Jump to Content Jump to Main Navigation
Signed in as:

Nationals and Permanent Residents of the Receiving State

Eileen Denza

From: Diplomatic Law: Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (3rd Edition)

Professor Eileen Denza

A newer edition of Diplomatic Law is available. Latest edition (4 ed.)
Next Edition: 4th Edition Latest edition (4 ed.)

From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2023. All Rights Reserved. Subscriber: null; date: 08 June 2023

Diplomatic immunity — Diplomatic privileges — Immunity from jurisdiction, states — Diplomatic missions — Diplomatic relations — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

(p. 413) Nationals and Permanent Residents of the Receiving State

Article 38

1. Except insofar as additional privileges and immunities may be granted by the receiving State, a diplomatic agent who is a national of or permanently resident in that State shall enjoy only immunity from jurisdiction, and inviolability, in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions.

2. Other members of the staff of the mission and private servants who are nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State shall enjoy privileges and immunities only to the extent admitted by the receiving State. However, the receiving State must exercise its jurisdiction over those persons in such a manner as not to interfere unduly with the performance of the functions of the mission.


State practice, and the views of seventeenth and eighteenth century writers on diplomatic law, differed on the question whether a diplomatic agent or other member of the mission who was a national of the receiving State should be entitled to privileges and immunities. Bynkershoek, as a logical consequence of his theory that the basis of immunities was a general understanding that the ambassador should remain subject to the jurisdiction of his own prince, maintained strongly that there was no justification for allowing immunity to the ambassador who was a national of the receiving State.1 Vattel on the other hand assumed that any ambassador would be immune from the jurisdiction of the receiving State in matters relating to (p. 414) his mission. As regards other matters, he took the view that whether the ambassador was immune depended on whether he was a ‘subject’ of the State to which he was sent. If the receiving State accepted him as an envoy without either a specific reservation or a general provision in its laws denying privileges and immunities to its own nationals, then it was to be presumed that he became independent of the receiving State for the duration of his mission. This presumption of independence could however be rebutted if the ambassador engaged in trading in the receiving State.2 The writer and diplomat Wicquefort was a Dutch national acting as representative of the Duke of Lüneburg to Holland when he was imprisoned and his property was confiscated. It is not surprising that in his later book L’ambassadeur he strongly advocated the independence from local jurisdiction of a diplomat who was a national of the receiving sovereign.3 It is perhaps easier to reconcile these apparently conflicting views by recollecting that nationality did not at that period have the precise meaning later given to it and that a change of allegiance could be effected without the formalities which would be necessary under twentieth-century laws.

The rule expounded by Vattel was followed much later in England in the case of Macartney v Garbutt,4 where the court held that a member of a mission was not disqualified from entitlement to immunity under the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1708 unless at the time of his reception it had been made a condition that he should not be entitled to privileges and immunities. By the Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and the Republic of Ireland) Act 19525 and the Diplomatic Immunities Restriction Act 1955,6 however, UK nationals in diplomatic missions were deprived of immunities. Many other States also provided in their law that their own nationals should not be entitled to privileges and immunities, or at least that they should not be accorded tax privileges.7 It was, however, relatively rare for nationals of the receiving State to be appointed as (p. 415) diplomatic agents of some other State without specific agreement as to their privileges and immunities. There is no evidence that civil or criminal proceedings were ever brought against such persons in respect of their official acts—this would have been regarded as a breach of sovereign immunity.

Negotiating history

In the International Law Commission opinions were sharply divided between members who held that in the case of a national of the receiving State all privileges and immunities should be subject to the express grant of the receiving State and other members who believed that more extensive immunities were necessary to enable such a diplomatic agent properly to perform his duties for the sending State. The final text represented a compromise, specifying the absolute minimum of inviolability and immunity in regard to official acts which must be conferred on a diplomatic agent to enable him to carry out his functions on behalf of the sending sovereign. Other privileges and immunities were to be left entirely to the discretion of the receiving State. The 1958 draft articles spelt out more clearly the implication of the 1957 draft that subordinate staff of the mission who were nationals of the receiving State—who would be unlikely to be acting officially on behalf of the sending sovereign so as to benefit from sovereign immunity—would receive privileges and immunities only at the discretion of the receiving State.8

