digitalization of diplomacy

Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
DIGITALIZATION OF DIPLOMACY: A NEW WAY
OF MAKING DIPLOMACY?
Paula Sullaj (MsC)
University “Ismail Qemali” Vlorë, Albania
ABSTRACT: Information and Communication Technology has made great developments these past
decades. Its manifestation through the Internet has not only affected the way people interact but lately
even the way States communicate with their audiences. This however, leads to new situations which
international arena has to deal with and quickly adapt. Such an occurrence happens to be even more new
to the way Diplomacy conduces itself. Authors and ambassadors have taken different approaches on the
topic but they all agree at one point, Classic Diplomacy is not prepared for this. Thus, it is important to
have a look on how these occurrences can be interpreted in the lens of the current international right. The
existing treaties on diplomatic and consular relations offer the space for an extended interpretation of
certain articles, yet there is a point where this interpretation cannot be done. Simultaneously, the Internet
is a phenomenon from which Diplomacy has no escape. Therefore Diplomacy is left with two choices:
either to keep up the pace of its legal aspects at the same level of the technological development, or to
wait until a customary attitude takes place.
Key words: E- Diplomacy, Internet, International Law, Diplomatic Law, Consular Law, Vienna
Conventions, E- governance.
1. Introduction
The international context has changed through various developments, but still some things
find change as a hard thing to do. Through diplomacy States interact with each other, in order to
come down to settlements or improve relationships. Whilst the Internet is the new way society
widely communicates nowadays, it cannot exclude from such an effect even the ways diplomacy
conducts itself through it.
The Internet has connected the world in such ways that it would have not be considered
possible before. Activism and political changes, sometimes, occur only through and because of it.
This big impact has pushed diplomats to use it in the best ways they could think of, keeping in
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
mind the limits diplomacy itself imposes. We can see now Foreign Ministers using social media
such as Twitter or Facebook, to communicate with each other and also with their public. This has
grown the role of non-governmental organizations and interested public to have a bigger impact
on the policies taken by States. Thus, it is now happening what many call “the democratization of
diplomacy”. Not only technology and the Internet could be used as a means for public diplomacy
and exchanging messages between diplomats. It has been possible that through the Internet
diplomats can develop negotiation processes. Of course, this isn’t widely practiced, but anyhow
steps have been made into this. E-negotiations, as they are called, would have many beneficial
aspects regarding costs, time and also discreteness. A negotiation process made in through such
tools would become less visible to the public and thus the decision-making would be done
without much pressure. But as everything, it has its drawbacks. As much as secrecy may happen,
at the same time cyber attacks, can happen so the information exchanged between diplomats can
be used in other means. This is why this whole activity needs also to be regulated in legal forms.
Currently there are no treaties made from States on the diplomatic activity and the Internet. This
possibly, because there isn’t yet a created custom attitude of States to fall upon agreements.
In this essay, we will try to discuss even further the impact of the Internet in diplomacy. We
will see how diplomacy applies its functions via the Internet through the first chapter. Whilst in
the second chapter we will be making an interpretation of the Vienna Conventions, regarding the
Internet usage from diplomats. And thirdly, we will make some conclusions regarding digital
diplomacy.
2. The Internet, a new path to diplomacy?
Although the conception of the Internet dates back to the 1960s it was only until the 1990s
that the Internet gained popularity, and together with other technologies deriving from
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
microprocessors gave rise to what is known as the information revolution.1 New communication
tools have allowed a free flow of content and information. As a result information is no longer
limited to privileged government officials but is accessed by the general public. Info on a
population of a country, its economy or demographics, international statistics and rankings,
updates on political events and many other basic information one may access instantly via
numerous Internet services such as country’s official site, Wikipedia, “CIA World Factbook”[...]or publicly available sources.2 Generally speaking the world has never witnessed more
transparency than now as the result of the Information Revolution. Information and news is
immediately available, and developments in any part of the world have become visible.3
But, technology creates the means. The people that use it define the ends to which it is put4.
Thus Wescott continues arguing that the Internet has three fundamental impacts on international
relations:
• it multiplies and amplifies the number of voices and interests involved in international
policy-making, complicating international decision-making and reducing the exclusive control of
states in the process;
• it accelerates and frees the dissemination of information, accurate or not, about any issue
or event which can impact on its consequences and handling;
• it enables traditional diplomatic services to be delivered faster and more cost effectively,
both to ones’ own citizens and government, and to those of other countries.5
Following these impacts, we realize the growing influence of states, and also nongovernmental organizations, businesses and even citizens in decision-making. So, despite how
1
GRECH , Virtual Diplomacy: Diplomacy of the Digital Age. Diss. U of Malta, August 2006. p. 3.
RADUNOVIC, The Role of Information and Communication Technologies in Diplomacy and Diplomatic service.
Diss. U of Malta, 2010. P. 36.
3
GRECH, op. cit., p. 6.
4
WESTCOTT, Digital Diplomacy: The Impact of the Internet on International Relations. OII Working Paper No. 16. 1
Jul. 2008. P. 3.
5
WESTCOTT., op. cit., p. 2.
2
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
many state structures still exist, in places they are becoming disaggregated or hollowed out. Most
people still vote in national elections and pay taxes to national revenue authorities; but their
interest, loyalty and activities are becoming more focused at a global, as well as local and
national, level.6 Potter on Cyber-Diplomacy: Managing Foreign Policy in the Twenty-First
Century says that this only means that the new technology’s possibilities have “leveled the
playing field” in which public diplomacy is conducted.(Qtd.in. H. Hoffman172)7 So, continue
Khatib, Dutton and Thelwall in Public Diplomacy 2.0 “the Internet is used as the starting point
for journalists in traditional media for the gathering of topics and opinions. Thus, online content
can be very influential in “intermedia agenda setting”, but at the same time it can only realize its
power through the old media’s cooperation.(Qtd.in. H. Hoffman175)8 Also, one key element of
public diplomacy, the explaining of policy becomes even more important when citizens are
confronted with different, contesting information from sources that all follow their own political
agenda. Moreover, public diplomacy actors need to establish a credibility that makes them one of
the voices that is heard and trusted among users.9
At this point, the role of diplomacy, and what is called public diplomacy, has changed in
the need to adapt to these fast changes. This change has been reflected not only in the growing
number of subjects, when it comes to international decision-making, but also how governments
and diplomats communicate, interact and accomplish their functions with this wider global
public. In Transformational Diplomacy, O’ Keefe states that traditional means of public
diplomacy such as participation at public events or appearance in media may allow some space
only, commonly for the ambassador, while the potential of other mission staff might not get the
6
WESTCOTT, op. cit., p. 4.
HOFFMAN, Twitter as an Instrument of Public Diplomacy: A Case Study of Sweden and Germany. Thesis.
