pravoПравоприменениеLaw Enforcement Review2542-15142658-4050Dostoevsky Omsk State University10.52468/2542-1514.2023.7(2).16-26pravo-788Research ArticleТЕОРИЯ И ИСТОРИЯ ПРАВОПРИМЕНЕНИЯTHEORY AND HISTORY OF LAW ENFORCEMENTИстория становления и развития института дипломатических иммунитетов и привилегий в СШАThe history of the formation and development of the institution of diplomatic immunities and privileges in the United StatesНагиеваА. А.NagievaA. A.

Нагиева Амина Алиевна – кандидат юридических наук, доцент кафедры международного права

119454, Россия, г. Москва, пр. Вернадского, 76 

AuthorID: 758251 

Amina A. Nagieva – PhD in Law, Associate Professor, Department of International Law

76, Vernadskogo pr., Moscow, 119454

AuthorID: 758251 

a.nagiyeva2017@mail.ruСамедоваА. Э.SamadovaA. E.

Самедова Амина Эльбурус кызы – аспирант кафедры международного права

119454, Россия, г. Москва, пр. Вернадского, 76 

Amina E. Samadova – postgraduate student at the Department of International Law

76, Vernadskogo pr., Moscow, 119454

amina.samedova95@mail.ruМосковский государственный институт международных отношений (университет) Министерства иностранных дел Российской ФедерацииРоссияMGIMO UniversityRussian Federation202322062023721626Copyright © Нагиева А.А., Самедова А.Э., 20232023Нагиева А.А., Самедова А.Э.Nagieva A.A., Samadova A.E.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://enforcement.omsu.ru/jour/article/view/788

Исследуются история становления и развития института дипломатических иммунитетов и привилегий, становление дипломатической службы США и проводится анализ нормативно-правовой базы США, применимой к дипломатической службе. Цель исследования – выявление пробелов и коллизий в праве США и обоснование гипотезы о необходимости приведения законодательства США в указанной области в соответствие с нормами международных договоров по дипломатическому и консульскому праву, участниками которых являются США. Выявлены существенные расхождения национально-правовой регламентации дипломатической службы США с нормами международного права, что приводит к массовым нарушениям дипломатических иммунитетов и привилегий со стороны властей США. Сделаны выводы о том, что дипломатический иммунитет является гарантом эффективной деятельности органов внешних сношений на территории государства пребывания, однако на практике часто наблюдаются случаи их нарушения со стороны властей государства пребывания и случаи злоупотребления дипломатическими иммунитетами и привилегиями со стороны их носителей. Наделение особым правовым статусом, личной неприкосновенностью и прочими привилегиями и иммунитетами ни в коем случае не приравнивается к абсолютной безнаказанности сотрудников органов внешних сношений в случае совершения ими противоправных деяний. 

The subject of study

The subject of study. Throughout the historical period of the development of diplomatic law, an institution of immunities and privileges was formed, the content and scope of which were determined by the level of diplomatic relations between states and the development of public administration.

The rules of national law also have a significant impact on the procedure for exercising dip- lomatic immunities and privileges. Many states have adopted legal acts regulating the foun- dations of the diplomatic service. For example, in the United States, after joining the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, the Law on Diplomatic Relations of 1978 was adopted, based on the rules of this Convention.

The article examines the history and development of diplomatic immunities and privileges, the formation of the US diplomatic service and the content of current national laws in the US. The purpose of the study is the identification of problems in the practice of implementing diplomatic immunities and substantiate the hypothesis that it is necessary to develop the legislation on diplomatic immunities and the diplomatic service in the United States.

The methodology of the study. The methodology of the study includes general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, description, systematization) and special scientific methods (formal legal and comparative legal methods). In addition to this, historical method was also applicable.

The main results

The main results. Based on the results of the study, were disclosed significant discrepancies between the national legal regulation of the US diplomatic service and the rules of interna- tional law, which leads to massive violations of diplomatic immunities and privileges by the US authorities.

Conclusions

Conclusions. Diplomatic immunity is a guarantor of the effective operation of foreign rela- tions bodies on the territory of the host state, however, in practice, there are often cases of their violation by the authorities of the host state and cases of abuse of diplomatic im- munities and privileges by their carriers. The granting of a special legal status, personal in- violability and other privileges and immunities is in no way equated to absolute impunity for employees of foreign relations bodies in case they commit illegal acts.