At the Vienna Conference the compromise elaborated by the International Law Commission proved to be acceptable to delegations. Even those delegations which were opposed in principle to nationals of the receiving State being appointed as diplomatic agents by another State accepted that if this possibility was to be permitted, a minimum of inviolability and immunity for official acts of such persons must follow as a logical consequence. The text was redrafted to make it clear beyond doubt that for a diplomatic agent who was a national of the receiving State inviolability as well as immunity from jurisdiction was limited to ‘official acts performed in the exercise of his functions’. The scope of the Article was also extended by the Vienna Conference to cover persons permanently resident in the receiving State.9

(p. 416) Subsequent practice

In 1967, three years before France ratified the Vienna Convention, Article 38.1 was applied by the Court of Appeal of Paris in the case of Querouil v Breton10 on the basis that the Convention ‘is merely a codification of existing practice in international law, that it was signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in France, that it is applied by his Department and that as current practice it necessarily governs the position of diplomatic agents who, like Breton, possess the nationality of the receiving State’. A letter from the Protocol Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was also taken as evidence of custom. The defendant, a French national serving as a diplomat in the Embassy of Chad, could therefore not raise immunity in respect of an action to repossess the flat which he had leased as his private residence.

‘official acts performed in the exercise of his functions’

In the context of Article 37.2 above these words were contrasted with the words ‘acts performed outside the course of their duties’, and it was suggested there that ‘official acts performed in the exercise of his functions’ covered only acts performed on behalf of the sending State. A diplomatic agent who is a national or permanent resident of the receiving State would on that basis not be entitled to immunity from criminal proceedings in respect of a driving offence nor to immunity from civil jurisdiction in regard to claims arising from a motor accident even if he was at the time driving on official business. Junior mission staff given the nature of their work do not normally carry out official acts in the exercise of their functions. If they are nationals or permanent residents of the receiving State they are given no immunity—but if the court accepted evidence that the act in question was in fact an official act done on the instructions of the government of the sending State, the member of the diplomatic mission whatever his rank should be able as an agent of the sending State to rely on its sovereign immunity.11

The question whether the immunity of nationals and permanent residents is diplomatic immunity or, as suggested by Salmon, state immunity would be relevant if the act in question were performed on behalf of the sending State (p. 417) but before the individual was entitled to diplomatic immunity. The individual could, for example, be an agent or officer of the sending State not yet appointed to a diplomatic post or not yet notified to the receiving State at the time the act took place. If by the time of legal proceedings he was entitled to immunity for official acts performed in the exercise of his functions it could be argued that as his diplomatic functions had not begun at the time of the relevant act, he should not be given immunity for this act by virtue of a subsequent appointment. But if his immunity is correctly to be regarded as the immunity of an agent of the sending State, it would be immaterial that at the time of the act he was not yet exercising diplomatic functions and he should be treated as immune.

‘additional privileges and immunities’

The United Kingdom in giving effect under national law to the Vienna Convention granted additional privileges and immunities to its own nationals in only one respect. Members of Commonwealth missions in London who were nationals of the United Kingdom as defined in section 2(2) of the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 and are also citizens of the sending Commonwealth State are treated as if they possessed only the citizenship of the sending State.12 There were in 1964 considerable numbers of dual nationals in Commonwealth missions in London, and this concession in their case was a continuation of the legal position before the United Kingdom became a party to the Vienna Convention. This more favourable treatment of some members of Commonwealth missions in London may therefore be justified under Article 47.2(b) of the Convention as not amounting to discrimination because it is based on custom. The special treatment has been maintained—the implementing Order in Council was brought up to date in 1999 by adding more recent members of the Commonwealth.13 There appears to be very little evidence that States are using the latitude given in Article 38 to grant additional privileges and immunities to their own nationals or permanent residents.

