Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Senator CHURCH. In any case, the convention does not change either the immunity given the diplomatic bag nor our procedures for dealing with a problem of that kind should it arise ?

Mr. MEEKER. No, it does not.

INTERNATIONAL CONSULAR CONVENTION

Senator CHURCH. Are there any plans to have a similar conference on a multilateral consular convention? You have already drawn the distinction between this and the consular arrangements.

Mr. MEEKER. There has already been held such a conference at Vienna in 1963, and there emerged from that conference a convention which is being studied by the different branches, different departments, in the executive branch, and we look forward to submitting that convention at a later date.

Senator CHURCH. Has that been signed yet by the United States? Mr. MEEKER. It was signed at the time of its conclusion in Vienna.

Senator CHURCH. Are the USIA and AID and other groups of that sort covered in any way by this convention?

Mr. MEEKER. If the groups concerned operate out of the embassy as part of the embassy and have been accepted by the other government as performing diplomatic functions, then, of course, they have corresponding immunities.

Senator CHURCH. Does this convention enlarge the powers of the Federal Government versus the States in any respect?

Mr. MEEKER. Perhaps in one or two respects it may, while in others it cuts it down, and we go back here, I think, to the same examples we had before.

Senator CHURCH. I think the same examples would suffice.

Mr. MEEKER. With respect to State taxes, in that rare kind of case, the Federal Government, through the exercise of its treaty power, is a little bit larger than it was before, and in respect to immunities the power of the Federal Government is reduced to a larger degree.

Senator CHURCH. Is there any known opposition to this convention? Mr. MEEKER. I think we know of none.

Senator CHURCH. Have the views of the bar associations been solicited ?

Mr. MEEKER. I am not sure that this convention has been specifically laid before bar associations for their examination. Of course, it is a public document, and is generally available. It does not cover the area in which bar associations have often been interested, an area that is covered by consular conventions; namely, provisions on practice of law with respect to estates of decedents of foreign countries. So I think there is no basis here for any concern on the part of bar associations.

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY AND WAR Senator CHURCH. Do the provisions on privileges and immunities during time of war constitute a departure from past practice?

Mr. MEEKER. Mr. Chairman, I think, perhaps, this is a subject which it might be appropriate to go into in executive session at a later time.

а.

a

Senator CHURCH. I think, perhaps, in order to expedite this matter, would you make a notation of the questions that you would like to answer in executive session and then submit to us a written answer. If we have any further inquiry we can call upon you to supplement the written answer,

and we will then have before us answers to all these questions, although all of them will not appear in the public record.

Mr. MEEKER. We will be glad to do that.
Senator CHURCH. Fine.

I have several other questions that relate to this general subject of treatment in time of war which you may want to answer in the same way and, if so, please indicate.

With respect to situations of armed conflict, did not the United States in World War II take over the Japanese and the German chanceries? Would such a step be possible under the Vienna Convention ?

Mr. MEEKER. Mr. Chairman, I believe that is factually correct as to what happened at the end of hostilities in World War II. Under this convention in such an event the mission would, under article 45, be entrusted to the protection of a third country.

Senator CHURCH. So that your answer is that such a seizure as did, in fact, occur, at the commencement of World War II would constitute a violation of the convention?

Mr. MEEKER. The seizure did not in fact occur until after Germany and Japan had surrendered. The embassies and legations of Germany and Japan and other enemy countries, prior to that time, were under the protection of neutral states. If the United States were to seize a foreign embassy at the outset of a new armed conflict, such action would constitute a violation of the convention.

Senator CHURCH. I understand that the United States opposed the provision that even in the case of armed conflict a member of the mission would enjoy privileges and immunities until his departure, for the reason that it was thought to be unrealistic, and it also did not reflect universal practice. What treatment did the United States accord World War II enemy diplomatic agents? Should a reservation to article 39 be considered by the committee?