University of Göttingen, University of Uppsala, 2013. Stockholm: 2013. P. 31.
8
Id., p. 32.
9
HOFFMANN, op. cit., p. 32.
7
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
opportunity. (Qtd. in. Radunovic)10 Whilst using the Internet, the communication with the public
may be more direct and also staff members may be able to do it, in order to create real contact
with the audience, be it of the hosting country, or the global audience. For this reason the
Information Revolution is the increased risk of being misunderstood. With the constant pressure
of diplomats into public diplomacy, information which was traditionally intended for diplomatic
recipients is now being delivered also to the non-diplomatic community. Moreover, besides other
diplomatic opponents sources which may scrutinize diplomats are increased to the media and
public in general, together with non-government and other organizations.11 This is a side-effect of
the fast decision-making diplomats are faced to do when faced with too much information in a
very little time. However, we shall discuss the diplomatic functions on the Internet more
extendedly below.
10
11
RADUNOVIC., op. cit., p. 40.
GRECH, op. cit., p. 9
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
3. Virtual diplomacy
We know that diplomacy is an information intensive business, but we have not entirely
figured out how to apply technology to meet the mission of statecraft, an area populated by an
ever-increasing number of actors, many of whom are not states.12 The involvement of non-state
actors such as corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), special interest groups,
social movements and even private citizens in affairs of the state is constantly on the increase and
is making diplomacy less state-centric.13 The Internet has become an indispensable tool,
alongside official sources, for gathering the information, and the global Internet public has
become an indispensable audience to whom to explain the basis of decisions.14 Westcostt claims
that this growing involvement of actors in diplomacy isn’t a product of the Internet itself, but “but
it has reinforced the capacity of non-state actors to participate in the debate and outcome”.15
Government agencies are now using social media to improve public services, reduce costs and
increase transparency. Through these media, they can inform citizens, promote their services,
seek public views and feedback, and monitor satisfaction with the services they offer so as to
improve their quality. As social media enable two-way communication in real time, government
agencies can quickly engage citizens as co-producers of services, not just passive recipients.16
Thus, the Internet has allowed a significant number of diplomatic tasks such as consular or other
administrative duties to be effected in an online fashion, yielding many advantages and increased
opportunities17.
12
BRONK, Diplomacy Rebooted: Making digital statecraft a reality. Foreign Service Journal 87th ser. (3). March
2010. par. 5.
13
GRECH, op. cit., p. 7
14
WESTCOTT, op. cit., p.19
15
WESTCOTT., op. cit., p. 8
16
“Expanding Usage to Realize the Full Benefits of E- government.” United Nations E-Government Survey. New
York: 2012. 101-15. P. 109.
17
GRECH, op. cit., p.10.
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
4. Diplomatic functions online
By far, we have been discussing the use of the Communication and Information
Technology by states, which has led our focus on diplomatic missions and its use of the Internet.
Lately, this usage of technology has been shedding doubts whether there is or not a digital
diplomacy under development. But what is or would be a digital diplomacy, or differently called
e-diplomacy? Waller calls virtual diplomacy “the decision-making, coordination, communication,
and practice of international relations as they are conducted with the aid of information and
communications technologies” in his The public diplomacy reader.(Qtd. in. Radunovic)18 As for
William Assanvo “in the term ‘e-Diplomacy’, the key element is not electronic but diplomacy. EDiplomacy remains Diplomacy not electronics. The e-diplomacy assumes and emphasizes the
‘electronic’ as a tool that should serve a state’s national interests in diplomatic relations.”(Qtd. in.
Nweke)19 The basic functions of a diplomatic mission, among other things, include negotiation,
promotion of friendly relations between the host country and the home country, protecting in the
receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals etc.20 Seeing these functions
with the Internet usage lenses according to Ambassador Rana, in one of the DiploProjects when
18
RADUNOVIC, op. cit., p. 33.
NWEKE, “Diplomacy in Era of Digital Governance: Theory and Impact.” Information and Knowledge Management
3rd ser. 2 (2012): 22-26. IISTE. P. 22-23.
20
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 18 April 1961, Art. 3 «1. The functions of a diplomatic mission
consist inter alia in:(a) representing the sending State in the receiving State;
(b) protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, within the limits permitted
by international law;
(c) negotiating with the Government of the receiving State;
(d) ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State, and reporting thereon to the
Government of the sending State;
(e) promoting friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and developing their economic,
cultural and scientific relations.»
19
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
speaking about Bilateral diplomacy, contemporary professional diplomacy might be better
defined by promotion, outreach, negotiation, feedback, management and servicing.(Qtd. in.
Radunovic)21
Practically, the Internet, also called a new version of media, holds information in its core.
Information takes various shapes on the online ground, starting from texts, video, audio and many
other web applications, whose use also could not be neglected by states. Despite how diplomacy
bases its communication on more traditional means such as telegrams, letters or personal direct
meetings, it has made steps into integrating with this whole new reality. So, the representation22
and communication between state agents has become much easier and faster. This is why
Solomon clarifies through his article The Internet and the Diffusion of Diplomacy, that even
though “virtual… implies a lack of reality…, virtual diplomacy, however, is real diplomacy - in
the sense of authoritative interactions between officials of different governments”(Qtd. in.,
Grech)23. Not only, but networking also helps in “nourishing conversant and updated relations
with key actors of the political elite and all the stakeholders in the host country”24. Through
mobile and web applications, diplomats and state agents not only can communicate with their
colleagues and stay up to date with their activities, but their net of acquaintances may grow with a
simple click, just by adding someone in the “friend list”25 without the need to have had a
interaction before. This is helpful in two aspects; first, it is an easy way to extend the circle of
acquaintances, which may help in accomplishing even more the foreign policy of one’s own
country. A friend more, is one more “alley”. Second, through different statements on personal
21
RADUNOVIC, op. cit., p. 35.
State representation is one of the key functions of diplomacy. It is beneficial for the growth of better relations for
representatives to communicate not only with their host colleagues, but also with the home country, in order to
follow the policy of their own states in a better way. The internet has been a tool to fasten the process.
23
GRECH, op. cit., p. 12.
24
RADUNOVIC, op. cit., p. 39.
25
Ibid. RADUNOVIC explains “having persons in „friends list “and automatically receiving occasional broadcasted
updates from them (on real-life events attended, personal posts, new „friend “connections established, photos
uploaded) makes one feel comfortable with reverting to one-to-one requests when needed at any time.”
22
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
profiles or various posts, it is another way of gathering information either on their mentality or
various other subjects, which may come handy in a later time, for example when negotiating.
But when it comes to information, we already said the Internet offers miscellaneous variety.
Information is stored in a binary digital format and this property has various advantages.