(p. 418) Avoiding undue interference with the functions of the mission

The obligation imposed on the receiving State to ‘exercise its jurisdiction over those persons in such a manner as not to interfere unduly with the performance of the functions of the mission’ is identical to the obligation under Article 37.4 in regard to jurisdiction over private servants of members of the mission. In that context it was suggested that its application was a matter of administrative discretion which would affect such matters as the timing of a judicial hearing or deferral of a summons for jury service. The extent of the obligation under Article 38.2 was given very careful consideration in 1963 by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland in response to the question whether Swiss nationals could be integrated into the civil protection service. The obligations involved at most a three-day period of instruction at the outset with follow-up exercises each subsequent year lasting at most two days. In the event of war the obligations would be more onerous, but there had never been any question of exempting Swiss nationals working in foreign diplomatic missions from military service in the proper sense. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs advice concluded that in interpreting the last sentence of Article 38.2 it was necessary to balance the interests concerned and that having regard to the importance to national defence and the safety of the civilian population in wartime of a properly trained civil protection service, it would not be a violation of Article 38 to impose the necessary obligations on Swiss nationals working in foreign diplomatic missions.14

‘permanently resident in the receiving State’

There is normally no difficulty in determining whether a member of a diplomatic mission is a national of the receiving State, since international law provides that subject to a few limitations this is a question to be determined by the municipal law of each State. But the meaning of the words ‘permanently resident in the receiving State’ is not clearly established in international law and its interpretation in the context of the Vienna Convention has given rise to considerable difficulty.

In a number of States there does exist a distinct status of ‘permanent resident’ which may give rise to certain rights to continuing stay in the territory or to (p. 419) apply to become a naturalized citizen. There was, however, little evidence of its being used widely as a justification for withholding privileges or immunities. Amendments intended to withdraw privileges and immunities from permanent residents as well as nationals of the receiving State were proposed at a late stage of the Vienna Conference by Australia and by Canada, but although they were accepted by the Conference there is no record of clarification of the term by either of the sponsors.15 The Convention does not define the term and no power is given either to the sending or to the receiving State to determine unilaterally which members of a diplomatic mission are to be classed as permanently resident in the receiving State. Sending and receiving States must, therefore, for the purpose of administering privileges reach agreement on principles or procedures to be applied generally or at least on difficult cases as they arise.

The UK Government soon after becoming a party to the Convention in 1964 formed the view that the most satisfactory interpretation of the term depended on asking the question whether, but for his or her employment with the mission, the person concerned would choose to remain in the receiving State. At first there were differences with embassies in London over particular cases where the government authorities believed that a member of a mission claiming tax reliefs was permanently resident in the United Kingdom and so not entitled to diplomatic privileges. The greatest number of difficult cases involved women members of missions who were married to British husbands settled in the United Kingdom and who had been serving in the relevant mission in London for longer than the normal diplomatic or secretarial tour of up to five years. After a few years the Foreign and Commonwealth Office formulated general rules in the light of experience, and in January 1969 a Circular Note was sent to all diplomatic missions in London by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The guidance was as follows:

When determining whether or not a particular member of your staff should be regarded as a permanent resident of the United Kingdom the test should normally be whether or not he would be in the United Kingdom but for the requirements of the sending State. In applying this test, I suggest that you should be guided by the following considerations:

(i)  the intention of the individual: a person should be regarded as permanently resident in the United Kingdom unless he is going to return to his own country as soon as his appointment in the United Kingdom ends. It is suggested that (p. 420) points which may be relevant to this question include the links of the individual with the State which he claims as his home, e.g. payment of taxes, participation in social security schemes, ownership of immovable property, payment of return passage by the sending State.

(ii)  the prospect of the individual being posted elsewhere as a career member of the service: he should be regarded as permanently resident in the United Kingdom if his appointment in the United Kingdom is likely to continue or has continued for more than five years, unless the Head of Mission states that the longer stay in the United Kingdom is a requirement of the sending State and not a result of personal considerations.

(iii)  local recruitment of the individual: a person who is locally engaged is presumed to be permanently resident in the United Kingdom unless the Head of Mission concerned shows that he is going to return to his own country or to proceed to a third country immediately on the termination of his appointment in the United Kingdom; and

(iv)  marital status of the individual: a woman member of the Mission who is married to a permanent resident of the United Kingdom is presumed to be herself permanently resident in the United Kingdom from the time of her marriage unless the Head of Mission shows that in addition to her satisfying the other criteria, there remains a real prospect in view of the special circumstances of her case that she will be posted as a normal career member of the service.