Mr. MEEKER. What we did, in the beginning of World War II was to take the diplomats to the Homestead Hotel in Hot Springs, Va., and other hotels, where they were, I think, entertained and sheltered very well indeed until such time as they could be repatriated. Their movements, of course, were restricted, but I think the conditions of their custody were highly satisfactory and favorable.

Senator CHURCH. Does that treatment accord with the provisions of this convention?

Mr. MEEKER. I think that such treatment could be justified under the convention. Article 26 recognizes the right of the receiving state to regulate or prohibit the travel of diplomatic agents for reasons of national security. While article 29 provides that a diplomatic agent shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention, it also provides that the receiving state shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on a diplomatic agent's person, freedom, and dignity. At the outbreak of the war the premises of enemy missions and residences of mission members were protected by police. Initially, mission members were allowed to remain in their respective embassies or legations, or in their homes. The restrictions on their movements varied. After certain incidents occurred in restaurants and other public places, the United States decided that for the protection and well-being of enemy diplomatic personnel, it would be better if they were lodged in hotels away from Washington until arrangements could be completed for their repatriation. I think that the same sort of protective measures could be taken under the convention.

Senator CHURCH. Since the end of World War II, the role of nondiplomatic representatives of foreign government has been increasing: For example, the common practice of engaging not only legal counsel but public relations firms to take charge of the national image before the American public. Does this convention serve in any way to proscribe the activities of such agents?

Mr. MEEKER. No; this convention does not relate to that at all.

Senator CHURCH. Article 44 states that in the event of conflict and in case of need the receiving state must place at the disposition of persons enjoying privileges and immunities the necessary means of transport for themselves and their property. This was opposed by the United States.

Would this mean that in case of war that the United States would have to put its naval or air facilities at the disposal of enemy diplomatic personnel ?

Mr. MEEKER. I do not believe that this would require any military means of transport be used. Presumably either commercial facilities or some other means of transport, like the Gripsholm, which was used in World War II, something like that, would be appropriate.

Senator CHURCH. Senator Clark has very graciously consented to complete these questions. I have just had a call to which I have to respond. Before turning the hearing over to him, I am going to insert in the record of the hearings, if there is no objection, at the appropriate place, a listing of those countries that have now ratified or acceded to the convention, and the reservations, declarations, and understandings that some of these countries have attached to their ratification or accessions, as the case may be, and also a special paper that has been prepared by the State Department and submitted to the committee, which sets out the various articles of the convention and contains some explanatory comment on the part of the State Department concerning the article-by-article analysis of the convention.

(The documents referred to follow :)

VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS, DONE AT VIENNA, APR. 18, 1961

DATE OF ENTRY INTO FORCE, APR. 24, 1964

Number of government parties..
Signatures---
Ratifications deposited.
Accessions deposited..

40 63 26 14

[blocks in formation]

Apr. 18, 1961 do

Oct. 10, 1963 Mar. 30, 1962 Apr. 18, 1961 Oct. 13, 1961 Apr. 18, 1961 Mar. 25, 1965

do do.

May 14, 1964 Feb. 5, 1962 Mar. 28, 1962 Apr. 18, 1961

do. do. ..do.

do.. Feb. 14, 1962 Nov. 9, 1964 Jan. 16, 19622 Sept. 26, 1963 Apr. 18, 1961 May 24, 1963

do. Mar. 30, 1962 Jan. 14, 1964 Apr. 18, 19613 Sept. 21, 1964 Oct. 20, 1961 Mar. 30, 1962 Apr. 18, 1961 *Nov. 11, 1964 do

June 28, 1962 Mar. 29, 19624 Apr. 18, 1961 Oct.

1, 1963 do.

Apr. 17, 1964 do.. May 27, 1961 Feb. 3, 1965 Feb. 20, 19628 Oct. 15, 1963 Apr. 18, 1961

do. Mar. 13, 1962 Mar. 26, 19626 June 8, 1964 Mar. 28, 1962 Apr. 18, 1961 do.

May 15, 1962 do.