Information may be submitted to various recipients at will and be accessed by virtually
anyone with the permission and resources to do so.26 Although we should admit how the new
varieties of information are creating new dilemmas. How can government leaders and diplomats
assess the reliability of sources? Which news accounts and political analyses should matter, and
which should be discounted? When does the perceived credibility of a source make it worthy of
respect, notwithstanding its dubious quality or bias?27 Hence, gathering reliable information and
informed analysis have always been at the heart of foreign policy making. The multiplication of
sources of information and advice, combined with the involvement of more actors in the process,
make it more important to share information and analysis more widely.28
Diplomats do not need information only to report in their home country, but also because
it’s very important during the negotiation process. Not only, technology makes the whole process
possible without a need to be physically present. Technology has created the possibility for
negotiating parties to consult with the home government, foreign ministry or other concerned
organizations in a virtual fashion in order to obtain advice.29 This is why Gregory E. Kersten
considers e-negotiation as a social process embedded in technology. In E-negotiations: Towards
Engineering of Technology-based Social Processes he follows by saying that the minimal
technology-based functions are communication, presentation and interaction in a simple textbased form. At the other end e-negotiation may involve negotiators, decision and negotiation
26
GRECH, op. cit., p.5.
BOLLIER, The Rise of Netpolitik, How the Internet Is Changing the International Politics and Diplomacy. Rep.
Washington DC: Aspen Institute, 2003. P. 10.
28
WESTCOTT, op. cit., p. 18.
29
GRECH, op. cit., p. 34.
27
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
support systems, knowledge based systems and media, all of which are active and creating
content. The participants of e-negotiations and the relationships among them comprise an enegotiation system (ENS)”.(Qtd. in. Grench)30 This can be very well illustrated with the
negotiation process of the 24Th November 2005 between the United Kingdom, Canada and
European Union, which occurred through a video conference, because the British Prime
Minister’s spokesman said on the British Prime Minister Website that “a face-to-face meeting
was not possible due to diary commitments, and that video conferencing was an effective use of
new technology”(qtd. in. Grench)31.
When it comes to public diplomacy we can’t but say, it is one of the many important
purposes of a diplomatic mission. Partridge explains how it can be used “to gain the support of
people and institutions; to attract people to shared freedoms and values; to engage and persuade
others about who we are, what we do, and what we stand for; to educate and bond through the
exchange of ideas, people, experiences, and trade; and to demonstrate goodwill and a desire to
achieve just political arrangements.”(qtd. in. Bollier)32 And as Sandre puts it ‘On the one hand it
allows heads of state and government to broadcast their daily activities and government news to
an ever growing audience. On the other hand it allows citizens direct access to their leaders”33.
So, “the public has acquired the freedom to exert pressure on governmental decisions,
particularly in decisions involving international commitments or national interests”34, which at
times would make it difficult for diplomats to follow their home countries objectives. Thus,
explains Faris in Diplomacy, Development and Security in the Information Age, within the era of
the three-level game, diplomats continue to mediate state relationships, but must do so with a new
30
Id., p. 32.
Ib., 36.
32
BOLLIER, op. cit., p. 16.
33
SANDRE, “Diplomacy in the Internet Era.” Twitter for Diplomats. 2013. p. 24.
34
GRECH, op. cit., p. 6.
31
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
appreciation for public opinion as channeled through social media.(Qtd. in.Kalathil6)35
Moreover, they must comprehend that global publics are now part of creating diplomacy, not
merely consuming it.36 For public diplomacy practitioners it served as a reminder: the world has
undergone some rapid and dramatic changes that require them to adapt quickly. New
communications platforms are different and digital communication platforms like Twitter,
Facebook and blogs are far more democratic. In what will be an incredibly short timeframe, the
world will soon reach the point where almost every single person on the planet has the potential
to be a publisher, writer, photographer, video producer and blogger.37 This situation on the other
hand leads to many difficulties when decisions need to be made. First, considering the public
pressure and its sensibility on certain matters diplomats will need to keep in mind what different
non-state actors need and limit their choices within a very short time; also, states in their official
websites and profiles in social media do not focus on the message behind the words as much as
they focus on being always up to date with all the global happenings at a certain moment. But to
understand public diplomacy one needs to also understand how much it is part of a state’s egovernance of. E-governance does not have state representatives as its only subjects, but it also
includes IT technicians, secretaries and all the staff that makes the web page more
communicative and updated. In the same way, the public diplomacy of a state isn’t entirely made
of state representatives, but most of the times it is made of people who stay behind the scenes.
This of course leads also to some risks, such as those communicating with the public are not
connected to the state by obvious string therefore in the public’s eye the chief representative is
the one at fault. Another example would be the act of the employees of the Department of State,
who posted pictures of their Frappucinos thus reaching out with a very typical feature of Twitter,
35
KALATHIL, Adapting for the Global Diplomatic Arena: A report of the Annual Aspen Institute Dialogue on
Diplomacy and Technology. Washington DC: Aspen Institute, 2014. P. 7.
36
Ibid.
37
HANSON, The New Public Diplomacy. Perspectives. Lowy Institute for International Policy, April 2011. P. 2.
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
the sharing of frequent life updates. However, the United States were on the verge of war during
this time, which made the post seem cynical and did not help the public diplomacy of the state at
all.(qtd. in. Hoffman184)38 So, as we have seen by far the role of the state in public diplomacy
has become more interactive, which has led to a deviance from traditional diplomacy that used
public speeches, or interviews in the media as the only way of communicating. Furthermore, with
the information technology it has become easier to promote businesses, culture and tourism of the
home country. Showing the mission, functions and competences of the diplomatic mission has
also become more cost-free.39 In some cases states have even used virtual embassies as a better
way of introducing their international politics; we could mention the case of the virtual embassy
of the United States in Iran40, or the e-embassy of Estonia, which is a representation of the real
diplomatic mission the Estonian state. Obviously public diplomacy is diplomacy using
information technology as the main tool to orient itself directly toward citizens. Listening can be
done through media monitoring and opinion polls, but nowhere can it be done as easily – and
cheaply - as on Twitter: here one can simply check the trending topics and read millions of users’
thoughts on Swedish politics, Iranian riots or the Belgian candidate in the Eurovision Song
Contest.41 This attempt to a more direct communication has led to what many call Twiplomacy.
Twiplomacy “is forcing its way onto the foreign policy agenda as a consolidated e-diplomacy tool
to rethink objectives and better respond to new challenges.”42At the same time its risk o is evident
when you do not know the public reading the screen and its interpretations of each word. This
hasn’t stopped many diplomats to use Twitter or Facebook to even communicate with their
38
HOFFMANN ,op. cit., p. 33.
Of course states need to invest more on technology and technicians, but that cannot be compared to the time and
money used before on paper and or bureaucratic procedures. It is a faster and more comfortable way for citizens and
not only but even the audience around the globe.
