Latest Topics in News
India-Canada Diplomatic Row: Understanding the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations & latest Canada-India Issue
Why in News Now?
- Recent withdrawal of Canadian diplomats from India over dispute regarding number of diplomats
- India invoked provisions of Vienna Convention to demand parity in number of diplomats
This topic is in the news now because of a recent diplomatic dispute between India and Canada that led to the withdrawal of Canadian diplomats from India. The dispute arose after controversial comments made by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau linking Indian agents to the killing of a Khalistani separatist leader. In response, India demanded that Canada withdraw 41 of its diplomats from the country in order to ensure parity in diplomatic representation. India cited provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to justify its demand for equal numbers of diplomats.
The convention allows the receiving state to limit the size of a diplomatic mission to a reasonable number. As the deadline imposed by India expired on October 20, Canada withdrew the 41 diplomats as demanded, but expressed concern that India’s actions violated the Vienna Convention. This ongoing dispute between India and Canada over the sizes of their respective diplomatic missions in each other’s countries has brought attention to the Vienna Convention and its rules governing diplomatic relations between states.
Sections | Details |
---|---|
Overview of Vienna Convention |
|
Key Provisions of Vienna Convention |
|
Obligations of Receiving States |
|
Canada-India Dispute |
|
India’s Actions |
|
Canada’s Response |
|
India’s Rebuttal |
|
Takeaway |
|
What is the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations?
Overview
- International treaty codifying rules for diplomatic relations
- Came into force in 1964, near universal participation with 193 parties
- Provides framework for diplomatic relations between sovereign states
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is an international treaty that codified the rules for diplomatic relations between sovereign states. It was signed in Vienna in 1961 and came into force in 1964. The treaty has near universal participation, with 193 parties. The Vienna Convention provides the framework for the establishment, maintenance, and termination of diplomatic relations based on the consent of independent states.
Key Provisions
- Rules for appointment of diplomats
- Inviolability of diplomatic premises
- Protections and immunities for diplomats
- Exemptions from taxation
- Immunity from civil and criminal jurisdiction
- Obligation to respect laws of host state
Key Point of Vienna Convention | Concept |
---|---|
Establishment of diplomatic relations | Requires mutual consent between states (Article 2) |
Functions of diplomatic missions | Representing sending state, protecting interests, negotiating, gathering information, promoting friendly relations (Article 3) |
Appointment of diplomats | Sending state can freely appoint, but receiving state can require prior approval for military attaches (Article 7) |
Persona non grata | Receiving state can require recall of unacceptable diplomats (Article 9) |
Size of mission | Receiving state can limit size to reasonable number (Article 11) |
Inviolability | Exemption from jurisdiction, coercion, or arrest for diplomats (Articles 29, 31) |
Diplomatic immunity | Exemption from civil and criminal prosecution, with few exceptions (Article 31) |
Tax exemption | Exemption from taxes, with few exceptions (Article 34) |
Respect laws | Obligation of those with privileges to respect receiving state’s laws (Article 41) |
Protection of mission | Receiving state must protect premises and staff even in conflict (Articles 45, 44) |
Non-discrimination | Receiving state must not discriminate between sending states (Article 47) |
The Vienna Convention outlines rules for the appointment of diplomats between sending and receiving states. It affirms the concept of “inviolability” of diplomatic missions, including the residences and vehicles of diplomats. The convention grants protections and immunities to diplomats to allow them to perform their duties without interference from the host government. This includes exemptions from taxation and immunity from civil and criminal prosecution in the receiving state. However, diplomats are still obligated to respect the laws and regulations of the host country under the convention.
The Vienna Convention also codifies rules about the privileges and immunities extended to the families and staff of diplomatic missions. It outlines procedures for declaring a diplomat as “persona non grata” and requiring their recall by the sending state. So, the Vienna Convention provides the essential legal framework for facilitating diplomacy and maintaining peaceful relations between sovereign countries.
Obligations of Receiving State
- Protect mission premises from intrusion or damage
- Prevent disturbance of peace of mission
- Allow size of mission within reasonable limits
The Vienna Convention outlines several key obligations for the receiving state with regard to foreign diplomatic missions. First, the receiving state must protect the premises of the mission from any kind of intrusion, damage, or disturbance that could impair its dignity. This special duty requires the receiving state to take proactive steps to ensure the security of the embassy and its staff. Second, the receiving state must prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission. This reinforces the inviolability of diplomatic premises.
Finally, the receiving state must allow the size of the mission to be kept within reasonable limits. While the sending state determines the size, the receiving state can require it to be scaled down if deemed excessive. This allows the receiving state to maintain parity in diplomatic representation.
Latest Canada-India Dispute
Background
- Dispute arose over Canadian PM’s comments linking India to killing of separatist
- India demanded withdrawal of 41 Canadian diplomats for parity
The recent dispute between India and Canada arose following controversial comments made by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. He linked Indian intelligence agents to the killing of a Khalistani separatist leader in Canada. In response, India demanded that Canada withdraw 41 of its diplomats from the country in order to ensure equal representation.
India’s Actions
- Cited Article 11 of Vienna Convention to reduce size of Canadian mission
- Says it is consistent with provisions on reasonable size of missions
India invoked Article 11 of the Vienna Convention to justify reducing the size of the Canadian diplomatic mission in New Delhi. Article 11 allows the receiving state to limit the size of missions to a reasonable number under certain circumstances. India stated that its actions were consistent with the Convention’s provisions regarding reasonable mission sizes.
Canada’s Response
- Withdrew diplomats as demanded by October 20 deadline
- Expressed concern over violation of convention
As the October 20th deadline imposed by India expired, Canada withdrew the 41 diplomats as demanded. However, Canada expressed concern that India’s actions amounted to a violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
India’s Rebuttal
- MEA said ensuring parity is consistent with Vienna Convention
- Bilateral relations and interference justify cut in Canadian diplomats
India firmly rejected Canada’s characterization of the withdrawals as a violation. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs asserted that ensuring parity in diplomatic representation is fully consistent with the Vienna Convention. Furthermore, it stated that the strained bilateral relations and interference in India’s affairs justified cutting the number of Canadian diplomats in the country.
So the final thoughts can be summed up as, the dispute originated from controversial statements by the Canadian PM, prompting India to invoke the Vienna Convention to reduce the Canadian diplomatic contingent for parity. While Canada protested, India defended its actions as legitimate under the Convention. The dispute remains unresolved between the two countries.