Дипломатическое праводипломатические иммунитеты и привилегиидипломатическое представительстволичная неприкосновенностьорганы внешних сношенийГосударственный департамент СШАDiplomatic lawdiplomatic immunities and privilegesdiplomatic representationpersonal immunityforeign relations authoritiesUS Department of StateReferencesSen B. A Diplomat’s Handbook of International Law and Practice / B. Sen. – The Hague : Martinus Nijhoff, 1965. – 522 р. – DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-8792-3.Sen B. A Diplomat’s Handbook of International Law and Practice. The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff Publ., 1965. 522 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-8792-3.Belotsky Jr. V. P. The Effect of the Diplomatic Relations Act / V. P. Belotsky Jr. // California Western International Law Journal. – 1981. – Vol. 11. – P. 354–376.Belotsky V.P. Jr. The Effect of the Diplomatic Relations Act. California Western International Law Journal, 1981, vol. 11, pp. 354–376.Дипломатическая служба зарубежных стран / под. ред. А. В. Торкунова, А. Н. Панова. – М. : Аспект Пресс, 2018. – 400 с.Torkunov A.V., Panov A.N. (eds.). Diplomatic Service of foreign countries. Moscow, Aspekt Press Publ., 2018. 400 p. (In Russ.).Матвеев В. М. Дипломатическая служба США / В. М. Матвеев. – М. : Международные отношения, 1987. – 191 с.Matveev V.M. Diplomatic Service of the USA. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya Publ., 1987. 191 p. (In Russ.).Watt D. C. Succeeding John-Bull: America in Britain’s Place 1900-1975 / D. C. Watt. – New York ; Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1984. – xii, 302 p.Watt D.C. Succeeding John-Bull: America in Britain’s Place 1900–1975. New York, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1984. xii + 302 p.Estes T. S. The Department of State / T. S. Estes, E. A. Lightner. – New York : Praeger Publishers, 1976. – v, 272 p.Estes T.S., Lightner E.A. The Department of State. New York, Praeger Publishers, 1976. v + 272 p.Marmon Jr. W. F. The Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978 and its Consequences / W. F. Marmon Jr. // Virginia Journal of International Law. – 1978. – Vol. 19. – P. 131–139.Marmon Jr. W.F. The Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978 and its Consequences. Virginia Journal of International Law, 1978, vol. 19, pp. 131–139.Yu-Long Ling. A Comparative Study Of The Privileges And Immunities Of United Nations Member Representatives And Officials With The Traditional Privileges And Immunities Of Diplomatic Agents / Yu-Long Ling // Washington & Lee Law Review. – 1976. – Vol. 33, iss. 1. – P. 91–160.Ling Yu-Long. A Comparative Study Of The Privileges And Immunities Of United Nations Member Representatives And Officials With The Traditional Privileges And Immunities Of Diplomatic Agents. Washington & Lee Law Review, 1976, vol. 33, , iss. 1, pp. 91–160.O’Neil A. T. New Regime of Diplomatic Immunity: The Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978 / A. T. O’Neil // Tulane Law Review. – 1979. – Vol. 54, iss. 3. – P. 661–764.O’Neil A.T. New Regime of Diplomatic Immunity: The Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978. Tulane Law Review, 1979, vol. 54, iss. 3, pp. 661–764.Denza E. Diplomatic Law : Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations / E. Denza. – Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2016. – 560 p.Denza E. Diplomatic Law, Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2016. 560 p.Wilson R.A. Diplomatic Immunity from Criminal Jurisdiction: Essential to Effective International Relations / R. A. Wilson // Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review. – 1984. – Vol. 7, no. 1. – P. 113– 138.Wilson R.A. Diplomatic Immunity from Criminal Jurisdiction: Essential to Effective International Relations. Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 1984, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 113–138.Barnes W. Diplomatic Immunity from Local Jurisdiction: Its Historical Development Under International Law and Application in United States Practice / W. Barnes // Department of State Bulletin. – 1960. – Vol. 43, no. 1011. – P. 173–182.Barnes W. Diplomatic Immunity from Local Jurisdiction: Its Historical Development Under International Law and Application in United States Practice. Department of State Bulletin, 1960, vol. 43, no. 1101, pp. 173–182.Preuss L. Capacity for Legation and the Theoretical Basis of Diplomatic Immunities / L. Preuss // New York University Law Quarterly Review. – 1933. – Vol. 10. – P. 170–187.Preuss L. Capacity for Legation and the Theoretical Basis of Diplomatic Immunities. New York University Law Quarterly Review, 1933, vol. 10, pp. 170–187.Satow E. A. Guide to Diplomatic Practice (Cambridge Library Collection - British and Irish History, General) / E. A. Satow. – Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2011. – 854 p.Satow E.A. Guide to Diplomatic Practice (Cambridge Library Collection - British and Irish History, General). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011. 854 p.Hurst C., Sir. International Law : The Collected Papers / Sir C. Hurst. – London : Stevens & Sons Ltd, 1950. – 302 p.Hurst C., Sir. International Law, The Collected Papers. London, Stevens & Sons Ltd., 1950. 302 p.Moore J. B. A Digest of International Law / J. B. Moore. – Washington : Government Printing Office, 1906. – Vol. VI : Sections 897-1063 Only. – viii, 1047 p.Moore J.B. A Digest of International Law, Vol. VI: Sections 897-1063 Only. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1906. viii + 1047 p.Reeves J. S., prof. Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities / J. S. Reeves // American Journal of International Law. – 1932. – Vol. 26. – P. 19–187.Reeves J. S., prof. Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities. American Journal of International Law, 1932, vol. 26, pp. 19–187.Ashman C. Diplomatic Crime: Drugs, Killings, Theft, Rapes, Slavery and other Outrageous Crimes / C. Ashman, P. Trescott. – Washington, D.C. : Acropolis Books Ltd, 1987. – 350 p.Ashman C., Trescott P. Diplomatic Crime: Drugs, Killings, Theft, Rapes, Slavery and other Outrageous Crimes. Washington, D.C., Acropolis Books Ltd, 1987. 350 p.Ross M. S. Rethinking Diplomatic Immunity: A Review of Remedial Approaches to Address the Abuses of Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities / M. S. Ross // American University International Law Review. – 1989. – Vol. 4. – P. 173–205.Ross M.S. Rethinking Diplomatic Immunity: A Review of Remedial Approaches to Address the Abuses of Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities. American University International Law Review, 1989, vol. 4, pp. 173–205.Goldenberg R. Abuse of Diplomatic Immunity: Is The Government Doing Enough? / R. Goldenberg // ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law. – 1995. – Vol. 1. – P. 197–216.Goldenberg R. Abuse of Diplomatic Immunity: Is The Government Doing Enough? ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, 1995, vol. 1, pp. 197–216.Goodman D. H. Reciprocity as a Means of Curtailing Diplomatic Immunity Abuse in the United States: The United States Needs to Play Hardball / D. H. Goodman // Houston Journal of International Law. – 1988. – Vol. 11. – P. 393–411.Goodman D.H. Reciprocity as a Means of Curtailing Diplomatic Immunity Abuse in the United States: The United States Needs to Play Hardball. Houston Journal of International Law, 1988, vol. 11, pp. 393–411.Barker J. C. The Abuse of Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities: A Necessary Evil / J. C. Barker. – Aldershot : Dartmouth, 1996. – xii, 283 p.Barker J.C. The Abuse of Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities: A Necessary Evil. Aldershot, Dartmouth Publ., 1996. xii + 283 p.Farhangi L. Insuring Against Abuse of Diplomatic Immunity / L. Farhangi // Stanford Law Review. – 1986. – Vol. 38. – P. 1517–1547.Farhangi L. Insuring Against Abuse of Diplomatic Immunity. Stanford Law Review, 1986, vol. 38, pp. 1517– 1547.Hickey Jr. J. E. The Case to Preserve Criminal Jurisdiction Immunity Accorded Foreign Diplomatic and Consular Personnel in the United States / J. E. Hickey Jr., A. Fisch // Hastings Law Journal. – 1990. – Vol. 41. – P. 351–382.Hickey Jr. J.E., Fisch A. The Case to Preserve Criminal Jurisdiction Immunity Accorded Foreign Diplomatic and Consular Personnel in the United States. Hastings Law Journal, 1990, vol. 41, pp. 351–382.Wilson C. E. Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities / C. E. Wilson. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press, 1967. xii, 300 p.Wilson C.E. Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press, 1967. xii + 300 p.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.