40
Although between the two states diplomatic relations have ceased to exist, the virtual embassy is only a finding of
the USA to inform its citizens in Iran, or other people living in the area, who may be interested in the United States
policy. On the official website it is clearly stated that isn’t a real embassy nor a representation of it.
41
HOFFMANN ,op. cit., p. 36.
42
SANDRE, op. cit., p. 27.
39
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
colleagues. In May 2011, Carl Bildt, the Swedish foreign minister, also crowned as the most
well-connected foreign minister on social media site Twitter,43after various attempts to
communicate with his counterpart in Bahrain, Foreign Minister Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa –
aka @khalidalkhalifa – by traditional means of communication, he decided to tweet him. Al
Khalifa didn’t take long to respond – using the more traditional diplomatic channels – but he
couldn’t resist responding on Twitter.44 When taken in an interview by the Associated Press
asked if that was the future of diplomacy, Blidt said “It shows that in the modern world you can
seek contact in modern ways”45. But do these modern ways include non-formal language,
something that traditional diplomacy is very fond of? James Carafano expressed himself on this
matter saying that “If somebody thinks that 140 characters is the diplomatic solution to solving
the world’s problems, and then we’ve got a big problem” he continues “Twitter really wasn’t
created for diplomacy. Twitter’s not even created to have a conversation.”(Qtd. in.
Sandre19)46Furthermore, Article 41(2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, states
that every official business between the sending and receiving State should be done with/through
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs47, does this mean that all the communications done from
diplomats on social media do not have a legal status? Kurbalija’s presents two future-images of
this aspect; the first one is an internet-based interpretation of the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations; whilst the second prediction includes the adoption of an ‘internet protocol’,
which would provide explanations of the current rules and contain other rules for the new arising
43
“Sweden’s Carl Bildt Top of the Tweep-stakes.” Online posting. The Local. 24 Jul. 2013. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.
SANDRE, op. cit., p. 28-29.
45
RITTER, “Foreign ministers try Twitter-diplomacy.” Online posting. Stuff. 27 May. 2011. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.
46
SANDRE, op. cit., p. 26.
47
Art. 41(2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961. «All official business with the receiving State
entrusted to the mission by the sending State shall be conducted with or through the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of
the receiving State or such other ministry as may be agreed. »
44
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
problems.48 Apparently diplomacy is in between traditional means and modern ones. Considering
how politics needs to grow its impact by any ways possible, it may still be difficult for diplomats
to get adapted to this new reality. However, it is certain that face-to-face diplomacy is still a
proper way of conducting proper diplomacy.
5. The legal aspects of digital diplomacy
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations49 and The Vienna Convention Consular
Relations50 are both treaties deeply based in the customary law of diplomatic relations between
states, thus its articles are obligatory not only to those states which ratified the treaties, but also to
the entire international community, because of the force customary law holds within. The
diplomatic law covers three main areas: (1) the establishment of diplomatic relations and the
status of diplomatic missions; (2) the performance of diplomatic functions; and (3) diplomatic
immunities, privileges, and facilities.51 But how can these areas be interpreted with the fast
changes technology has had these 50 years? We previously discussed the influence of the Internet
in the functions of the diplomatic mission, that is why in this section we will focus on the
diplomatic immunities, privileges and facilities provided in the Conventions, of course
interpreting by including the Internet’s influence in them all, because the Internet is now “an
inseparable part of the process of global political change”52.
48
KURBALIJA, “Rights and Obligations of States in Cyberspace.” Ed. Kathrina Ziolkowski. Peacetime Regime for
State Activities in Cyberspace. International Law, International Relations and Diplomacy. Tellinn: NATO CCD
COE Publication, 2013. P. 423.
49
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations was adopted on 18th April 1961, and by now it has been ratified
by 190 states. Here and after we will be referring it as V.C.D.R.
50
The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations was adopted on 24th April 1963, and is currently ratified by 177
states. Here and after referred to as V.C.C.R
51
KURBALIJA., op. cit. p. 124
52
WESTCOTT., op. cit., p. 5
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
6. Immunities, privileges and facilities in the Internet era
Despite the different theories which discuss the legal source of immunities53, it is now
widely accepted that immunities were given in order to provide the representatives of the sending
State the optimal conditions to pursue their mission. This is also provided in the V.C.D.R., in its
preamble is clearly stated “that the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit
individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as
representing States”54. In this case the State is the one holding the right to immunity, an immunity
that prevents the sovereign state itself or its representative from being subjected to suit without its
consent. The immunity of the diplomatic agent last as much as his mission does55, and he isn’t
subject to the national laws of the host state for criminal acts made during his mission, even
though the host state has rights to exchange diplomatic notes with the sending state, or to even
announce the agent as persona non grata. When it comes to the immunities of the diplomatic
agent, they are somewhat less than those of the diplomatic one. The Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations protects the inviolability of consular officers up to a certain point. The
inviolability of a consular agent can be possible in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a
53
HILL and KATHLEEN, “Immunity.” The Free Dictionary. Web. 23 Jan. 2015. “Exemption from performing duties
that the law generally requires other citizens to perform, or from apenalty or burden that the law generally places
upon other citizens.”
54
Preamble, V.C.D.R. 1961. Previously the Preamble states « Believing that an international convention on
diplomatic intercourse, privileges and immunities would contribute to the development of friendly relations among
nations, irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems.», and this shows another principle within,
which is the reciprocity principle; a very important principle to ensure stable and equal relations between states.
55
Art. 39 (2) of V.C.D.R «When the functions of a person enjoying privileges and immunities have come to an end,
such privileges and immunities shall normally cease at the moment when he leaves the country, or on expiry of a
reasonable period in which to do so, but shall subsist until that time, even in case of armed conflict. However, with
respect to acts performed by such a person in the exercise of his functions as a member of the mission, immunity
shall continue to subsist.»
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
decision by the competent judicial authority56, but always after sending before a notification of
arrest, detention or prosecution to the head of the consular post or the sending state itself57. Is
should be said that diplomatic agents and consular officials aren’t the only ones to be given
immunities. The diplomatic mission also holds immunities given by the Convents, also members
of the administrative and technical staff of the mission, the family members of the diplomatic
mission residing in the receiving state58, these immunities however are far more less when it
comes to members of consular staff. However, “without prejudice to their privileges and
immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the
laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal
affairs of that State.”59,60 So, the right of immunity belongs only to the sending state and none of
his representatives and at the same it the obligation to respect this immunity fall onto the
56
Art. 41(1), V.C.C.R., «Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of
a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority.»
