are considered, like the envoy himself, to retain their domicile within their home State. Children born to them during their stay within the receiving State are considered as born on the territory of the home State. And it must be emphasised that it is not within the envoy's power to waive these privileges belonging to members of a legation,1 although the home State itself can waive them. Thus when, in 1909, Wilhelm Beckert, the chancellor of the German legation in Santiago de Chili, murdered the porter of this legation, a Chilian subject, and then set fire to the chancery in order to conceal his embezzlement of money belonging to the legation, the German Government consented to his being prosecuted in Chili; he was tried, found guilty, and executed at Santiago on July 5, 1910. On the other hand, when in 1915 Gottfried Ruh, a registrar of the Swiss legation in Berlin, embezzled monies entrusted to the legation, the Swiss Government asked the German Government to arrest and extradite him to Switzerland; he was tried at Berne in June 1916, and condemned to penal servitude. of Private Servants. § 403. It is a customary rule of International Law Privileges that the receiving State must grant to all persons in the private service of the envoy, provided such persons are not subjects of the receiving State, exemption from civil and criminal jurisdiction. But the envoy can disclaim these exemptions, and these persons cannot then claim exemption from police, immunity of domicile, and exemption from taxes. Thus, for instance, if such a private servant commits a crime outside the 1 See In re Republic of Bolivia Exploration Syndicate, Ltd., [1914] 1 Ch. 139, and Baty in Law Magazine and Review, xxxix. p. 349. the This rule seems to be everywhere recognised except in Great Britain. When, in 1827, a coachman of Mr. Gallatin, the American minister in London, committed an assault out- of Family of Envoy. residence of his employer, the police can arrest him; he must, however, be at once released if the envoy does not waive the exemption from criminal jurisdiction. Privileges § 404. Although the wife of the envoy, his children, and such of his near relatives as live within his family and under his roof belong to his retinue, there is a distinction to be made as regards their privileges. His wife must certainly be granted all his privileges in so far as they concern inviolability and exterritoriality. As regards, however, his children and other relatives, no other general rule of International Law can safely be said to be generally recognised, than that they must be granted exemption from civil and criminal jurisdiction. But even this rule was formerly not generally recognised. Thus, when in 1653 Don Pantaleon Sà, the brother of the Portuguese ambassador in London and a member of his suite, killed an Englishman named Greenaway, he was arrested, tried in England, found guilty, and executed.1 Nowadays the exemption from civil and criminal jurisdiction of such members of an envoy's family as live under his roof is always granted. Thus, when in 1906 Carlos Waddington,2 the son of the Chilian envoy at Brussels, murdered the secretary of the Chilian legation, the Belgian authorities did not take any steps to arrest him. Two days afterwards, however, the Chilian envoy waived the privilege of the immunity of his son, and on March 2 the Chilian Government likewise agreed to the murderer being prosecuted in Belgium. The trial took place in July 1907, but Waddington was acquitted by the Belgian jury. Privileges of § 405. To ensure the safety and secrecy of the diplomatic despatches they bear, couriers 3 must be granted of Envoy. exemption from civil and criminal jurisdiction, and 1 The case is discussed by Phillimore, ii. § 169. 2 See R. G., xiv. (1907), pp. 159-165. 3 See the valuable information concerning couriers in Embassies and Foreign Courts (1855), pp. 178-199. afforded special protection during the exercise of their office. It is therefore usual to provide them with special passports. It is particularly important to observe that they must have the right of innocent passage through third States, and that, according to general usage, those parts of their luggage which contain diplomatic despatches, and are sealed with the official seal, must not be opened and searched.1 XII TERMINATION OF DIPLOMATIC MISSION Vattel, iv. §§ 125-126-Hall, § 98**-Phillimore, ii. §§ 237-242-Moore, iv. §§ 636, 639, 640, 666-Hershey, Nos. 267-269-Taylor, §§ 320-323Wheaton, §§ 250-251-Ullmann, § 53-Heffter, §§ 223-226-Rivier, i. § 40-Nys, ii. p. 447-449-Bonfils, Nos. 730-732--Pradier-Fodéré, iii. S$ 1515-1535-Fiore, ii. Nos. 1169-1175-Calvo, iii. §§ 1363-1367Martens, ii. § 17-Satow, Diplomatic Practice, i. §§ 410-438. 