4. If a review in the light of this guidance leads Your Excellency to conclude that any of your staff should henceforward be regarded as permanent residents of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Diplomatic Privileges Act, I suggest that any change of status should take effect from 1 April 1969 and would request that such cases be notified to this Office by that date. Thereafter it would be helpful if Your Excellency could arrange for prompt notification to this Office of any change in the residential status of members of your staff. Should a difference of opinion arise between a Mission and Her Majesty’s Government as to whether an individual is permanently resident in the United Kingdom, I suggest that each side should inform the other of any relevant evidence which may be in their possession.

The guidance was to apply also to members of consular posts, and it was made clear that determinations of permanent residence in the context of the two Vienna Conventions would not affect the position of individuals under UK immigration laws. The rules cannot in themselves decide all difficult cases and it has sometimes been found necessary for consultations as envisaged in paragraph 4 of the Note to take place. But they have not been generally challenged either by criticism from the diplomatic corps in London or in the context of legal proceedings and the length of time during which they have been (p. 421) applied has strengthened their claim to constitute a reasonable interpretation of permanent residence for the purposes of Article 38.

The status of the 1969 Circular was judicially considered for the first time in the United Kingdom in 2004 in the case of Lutgarda Jimenez v Commissioners of Inland Revenue.16 Mrs Jimenez was employed as a locally engaged cook by the High Commission of Namibia in London in 1992 and claimed that she was entitled as a member of the service staff of the mission to tax relief under Article 37.3 on her earnings. Members of the service staff who are ‘permanently resident in the receiving State’ are, however, excluded from tax relief. Her claim was rejected by Special Commissioner John Walters QC mainly on the ground that her appointment as a member of the diplomatic mission of Namibia had never been notified to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and this aspect was considered above in the context of Article 10 of the Convention. It was also argued on behalf of Mrs Jimenez that she was not permanently resident in the United Kingdom because she had not acquired an English domicile of choice, but this approach to the interpretation of the term was rejected by the Special Commissioner. He maintained that he should in accordance with Article 31(3) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties take into account ‘any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which established the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation’. He noted that it was accepted by counsel for the parties that the provisions of the 1969 Circular had never been challenged by heads of mission in the United Kingdom and considered that on this basis it reflected customary international law which according to the Preamble to the Vienna Convention ‘should continue to govern questions not expressly regulated by the provisions of the Convention’. The key test set out in the Circular was whether the person was resident for a purpose unconnected with the holding of the status of membership of the mission. Under the terms of the Circular Mrs Jimenez was to be regarded as permanently resident in the United Kingdom and so she was disqualified from tax exemption.

In Belgium the Tribunal de Travail of Brussels also emphasized the importance of local recruitment in holding in 1971 in the case of Smith v Office National de l’Emploi17 that a British national locally engaged in 1962 to work for the British Embassy in Brussels was permanently resident in Belgium. The court held ‘that the applicant has had his permanent residence in Belgium since 1959 and that he was recruited on the spot as an employee by the services (p. 422) of the Embassy and that he did not have the status of a career diplomatic or consular agent’.

In Canada the Legal Bureau of the Department of External Affairs in a memorandum of December 197618 gave the following advice on construction of ‘permanently resident’:

  1. 1)  If a person living in Canada is considered by a Court to have changed his/her domicile of origin and acquired a domicile in Canada in common law (civil law) then a fortiori that person is permanently resident in Canada for the purpose of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations as he would be for the purpose of any federal or provincial statute that does not define precisely the term ‘permanently resident’.

  2. 2)  Even in the absence of acquisition of a domicile of choice in Canada, a person could be considered permanently resident in Canada for the purpose of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations if he meets certain criteria which could include an extended period of residence in Canada, having acquired a particular status such as landed immigrant and other facts establishing a remoteness or unlikelihood (for physical, financial, familial, political reasons) to leave Canada in the foreseeable future.

Although it would be convenient to be able to formulate a clear-cut definition of the phrase ‘permanently resident’ in Article 38 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, it seems necessary to consider each case on its merits. We could not say that residence for five years in Canada, for instance, or the fact of holding (or surrendering) landed immigrant status would in itself be conclusive in each case. Acquisition of landed immigrant status may be persuasive evidence of permanent residence, but surrender of that status does not necessarily mean the end of permanent residence….