57
Art. 42, V.C.C.R, «In the event of the arrest or detention, pending trial, of a member of the consular staff, or of
criminal proceedings being instituted against him, the receiving State shall promptly notify the head of the consular
post. Should the latter be himself the object of any such measure, the receiving State shall notify the sending State
through the diplomatic channel».
58
Art. 37, V.C.D.R «The members of the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of his household shall, if they are
not nationals of the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in articles 29 to 36.
2.Members of the administrative and technical staff of the mission, together with members of their families
forming part of their respective households, shall, if they are not nationals of or 12 permanently resident in the
receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in articles 29 to 35, except that the immunity from civil
and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving State specified in paragraph 1 of article 31 shall not extend to acts
performed outside the course of their duties. They shall also enjoy the privileges specified in article 36, paragraph 1,
in respect of articles imported at the time of first installation.
3. Members of the service staff of the mission who are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State
shall enjoy immunity in respect of acts performed in the course of their duties, exemption from dues and taxes on the
emoluments they receive by reason of their employment and the exemption contained in article 33.
4. Private servants of members of the mission shall, if they are not nationals of or permanently resident in the
receiving State, be exempt from dues and taxes on the emoluments they receive by reason of their employment. In
other respects, they may 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».
59
Art. 41, V.C.D.R
60
Also, Art. 55 of V.C.C.R
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
receiving state, who has to take all the necessary measures to ensure a peaceful environment for
the diplomatic mission to be developed. “The receiving State is under a special duty to take all
appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to
prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity”,61 this is also
valid when it comes to protect the consular premises62. The same obligations fall on the residence
state of an international organization, the invader country of the receiving state, or the receiving
state of a government in exile.
7. The immunities of the diplomatic mission are expressed in both Vienna
conventions
These immunities mostly regard the inviolability of premises, the prohibition of entering
the premise without the consent of the chief of the mission, the prohibition of taking executive
measures from the host state in the premises of the sending state, the immunity from jurisdiction,
protecting mission goods that are outside the mission and so on. There are of course some
differences in the provisions of each Convention and this will be shown even when interpreting
them in the Internet context. The Internet has of course changed some developments of
diplomacy, but can these developments be considered within or without an extended
interpretation of the Vienna Conventions?
The inviolability of premises is widely accepted under international law. Inviolability
usually means exemptions from the jurisdiction of the receiving State. Thus, the first element of
inviolability is the freedom of the premises from entry by authorities of receiving State. Even
when crimes are being committed inside the premises of the diplomatic mission, the only way by
which receiving State agencies can enter diplomatic missions is to obtain consent of the head of
61
62
Art. 22 (2), V.C.D.R.
Art. 59, V.C.C.R.
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
the mission.63 Whilst the
V.C.C.R.
adds some limits to this guarantee such as allowing the
authorities of the receiving State to enter that part of consular premises used for work when a
permition “of the head of the consular post or of his designee or of the head of the diplomatic
mission of the sending State”64. Assuming for an instance, that a diplomatic mission or a consular
post is used to commit Internet-related crimes, for example, computers inside the diplomatic
mission are used to create viruses that steal the bank information of the citizens in the host State,
or perhaps are preparing a cyber65 terrorism attack in the receiving state. Even if such an activity
may have been noticed by the receiving State, yet for it to interfere in the diplomatic premises
without the consent of the head of the mission is impossible. Where cyber crimes are committed
on the premises of consular posts, the agents have more options. Firstly, entry into parts of the
premises of consular post unrelated to consular function is not restricted. Thus, the agents may
enter these parts and gather more evidence from there. Secondly, agents may enter parts of the
premises used exclusively for consular function, after obtaining the consent of either the head of
the post or his designee, or the head of the diplomatic mission of the sending State.66 Then again,
according to both Conventions the host State has the duty “to take all appropriate steps to protect
the consular premises against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the
peace of the consular post or impairment of its dignity”67. The intrusion and damage mentioned
in this paragraph of the article are somewhat mentioned in the previous paragraph of the same
article, where the authorities of the receiving State are allowed to enter the consular premise and
the “consent of the head of the consular post may, however, be assumed in case of fire or other
63
CHOI, Diplomatic and Consular law in the Internet age, Singapore Year Book of International Law and
Contributors, 2006
64
Art. 31 (2) V.C.C.R.
65
“Cyber”. Oxford Dictionaries. Web. 23 Jan. 2015 “Cyber- (adj.) Relating to or characteristic of the culture of
computers, information technology, and virtual reality: the cyber age,”
66
Choi, op. cit., pg. 121.
67
Art. 31 (3) V.C.C.R.
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
disaster requiring prompt protective action”68. Professor Choi, argues that if certain people try to
spread computer viruses into the computer of the consular post, this could be considered as an
“other disaster” and so the receiving State could enter in the consular post in application to the
Article 31(2) of the
V.C.C.R.
69
She continues by saying “the dictionary meaning of the word
“disaster” is not confined to natural disasters.[...] In this sense, the V.C.C.R. can be interpreted in
such a way that, in emergency situations... agents of the receiving State may enter the premises of
the consular post without consent.”70 She follows by saying that “disaster exception” only applies
to situations where the diplomatic mission or consular post falls victim to a cyber disaster
originating from outside. In other words, situations in which the mission or post itself generates
cyber disaster to the outside are not covered.71 In any case, the authorities of the receiving state
are not allowed to withdraw any device in the consular premise, not matter how much suspicious
their usage may be. However, it is not clear whether inviolability could be extended to digital
assets which are located outside the mission on, for example, internet servers in a cloud72. For the
protection of this type of digital asset, the closest analogy is the protection of bank accounts,
which are held outside the premises of the mission.73 Denza interprets this issue further by
including the Convention on Special Missions (1969), whose 25th article “includes inviolability to
68
Supra note 58.
CHOI, op. cit., p. 122.
70
Ibid.
71
Id., p. 123.
72
VANGIE, “Cloud”. Webopedia, Web. 23 Jan. 2015. “1) Also referred to as a network cloud. In telecommunications,
a cloud refers to a public or semi-public space on transmission lines (such as T1 or T3) that exists between the end
points of a transmission. Data that is transmitted across a WAN enters the network from one end point using a
standard protocol suite such as Frame Relay and then enters the network cloud where it shares space with other data
transmissions. The data emerges from the cloud -- where it may be encapsulated, translated and transported in
myriad ways -- in the same format as when it entered the cloud. A network cloud exists because when data is
transmitted across apacket-switched network in a packet, no two packets will necessarily follow the same physical
path. The unpredictable area that the data enters before it is received is the cloud.”
73
KURBALIJA, op. cit., p. 415.