3 tion in contra tion to sion. § 406. A diplomatic mission may come to an end Terminafrom eleven different causes-namely, accomplishment of the object for which the mission was sent; expira- distinction of letters of credence given to an envoy for a Suspenspecific time only; recall of the envoy by the sending 4 State; his promotion to a higher class; "the delivery of passports to him by the receiving State; request of the envoy for his passports; war between the sending and the receiving State; constitutional changes in the headship of the sending or receiving State; revolutionary change of government in the sending or receiving State extinction of the sending or receiving State; and, lastly, death of the envoy. These events must be treated singly on account of their peculiarities. But the termination of diplomatic missions must not be con This usage was abused during the World War, when couriers in the service of the German legations in Norway and Switzerland carried Accom plishment of Mis sion. founded with their suspension. Whereas from the foregoing eleven causes a mission actually comes to an end, and new letters of credence are necessary, a suspension does not put an end to the mission, but creates an interval during which the envoy, although he remains in office, cannot exercise his office. Suspension may be the result of various causes, as, for instance, a revolution within the sending or receiving State. Whatever the cause may be, an envoy enjoys all his privileges during the duration of the suspension. § 407. A mission comes to an end through the fulfilof Object ment of its objects in all cases of missions sent for special purposes, such as ceremonial functions like representations at weddings, funerals, and coronations; or notification of changes in the headship of a State; or representation of a State at conferences and congresses, and the like. Although the mission is terminated through the accomplishment of its object, the envoys enjoy all their privileges on their way home. Expiration of § 408. If a letter of credence of a limited duration is Letter of given to an envoy, his mission terminates at the expiraCredence. tion of the period. A temporary letter of credence Recall. may, for instance, be given to an individual for the purpose of representing a State diplomatically during the interval between the recall of an ambassador and the appointment of his successor. § 409. The mission of an envoy, be he permanently or only temporarily appointed, terminates through his recall by the sending State. If this recall is not caused by unfriendly acts of the receiving State, but by other circumstances, the envoy receives a letter of recall from the head, or, in case he is only a chargé d'affaires, from the Foreign Secretary of his home State, and he1 1 But sometimes his successor presents the letter recalling his predecessor to the head of the receiving State, or to the Foreign Secretary in the case of chargés d'affaires. hands this letter to the head of the receiving State in a solemn audience, or in the case of a chargé d'affaires to the Foreign Secretary. In exchange for the letter of recall the envoy receives his passports and a so-called Lettre de récréance, a letter in which the head of the receiving State (or the Foreign Secretary) acknowledges the letter of recall. Although therewith his mission ends, he enjoys nevertheless all his privileges on his home journey.1 A recall may be caused by the resignation of the envoy, by his transference to another post, and the like. It may, secondly, be caused by the outbreak of a conflict between the sending and the receiving State which leads to a rupture of diplomatic intercourse, and under these circumstances the sending State may order its envoy to ask for his passports and depart at once without handing in a letter of recall. And, thirdly, a recall may result from a request of the receiving State by reason of real or alleged misconduct of the envoy. Such request of recall may lead to a rupture of diplomatic intercourse, if the receiving State insists upon the recall, and the sending State does not recognise the act of its envoy as misconduct. Examples of requests by a receiving State for the recall of diplomatic envoys occurred during the World War.2 On September 8, 1915, the United States requested the Austro-Hungarian Government to recall its ambassador at Washington, Dr. Dumba, for proposing plans to instigate strikes in American munition factories, and for employing an American citizen with an American passport as a secret bearer of official despatches through the lines of the enemy of Austria-Hungary. On December 4, 1915, the United States requested Germany to recall Captain Boy-Ed, naval attaché, and Captain von See the interesting cases discussed by Moore, iv. § 666. See also In re Suarez, Suarez v. Suarez, [1917] 2 Ch. 131; [1918] 1 Ch. 176. Earlier cases of request of recall of envoys are reported by Taylor, § 322; Hall, § 98**; Moore, iv. § 639; Hershey, No. 269. |