Australia in a Circular Note of February 1989 to all diplomatic missions stated its policy as follows:19

A member of a diplomatic mission or consular post who has remained in Australia for a period exceeding six years may be determined, in the terms of the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations, to be permanently resident in Australia unless the Head of the Diplomatic Mission or Consular Post can satisfy the Department of Foreign Affairs that it should be otherwise. In making such a determination, the Department of Foreign Affairs will take into consideration a number of factors. These factors include:

  1. (a)  whether the person took up residence in Australia and at the post for personal reasons or at the direction of the sending State;

  2. (p. 423) (b)  whether the person was recruited locally or overseas, and whether the sending State intends repatriating the officer at the termination of the posting or appointment, together with members of the family forming part of the household;

  3. (c)  the length of time the person has been in Australia, whether continuously or in aggregate periods;

  4. (d)  any intention the person has of making a home indefinitely in Australia, and any conduct or action consistent with that intention;

  5. (e)  whether the person is or has become married to an Australian citizen or a permanent resident of Australia; and

  6. (f)  the links the person has with Australia and the sending State that are relevant to determining to which community the person is more likely to belong, such as ownership of residential accommodation, participation in pension or superannuation schemes etc.

German practice is broadly similar in that locally recruited personnel are presumed to be permanently resident unless the sending State gives binding assurances that they will be posted within the foreseeable future. Persons who are posted to Germany may change their status and become permanently resident if factors such as length of posting or marriage to a German national indicate intention to remain permanently in Germany.20 Switzerland and The Netherlands also start from the presumption that locally recruited staff are permanently resident in the receiving State.21

The US Government became a party to the Convention in 1972 and at first interpreted the words ‘permanently resident’ as equivalent to the term ‘permanent resident alien’ as that expression was employed in US immigration law. This status was the result of personal initiative by the individual, often in the context of an ultimate intention to seek US citizenship. In 1991, however, the Secretary of State in a Circular Note to chiefs of mission in Washington22 announced:

Upon careful review of the definition of ‘permanently resident in’, including the drafting of the Vienna Convention, the practice of other states, and the fundamental purposes of the Vienna Convention, the Department has determined that members of the administrative and technical and service staffs of diplomatic missions and consular employees and members of the service staff of consular posts in the United States will be considered permanently resident in the United States for the purpose of the Vienna (p. 424) Conventions unless the employing foreign state provides appropriate documentation to indicate that the sending state:

  1. (1)  pays the cost of the employee’s transportation to the United States from the employee’s normal place of residence;

  2. (2)  undertakes to transfer the employee and his or her immediate family out of the United States within a specific time frame consistent with the sending state’s transfer policy; and

  3. (3)  undertakes to pay the cost of the employee’s transportation from the United States to the employee’s normal place of residence or to the country of the employee’s next assignment at the end of the employee’s tour of duty in the United States.

Such documentation may include a copy of the person’s contract with the employing foreign state, a copy of the person’s travel orders or any other material showing that the above criteria are satisfied.

Missions were given two months’ grace before implementation of this change in US practice to enable them to review the standards, communicate them to their governments, and prepare supporting documentation for staff who would not be considered permanently resident.23 In some cases tax privileges continued to be given on a basis of reciprocity as permitted under Article 47 of the Convention.

The US criteria—though applied only to junior staff of diplomatic missions—are otherwise considerably more restrictive than those applied by the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. They may be said to proceed on the basis of the same fundamental test—that the person would not be in the receiving State but for the requirements of the sending State—but the onus is clearly placed on the sending State to provide documentary evidence of its ‘requirements’, and the intentions of the individual are not taken into account. The United States claims more categorically than do those other States whose practice is described the right to make a unilateral determination of status for the purpose of Article 38. It does so, however, in the light of evidence from the sending State, and assurances from sending States, though they may be queried by the State Department, are ultimately accepted. Other States have not challenged the compatibility of the US criteria with Article 38, and they greatly reduce the scope for argument and for abuse.