69
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
‘other property used in the operation of the special mission’,74 however, some digital assets such
as electronic documents could enjoy wider protection via the provision of Article 24 of the
V.C.D.R.
that guarantees protection of diplomatic archives ‘at any time and wherever they may
be’.(Qtd. in. Kurbalija)75
The inviolability of Archives and Documents is provided in Article 24 of V.C.D.R., which
states that “The archives and documents of the mission shall be inviolable at any time and
wherever they may be.”76 The word ‘documents’ mentioned in the Article should not exclude
from its meaning electronic documents like computer files,
CD-s
or any other means in which an
electronic document may be stored. Choi says that it should not matter if these electronic files are
saved in the main system computer of the mission or post as disposable files, Web-pages or
binary codes, because also enjoy this privilege of inviolability. Therefore, any kind of electronic
document cannot be opened, searched, or requisitioned without the permission of diplomats or
consuls.77 This protection is strengthened by the phrase ‘wherever they may be’ including within
also databases, electronic documents and emails stored in cloud servers and services such as
GoogleDocs or Skydrive.78 Thus, Kurbalija discusses, diplomatic archives and documents found
outside the mission enjoy immunity, even if they are not clearly marked or otherwise identifiable
as diplomatic documents.79 “This decision does not help to solve the question of the immunity of
diplomatic digital assets saved on servers in a cloud.”80 It would be more than normal to further
74
Art. 25 (3) of the Convention of Special Missions, 1969. «The premises of the special mission, their furnishings,
other property used in the operation of the special mission and its means of transport shall be immune from search,
requisition, attachment or execution..»
75
KURBALIJA, loc. cit.
76
Art. 24, V.C.D.R.
77
CHOI, loc. cit.
78
KURBALIJA, op. cit.,p. 421.
79
Ibid.
80
Ibid
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
ask, up at what point should the receiving state protect these immunities?81 This is a question
customary law will probably give an answer, sooner or later.
Freedom of communication is another immunity provided to the diplomatic mission of the
sending State, which finds ground in various articles of V.C.D.R. and V.C.C.R. Thus, Art. 27(1)
provides again the obligation of the receiving State to “permit and protect free communication on
the part of the mission for all official purposes.”82 The entire Article 27 of the V.C.D.R., describes
various immunities given in this aspect, such as free communication, inviolability of the official
correspondence, the prohibition of opening the diplomatic bag even when entrusted “to the
captain of a commercial aircraft scheduled to land at an authorized port of entry”83 and similar
predictions are made in the V.C.C.R. in its 35th Article. Technology has mainly been used as a tool
of communication between diplomats ever since the telegram was invented, so it is apt to say
81
Ibid. KURBALIJA answers to the question is “In international law, legal action based on diplomatic or consular
immunities cannot be taken against private companies, for example, Google or Facebook, which may be involved in
the breach of e-immunity.” But what would then happen to other companies, which do not have this immunity? Can
the host state interfere and take measures even towards people who are not part of its jurisdiction?
82
Art. 27 (1), V.C.D.R, 1961. «1. The receiving State shall permit and protect free communication on the part of the
mission for all official purposes. In communicating with the Government and the other missions and consulates of
the sending State, wherever situated, the mission may employ all appropriate means, including diplomatic
couriers and messages in code or cipher. However, the mission may install and use a wireless transmitter only with
the consent of the receiving State»
83
Ibid. The remaining part of the Article goes as follows: «2.The official correspondence of the mission shall be
inviolable. Official correspondence means all correspondence relating to the mission and its functions.
3. The diplomatic bag shall not be opened or detained.
4. The packages constituting the diplomatic bag must bear visible external marks of their character and may contain
only diplomatic documents or articles intended for official use.
5. The diplomatic courier, who shall be provided with an official document indicating his status and the number of
packages constituting the diplomatic bag, shall be protected by the receiving State in the performance of his
functions. He shall enjoy person inviolability and shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.
6. The sending State or the mission may designate diplomatic couriers ad hoc. In such cases the provisions of
paragraph 5 of this article shall also apply, except that the immunities therein mentioned shall cease to apply when
such a courier has delivered to the consignee the diplomatic bag in his charge.
7. A diplomatic bag may be entrusted to the captain of a commercial aircraft scheduled to land at an authorized port
of entry. He shall be provided with an official document indicating the number of packages constituting the bag but
he shall not be considered to be a diplomatic courier. The mission may send one of its members to take possession of
the diplomatic bag directly and freely from the captain of the aircraft. »
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
how the Internet is mainly being used as a tool of communication between diplomats too. This is
why it is closely related to the freedom of communication in diplomacy. As both the V.C.D.R. and
the V.C.C.R. define “official correspondence” as “all correspondence relating to the mission or
consular post and its functions”,84it can include e-mails if the mission or post uses these as a
means of correspondence with the headquarters or other mission or post. In such cases, the emails are “inviolable”.85This is why it is important that the receiving State provides all the
sufficient tools for this service to be applicable, but also to make sure that the Internet connection
used by the diplomatic mission or consular post doesn’t slow down or block. These measures
should be taken towards all people or organizations who try to impend Internet communications
for diplomacy.86Besides the host State, Article 40(3)87 of the
V.C.D.R.
requires third-party
countries to protect diplomatic communication in transit. It extends protection of diplomatic
communication to all places where internet communication passes.88 For example, diplomatic
messages sent from a diplomat’s device, be it a computer, tablet or Smartphone in Italy, to a
server in the US enjoys protection along the internet path.
Use of Wireless Facilities by Diplomatic Missions is one of the means that enables the
freedom of communication, because an internet connection may be possible even through
wireless waves. The connection, thus, between these two cannot be avoided. Article 27(1) limits
the usage of a wireless transmitter (a) for the communication of diplomatic missions and (b) only
with the consent of the receiving State.89 Thus, alongside with Art. 41(3)90 of
V.C.D.R.,
the
limitations posed to the diplomat rises. For this reason, Kurbalija predicts that by giving
84
Ibid. Par. 2.
CHOI, op. cit.,p. 124.
86
Ibid., The author continues by saying: “As e-mails are “messages in (binary) code” in essence, a diplomatic
mission or consular post “may employ all appropriate means” to communicate through e-mails with the capital, other
missions or posts of sending State, wherever situated.”
87
See Supra note. 79.
88
KURBALIJA, op. cit.,p. 416.
89
See supra note. 78.
90
See supra note. 55.
85
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
international telecommunication regulations priority over diplomatic law [...] may be used in the
future by States to reduce the freedom of diplomatic communication on the basis of enforcing
telecommunication standards and regulations.91
Diplomatic or consular bags enjoy inviolability generally by both Conventions. The only
difference in consular bags stands on the ability of the host State to limit this inviolability. Like
this, Art. 35(3) of V.C.C.R. says that the authorities of the receiving State, have the right to make
such a limit if “have serious reason to believe that the bag contains something other than the
correspondence, documents or articles referred to in paragraph 4”92, but only within “the presence
of an authorized representative of the sending State”.93 One should note that mere “serious reason
to believe” is not sufficient to return the diplomatic bag, but instead “clear evidence” is required.
