of protecting British lives and interests amidst the chaos of civil war. This article seeks to redress the balance by placing the focus on these ‘front-line diplomats’. It concentrates on the experiences of those British diplomatic and consular staff in the main Republican zone who were most directly exposed to the war, although reference will also be made to officials in the Nationalist zone and in the relative tranquillity of the British embassy in exile at Hendaye. The article is concerned more specifically, although not exclusively, with George Ogilvie-Forbes's tenure as chargé d'affaires in Madrid and Valencia (August 1936–March 1937). For this period Ogilvie-Forbes's own papers offer an unparalleled insight into the private opinions of British diplomats in the front line of civil war, and provide a new perspective on their relationships both with each other and with the Foreign Office. The article concludes with the recasting of the British diplomatic presence in Spain in autumn 1937, with the relocation of the British embassy from Valencia to Caldetas, outside Barcelona, and the appointment of an agent to represent British interests in Nationalist territory. The first part of the article describes the development of the British diplomatic presence in Spain during this period, while the second examines the civil war's impact on individual British diplomats, and how their experiences affected their relationship with their superiors in London.

Self-contained regimes

On 29 November 1979 the United States of America instituted proceedings before the International Court of Justice against the Islamic Republic of Iran in respect of the seizure and holding as hostages of members of the US diplomatic and consular staff and certain other US nationals. Although the Government of Iran chose not to appear before the Hague Court it defined its position in two communications addressed to the Court on 9 December 1979 and 17 March 1980. In these letters the Iranian Government took the view that the Court could not and should not take cognizance of the case since the question of the hostages“only represents a marginal and secondary aspect of an overall problem, one such that it cannot be studied separately and which involves, inter alia, more than 25 years of continual interference by the United States in the internal affairs of Iran, the shameless exploitation of our country, and numerous crimes perpetrated against the Iranian people, contrary to and in conflict with all international and humanitarian norms.”

Italian Trade Union for Embassy and Consular Staff v. United States

338 Sovereign immunity — Foreign States — Consular staff — Employees of receiving State — Jurisdiction of municipal courts to State injunction restraining foreign State from interfering with exercise of trade union rights of inch employees — Whether foreign State entitled to jurisdictional immunity — Theory of restrictive immunity — Principle of good faith, as basis of — Distinction between acts iure imperii and iure gestionis — Whether applicable where injunction applied for will interfere with State's power to organise consular offices — The law of Italy

Discontinuance of International Proceedings: The Hostages Case

On May 12, 1981, the President of the International Court of Justice ordered the discontinuance of the Case concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran) (Hostages case). Following the indication of provisional measures in December 1979 and the Judgment in May 1980, the present Order ended the proceedings in the case. This is the first order to apply the (Revised) Rules of Court of 1978 concerning the discontinuance of proceedings. It therefore appears to be an appropriate time to comment on this topic of international procedure.