May 8, 1964 Feb. 2, 1962 Apr. 18, 1961 Mar. 28, 1962 Mar. 31, 1962 A pr. 18, 1961 Mar. 29, 1962 Mar. 29, 1962 Apr. 18, 1961 Dec. 4, 1963 Oct. 20, 1961 Apr. 18, 1961 Apr. 19, 1965

-.do. Oct. 25, 1961 Apr. 18, 1961 Mar. 28, 1962 A pr. 18, 1961 do

Oct. 30, 1963 Feb. 27, 1962 Nov. 5, 1962 Oct. 30, 1961 Apr. 18, 1961 June 12, 1964 do..

Mar. 25, 1964 Dec. 11, 1961 Sept. 1, 1964 June 29, 1961 A pr. 18, 1961 ...do 7

Apr. 1, 1963

---.do.

Signatories

Albania.
Argentina
Australia.
Austria.
Belgium.
Brazil.
Bulgaria..
Byelorussian S.S.R.
Canada.
Central African Republic.
Ceylon..
Chile..
China.
Colombia.
Congo (Léopoldville).
Costa Rica
Cuba...
Czechoslovakia.
Denmark.
Dominican Republic.
Ecuador.
Finland.
France.
Germany, Federal Republic of
Ghana.
Greece.
Guatemala.
Holy See.
Hungary
Iran
Iraq-
Ireland
Israel..
Italy -
Japan.
Korea.
Lebanon
Liberia
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Mexico.
New Zealand.
Nigeria..
Norway.
Pakistan
Panama.
Philippines.
Poland
Rumania..
San Marino
Senegal..
South Africa
Sweden.
Switzerland
Tanganyika.
Thailand.
Ukrainian S.S.R.
U.S.S.R.
United Kingdom.
United States
Uruguay.
Venezuela
Yugoslavia

Applicable also to Land Berlin.

50-455—65

6

Accessions deposited

Algeria
Congo (Brazzaville)
Gabon..
Ivory Coast
Jamaica.
Laos---
Malagasy Republic-
Malawi.
Mauritania
Niger.
Rwanda.
Sierra Leone
Uganda---
United Arab Republic

Apr. 14, 1964.
Mar. 11, 1963.
Apr. 2, 1964.
Oct. 1, 1962.
June 5, 1963.
Dec. 3, 1962.
July 31, 1963.
May 19, 1965.
July 16, 1962.
Dec. 5, 1962.
Apr. 15, 1964.
Aug. 13, 1962.
Apr. 15, 1965.
June 9, 1964.8

RESERVATIONS, DECLARATIONS, AND UNDERSTANDINGS (1) Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic

Ukrainian Soviet Social Republic

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Reservation and declaration made in each case at the time of deposit of instrument of ratification :

[Translation] Reservation concerning article 11, paragraph 1:

In accordance with the principle of the equality of rights of states, the (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) (the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) considers that any difference of opinion regarding the size of a diplomatic mission should be settled by agreement between the sending state and the receiving state.

Declaration concerning articles 48 and 50:

(The Byelorussian Soviet Social Republic) (the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) (the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) considers it necessary to draw attention to the discriminatory nature of articles 48 and 50 of the convention, under the terms of which a number of states are precluded from acceding to the convention. The convention deals with matters which affect the interests of all states and should therefore be open for accession by all states. In accordance with the principle of sovereign equality, no state has the right to bar other states from accession to a convention of this nature. (2) Cuba

Reservation in instrument of ratification:

[Translation] The Revolutionary Government of Cuba makes an explicit reservation in respect of the provisions of articles 48 and 50 of the convention, because it considers that, in view of the nature of the contents of the convention and the subject it governs, all free and sovereign states have the right to participate in it; for that reason, the Revolutionary Government of Cuba favors facilitating the admission of all countries of the international community, without any distinction based on the extent of a state's territory, the number of its inhabitants or its social, economic or political system. (3) Ecuador

On deposit of its instruunent of ratification Ecuador withdrew the reservation to artice 37, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, made at the time of signature.

« AnteriorContinuar »