The reason why a stricter requirement is imposed for the case of diplomatic bags is because the
V.C.D.R.
has no provision of exception to the inviolability.94 When speaking of a diplomatic bag
on the web, this of course, should be considered more when applications of sharing files or the email are being used. In this case, the receiving State would find difficulties in finding whether an
e-mail or a file is part of the diplomatic bag or not. Suggestions say that it would be a good idea if
these digital files could have a digital mark on them, somewhat similar to that on a real
diplomatic bag, by which certain programs or web applications95would recognize the diplomatic
e-bag96. At the same time, cyber bags carrying contents unrelated to official diplomatic or
91
KURBALIJA, op. cit., p. 419.
See infra note. 89.
93
Art. 35(3), V.C.C.R., 1963, «The consular bag shall be neither opened nor detained. Nevertheless, if the competent
authorities of the receiving State have serious reason to believe that the bag contains something other than the
correspondence, documents or articles referred to in paragraph 4 of this article; they may request that the bag be
opened in their presence by an authorized representative of the sending State. If this request is refused by the
authorities of the sending State, the bag shall be returned to its place of origin.»
94
CHOI, op. cit., p. 125.
95
“Web Application”. Techterms. Updated 17 Feb 2014. Web. 23 Jan. 2015. “A web application or "web app" is a
software program that runs on a web server. Unlike traditional desktop applications, which are launched by your
operating system, web apps must be accessed through a web browser.”
96
The term does not exist. It is written by the thesis applicant in consistency of the idea of this paper.
92
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
consular functions such as private information, spying information or contents, child
pornography, gambling, computer virus, or cyber bombs may be blocked with proper evidence or
reasons in accordance with due process.97
II. 1. B. The inviolability of the members of the diplomatic mission is not a right belonging
to the individuals but it is a right given to them by the representation State. So, in each and every
case the State carries the responsibility for their misdoings, and vice versa the diplomats carry the
duty to represent their State properly. Based on the function these individuals have, it has been
given them a certain amount of immunities and privileges.
Immunities of the Head of the State derive from the times of absolute monarchies, when the
sovereign, so the monarch, held absolute immunity.98 Even though, it has a customary nature and
it isn’t provided in the Vienna Conventions, the norm still applies99. There is one treaty of the
United Nations, the Convention on Special Missions of 1969, which includes this immunity in
one of its articles100. Thus whenever they may commit a crime within the territory of a receiving
country, they profit exception from it. That is not to say the criminal act has been deleted, or
revoked, it is still present and if it’s been made during personal activities whilst the diplomatic
mission, by the end of the mission the receiving state may exercise its jurisdiction upon him.
There have not been cases where such an issue may have occurred, when using the Internet, it can
be assumed that acts like using the Internet to order, solicit, induce, aid, abet, or assist the
commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes conducted by a national of a
state party of
ICC
Statute or in the territory of a state party of
97
ICC
Statute, those diplomats or
CHOI, op. cit., p. 127.
KURBALIJA, op. cit., p. 414.
99
Refer to The Congo case.
100
Art. 21, The UN Convention on Special Missions, 1969. « 1.The Head of the sending State, when he leads a
special mission, shall enjoy in the receiving State or in a third State the facilities, privileges and immunities accorded
by international law to Heads of State on an official visit.
2. The Head of the Government, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and other persons of high rank, when they take part
in a special mission of the sending State, shall enjoy in the receiving State or in a third State, in addition to what is
granted by the present Convention, the facilities, privileges and immunities accorded by international law.»
98
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
consuls may be punished despite the immunity from criminal jurisdiction that they usually
enjoy.101
The immunity from Criminal or Civil Jurisdiction- diplomats is provided in Art. 31(1) of
V.C.D.R.
and it states how a diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction
of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative
jurisdiction.102 So if diplomats, or any of their family members commit or attempt cyber attacks,
their immunity is what makes then inviolable, and keeps them our of the jurisdiction of the
receiving State. Choi states that if actions committed in cyber space by diplomats or their family
members result in civil responsibility such as defamation, they can also enjoy immunity from
civil jurisdiction.103 The Convention, however, specifies three situations when, the immunity may
be limited, in whose core stands the idea of performing activities outside the official functions.
The same applies to Consuls, except when they are committed cyber crimes or civil offenses are
“not liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime, and pursuant to
a decision by the competent judicial authority”.104 In such accusations, diplomats and their family
members may refuse to witness in cases involving Internet-related crimes or civil actions, as
101
Choi, op. cit., p. 130.
Art. 31, V.C.D.R, «1.A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.
He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of:
(a) A real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds
it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission;
(b) An action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is involved as executor, administrator, heir or
legatee as a private person and not on behalf of the sending State;
(c) An action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving
State outside his official functions.
2. A diplomatic agent is not obliged to give evidence as a witness.
3.No measures of execution may be taken in respect of a diplomatic agent except in the cases coming under
subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of this article, and provided that the measures concerned can be taken
without infringing the inviolability of his person or of his residence.
4. The immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving State does not exempt him from the
jurisdiction of the sending State. »
103
CHOI, op. cit., p. 128.
104
Ibid.
102
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
opposed to consuls. Hence, it is always possible that cyber crimes or other misbehaviors by
diplomats or consuls are punished, or held liable, in the sending State or even in the receiving
State.105 But what if the diplomat or consul commits acts that fall under the jurisdiction of
international criminal law? In such cases it is already provided that the immunity breaches and
the individual is thus under judgment. This could also be more broadly interpreted in the light of
the Internet. So if diplomats were to use the Internet to order, solicit, induce, aid, abet, or assist
the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes conducted by a national of a
state party of ICC Statute or in the territory of a state party of ICC Statute106 their immunity
wouldn’t last any longer.
8. Conclusion
Through this essay, we have seen the route diplomatic missions and the Internet have
followed together in the last decades. Diplomacy makes a use of technology in order to properly
apply its functions. However, considering the big impact the Internet has had on everyone’s lives,
diplomacy has not been entirely able to fully avoid this influence. One of the main purposes in
diplomacy is to fully follow the interests and politics of its representing State. That being said, we
are still wondering if there exists a proper digital diplomacy. Of course that the Vienna
Conventions allow space for a further interpretation of their articles so that there is space for the
Internet. For now, the Internet is mainly used as a way of better fulfilling functions of the
diplomatic missions and at the same time as a means of communication. It allows citizens to
better know understand and get informed regarding their home country, but at the same time the
audience is much bigger than before, which serves as a bonus for a better implementation of state
policy. Also, it allows the public to directly speak with their representative, so all the bureaucratic
105
106
Id., 129.