The practice of all these States contemplates the possibility of a change of residence status during a diplomatic posting. France, however, has determined permanent residence status by reference only to circumstances at the time (p. 425) of the original notification, treating as permanently resident in France those persons who at that moment had normally lived in France for more than one year. In the context of a dispute with Iran in 1987 over M Gordji, a member of the diplomatic mission of Iran in Paris who was summoned to appear before a French court, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who had accepted M Gordji in 1984 as a permanent resident of France and so not entitled to immunity from jurisdiction, claimed that they were entitled to determine the residence status of employees of a diplomatic mission.24 The different approaches taken by France and the United Kingdom gave rise during the 1980s to bilateral and to European discussions. In 1987 the matter was resolved in the following terms:

Without prejudice to the views of the Governments of the Twelve concerning their interpretation of the concept of permanent residence for the purposes of the application of the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations, the Twelve take note of a modus vivendi whereby the United Kingdom will not treat as having permanent residence those members of the Diplomatic and Consular missions of the Twelve who were not permanent residents on the date on which they took up their posts and who remain in post for less than 10 years. At the end of this period should the Ambassador to whom the persons concerned are responsible certify that they remain in post because of a decision by the sending State, and that they remain liable to be re-assigned from the United Kingdom at any time, they would not be regarded as permanent residents.25

One curious feature of the Convention which may perhaps be accidental26 is that under Article 37.1 members of the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of his household do not lose entitlement to privileges and immunities if they are permanently resident in the receiving State but only if they are nationals of the receiving State. Families of junior staff under Article 37.2 lose entitlement on both grounds.


(1721) ch XI.

(1758) IV.VIII para 112; cp Genet (1931) vol I pp 577–9.

(1681) Book I s 11. See Satow (5th edn 1979) para 17.13.

[1890] 24 QBD 368.

15 & 16 Geo 6 & 1 Eliz 2 c 18 (s 1).

4 Eliz 2 c 21 (s 2).

Decree of States-General of United Provinces of Belgium and Holland of 19 June 1681, cited in Vattel (1758) IV.VIII para 112; Argentina: UN Laws and Regulations pp 3, 4; Canada: ibid p 58; Colombia: ibid p 65; Denmark: ibid p 98; Finland: ibid pp 114–17; Germany: ibid pp 126–7; New Zealand: ibid p 218; Philippines: ibid p 236; Sweden: ibid pp 295–7; Switzerland: ibid p 324; South Africa: ibid p 332; United States: ibid all tax legislation. See also In Re di Sorbello (Marchese) 1941–2 AD No 108; Public Prosecutor v Sluys 1957 AD p 529; Resolution of Institute of International Law 1895, Art 2 in 26 AJIL (1932 Supp) 162.

ILC Yearbook 1957 vol I pp 98–108, 124–7; vol II pp 141–2; 1958 vol I pp 168–72; vol II pp 102–3.

UN Docs A/Conf. 20/C 1/L 224, L 279, and L 246/Rev. 1; A/Conf. 20/14 pp 204–6.

10  70 ILR 388.

11  Salmon (1994) para 420 suggests that in all those cases where a member of a mission is entitled to immunity only in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions, this is really state immunity.

12  The term ‘national of the receiving State’, pursuant to s 51(3)(a) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (c 61), now means British citizen, British Dependent Territories Citizen, British Overseas Citizen, or British National (Overseas). Provision for dual citizens in Commonwealth missions was made by the Diplomatic Privileges (Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies) Order 1964, SI 1964/2043 (Pt III s 2 p 5133), and by amending Orders.

13  Diplomatic Privileges (British Nationality) Order 1999, SI 1999/670. For an account of the explanation of the amending Order given to Parliament, see 1999 BYIL 490.

14  1966 ASDI 99.

15  UN Docs A/Conf. 20/C 1/L 279 (Australia) and L 246 Rev. 1 (Canada); A/Conf. 20/14 pp 205–6.

16  [2004] UK SPC 00419 (23 June 2004).

17  69 ILR 276.

18  1977 Can YIL 317.

19  Text of Note printed in Brown (1988) at pp 69–70.

20  Richtsteig (1994) p 91.

21  1984 ASDI 189; 1984 NYIL 311.

22  Circular Diplomatic Note of 10 April 1991, supplemented by Notes of 28 May 1991 and 1 November 1991, available at http://www.state.gov/ofm/31311.htm.

23  1991 AJIL 546; Handbook for Foreign Diplomatic and Career Consular Personnel in the United States para 9.3.3.

24  1984 ASDI 189; 1987 AFDI 1001; Brown (1988) at p 67.

25  Text supplied by Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

26  This is suggested by Lecaros (1984) at p 147.