Id. 130 .
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
paper procedure is fastened. Citizens can get answers anywhere within a very short amount of
time. Public diplomacy sounds as a better version for the state to make its impact in a faster,
broader and cheaper way. However, it isn’t all about the positive aspects when we take a deeper
insight. There is no certainty for the simple public, whether they are speaking to the real
representative or not. The person hiding writing in the other monitor may be personnel of the
administration, or even worse a hacker or a terrorist. When it comes to cyber terrorism things
start being frightening, because the power a terrorist can assume from interfering in a diplomatic
premise holds within not only the power of a state, but also millions of lives. Also, when being
too enthusiastic about digital diplomacy, we should at the same time bear in mind digital divide.
Digital divide means that not every citizen of a state can either afford, or use a high technology
gadget such as smart phones, lap tops etc. And lastly, considering the major number of followers
on Twitter, or friends/likes on Facebook the representative of the state won’t surely know how
his/her statements will be taken. This could lead to higher pressure in decision-making and more
thinking when posting; but this would seem a little difficult in a world that teams in information
and the reactions need to be made quickly.
The legal aspect of the whole situation is also very important. The legacy of diplomacy is
firstly found in customary law and then in the materialization of treaties, like the two main ones,
the V.C.D.R. and V.C.C.R.. These two, specify the role of the diplomatic mission as a representative
of the sending State, thus gaining immunity only because of the function. What would happen to
these immunities when applied in a territory that belongs to none and everyone at once? An
extended interpretation of the Conventions can be surely done. Nonetheless, questions arise when
it comes to the safety of the diplomatic bag on the internet, or as we preferred to call it e-bag, its
inviolability and the protections the host State should do in such situation. Different authors give
the option of a digital mark of every digital information considered as a diplomatic bag. This
would be easier for the receiving State to protect it and also not to control it. But how far is the
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
actual diplomacy from it? Would it not be easier to ensure regulating laws at this point, or should
we wait for an instant custom to rise, in order for diplomacy to find its way? At the same time,
what is the legitimacy of posts and twits between diplomats, if they do not fall under the
belonging Ministries of Foreign Affairs? What if each and every claim made online by
representatives, would be taken as it was done by the representing State, so this last one would be
asked to take responsibility? Of course politics, has its ways of understanding things according to
internal interests, but willingly or not, the Internet is changing things, so it would be best for
things to be seen from different perspectives, and not only the personal ones. People nowadays
worry about everything happening on this planet, because deep in them lays humanity and the
need for a prosperous community. For this reason, it should be best if everything else follows the
same path.
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
Bibliography
1. Bollier, David. The Rise of Netpolitik, How the Internet Is Changing the International
Politics and Diplomacy. Rep. Washington DC: Aspen Institute, 2003. Web. 20 Jan. 2015.
2. Bronk, Chris. Diplomacy Rebooted: Making digital statecraft a reality. Foreign
Service Journal 87th ser. (3). March 2010: 43-47
3. “Cyber”. Oxford Dixtionaries. Web. 23 Jan. 2015.
4. Cain, Jonathan Omowalé. “Web 2.0 Utilization in e-Diplomacy and the Proliferation
of Government.” Ed. Dominic Farace. ‘RESEARCH ON GREY LITERATURE IN EUROPE’
Grey Net 1st ser. 6 (2010): 15-24. 25 Feb. 2007. Web. 1 Jan. 2015.
5. Choi, Won-Mog, Diplomatic and Consular law in the Internet age, Singapore Year
Book of International Law Vol. 10, 2006.
6. Choucri, Nazli and Clarck, David D., Integrating Cyberspace and International
Relations: The Co-Evolution Dilemma. MIT Political Science Department Research Paper No.
2012-29. November 7, 2012. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2178586
7. “Expanding Usage to realize the Full Benefits of E-government.” United Nations EGovenrment Survey. New York: 2012. 101-15. Web. 23 Jan. 2015
8. Grant, Richard. The democratization of diplomacy: negotiating with the Internet,
2005.
9. Grech, Olesya, M. Virtual Diplomacy: Diplomacy of the Digital Age. Diss. U of
Malta, August 2006.
10. Hanson, Fergus. Revolution @state: The Spread of Ediplomacy. Analysis. Lowy
Institute for International Policy, 2012. Web. 20 Jan. 2015.
11. Hanson, Fergus. The New Public Diplomacy. Perspectives. Lowy Institute for
International Policy, April 2011. Web. 20 Jan. 2015.
12. Hoffman, Helen. Twitter as an Instrument of Public Diplomacy: A Case Study of
Sweden and Germany. Thesis. University of Göttingen, University of uppsala, 2013.
Stockholm: 2013. Web. 20 Jan. 2015.
www.koreuropa.eu
Rivista elettronica del Centro di Documentazione Europea dell’Università Kore di Enna
13. Hill, Gerald, N., and Kathleen Hill, T. “Immunity.” The Free Dictionary. Web. 23
Jan. 2015.
14. Kalathil, Shanthi. Adapting for the Global Diplomatic arena: A report of the Annual
Aspen Institute Dialogue on Diplomacy and Technology. Washington DC: Aspen Institute,
2015. Web. 1 Jan. 2015.
15. Kurbalija, Jovan. “Rights and Obligations of States in Cyberspace.” Ed. Kathrina
Ziolkowski. Peacetime Regime for State Activities in Cyberspace. International Law,
International Relations and Diplomacy. Tallinn: NATO CCD COE Publication, 2013. 393424. Web. 25 Dec. 2015.
16. Nweke, Eugene, N. “Diplomacy in Era of Digital Governance: Theory and Impact.”
Information and Knowledge Management 3rd ser. 2 (2012): 22-26. IISTE. Web. 20 Dec. 2014.
17. Radunovic, Vladimir. The role of Information and Communication Technologies in
Diplomacy and Diplomatic Service. Diss. U of Malta, 2010. Web. 20 Dec. 2014.
18. Ritter, Karl. “Foreign ministers try Twitter-diplomacy.” Online posting. Stuff. 27
May. 2011. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.
19. Sandre, Andreas. “Diplomacy in the Internet Era.” Twitter for Diplomats. 2013.
20. “Sweden’s Carl Bildt Top of the Tweep-stakes.” Online posting. The local. 24 Jul.
2013. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.
21. Westcott, Nicholas. Digital Diplomacy: The Impact of the Internet on International
Relations.
OII
Working
Paper
No.
16.
1
Jul.
2008.
Available
at
SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1326476
22. Zittrain,
2010;
Harvard
Jonathan. Net Neutrality as Diplomacy. Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 29,
Public
Law
Working
Paper
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1729424
www.koreuropa.eu
No.
11-04.
Available
at
SSRN:

Download Report