UNIVERSITE DE LILLE 2 – DROIT ET SANTE Faculté des sciences juridiques, politiques et sociales Licence en droit 1ère année

Alain Célard

COURS DE DROIT DES RELATIONS INTERNATIONALES

PLAN – DOCUMENTS - JURISPRUDENCE

CHAPITRE IER

LES CADRES GENERAUX, HISTORIQUES ET INTELLECTUELS

SECTION I LA DECOUVERTE DES RELATIONS INTERNATIONALES XVème - XVIIème siècles

(§) Ier – Les questions internationales A. La souveraineté et la vie internationale 1/ La souveraineté 2/ La vie internationale a) La paix

Accords de Marrakech du 15 avril 1994 https://www.wto.org

2 Alain Célard – Cours de relations internationales – Licence droit – Première année L'Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) est la seule organisation internationale qui s'occupe des règles régissant le commerce entre les pays. Au cœur de l'Organisation se trouvent les Accords de l'OMC, négociés et signés par la majeure partie des puissances commerciales du monde et ratifiés par leurs parlements. Le but est d'aider les producteurs de marchandises et de services, les exportateurs et les importateurs à mener leurs activités. I.- Qui nous sommes Il y a plusieurs manières de considérer l’Organisation mondiale du commerce. C’est une organisation qui s’occupe de l’ouverture commerciale. C’est une enceinte où les gouvernements négocient des accords commerciaux. C’est un lieu où ils règlent leurs différends commerciaux. C’est une organisation qui administre un ensemble de règles commerciales. L’OMC est essentiellement un lieu où les gouvernements Membres tentent de régler les problèmes commerciaux qui les opposent. L’OMC est née de négociations, et tout ce qu’elle fait est le résultat de négociations. La plupart de ses activités ont leur origine dans les négociations dites du Cycle d’Uruguay, qui se sont déroulées de 1986 à 1994, et dans les négociations menées antérieurement dans le cadre de l’Accord général sur les tarifs douaniers et le commerce (GATT). De nouvelles négociations ont lieu maintenant à l’OMC, dans le cadre du “Programme de Doha pour le développement” lancé en 2001. Quand les pays se sont heurtés à des obstacles au commerce qu’ils voulaient réduire, les négociations ont permis d’ouvrir les marchés. Mais l’ouverture des marchés n’est pas le seul objectif de l’OMC. En effet, dans certaines circonstances, ses règles préconisent le maintien d’obstacles au commerce — par exemple pour protéger les consommateurs ou empêcher la propagation de maladies. Au coeur du système, il y a les Accords de l’OMC, qui ont été négociés et signés par la plupart des nations commerçantes du monde. Ces textes énoncent les règles juridiques fondamentales régissant le commerce international. Il s’agit essentiellement de contrats qui obligent les gouvernements à maintenir leurs politiques commerciales dans les limites convenues. Bien qu’ils aient été négociés et signés par les gouvernements, leur but est d’aider les producteurs de biens et de services, les exportateurs et les importateurs à exercer leurs activités, tout en permettant aux gouvernements d’atteindre des objectifs sociaux et environnementaux. Le but primordial du système est de faire en sorte que le commerce soit aussi libre que possible – dès lors que cela n’a pas d’effets secondaires indésirables – car cela est important pour le développement économique et le bien-être. Cela passe en partie par la suppression des obstacles. Mais il faut aussi veiller à ce que les individus, les entreprises et les gouvernements sachent quelles règles commerciales sont appliquées dans le monde et aient l’assurance qu’elles ne seront pas modifiées brusquement. Autrement dit, les règles doivent être “transparentes” et prévisibles. Bien souvent, les relations commerciales mettent en jeu des intérêts contradictoires. Les accords, y compris ceux qui sont négociés à grand-peine dans le cadre de l’OMC, ont souvent besoin d’être interprétés. La façon la plus harmonieuse de régler ces divergences est de recourir à une procédure neutre reposant sur des bases juridiques convenues. C’est le but du processus de règlement des différends prévu dans les Accords de l’OM

3 Alain Célard – Cours de relations internationales – Licence droit – Première année II.- Ce que nous faisons L’OMC est conduite par les gouvernements Membres. Toutes les grandes décisions sont prises par l’ensemble des Membres, soit au niveau des ministres (qui se réunissent normalement au moins tous les deux ans) soit au niveau des ambassadeurs ou des délégués (qui se rencontrent régulièrement à Genève). Même si elle est conduite par ses États Membres, l’OMC ne pourrait pas fonctionner sans son Secrétariat, qui coordonne ses activités. Le Secrétariat emploie plus de 600 personnes. Ses experts — juristes, économistes, statisticiens et experts en communication — aident quotidiennement les Membres à faire en sorte, entre autres, que les négociations avancent de façon harmonieuse et que les règles du commerce international soient convenablement appliquées et respectées. Négociations commerciales Les Accords de l’OMC portent sur les marchandises, les services et la propriété intellectuelle. Ils énoncent les principes de la libéralisation et les exceptions autorisées. Ils contiennent les engagements pris par les différents pays pour réduire les droits de douane et les autres obstacles au commerce et pour ouvrir et maintenir ouverts les marchés de services. Ils établissent les procédures à suivre pour régler les différends. Les accords ne sont pas statiques ; ils sont renégociés périodiquement et de nouveaux accords peuvent être ajoutés à l’ensemble. De nombreux accords sont actuellement négociés dans le cadre du Programme de Doha pour le développement, lancé par les Ministres du commerce des Membres de l’OMC à Doha (Qatar), en novembre 2001. Mise en oeuvre et suivi Les Accords de l’OMC obligent les gouvernements à assurer la transparence de leurs politiques commerciales en notifiant à l’OMC les lois en vigueur et les mesures adoptées. Les divers conseils et comités de l’Organisation veillent à ce que ces prescriptions soient respectées et à ce que les Accords de l’OMC soient convenablement mis en oeuvre. Les politiques et pratiques commerciales de tous les Membres font l’objet d’un examen périodique, pour lequel le pays concerné et le Secrétariat de l’OMC établissent chacun un rapport. Règlement des différends La procédure de règlement des litiges commerciaux prévue dans le cadre du Mémorandum d’accord sur le règlement des différends de l’OMC est indispensable pour faire respecter les règles et donc pour assurer le déroulement harmonieux des échanges. Les pays soumettent leurs différends à l’OMC lorsqu’ils estiment qu’il est porté atteinte aux droits que leur confèrent les Accords. Les décisions rendues par des experts indépendants nommés spécialement sont fondées sur l’interprétation des Accords et des engagements pris par les différents pays. Renforcement des capacités commerciales Les Accords de l’OMC renferment des dispositions spéciales applicables aux pays en développement qui prévoient notamment des périodes plus longues pour la mise en oeuvre

4 Alain Célard – Cours de relations internationales – Licence droit – Première année des Accords et des engagements, des mesures visant à accroître les possibilités commerciales de ces pays et la fourniture d’une assistance pour les aider à renforcer leurs capacités commerciales, à gérer les différends et à appliquer les normes techniques. Chaque année, l’OMC organise des centaines de missions de coopération technique dans les pays en développement et dispense de nombreux cours à Genève à l’intention des fonctionnaires gouvernementaux. L’Aide pour le commerce vise à aider les pays en développement à se doter des compétences et des infrastructures nécessaires pour accroître leurs échanges commerciaux. Communication L’OMC entretient un dialogue régulier avec les organisations non gouvernementales, les parlementaires, les autres organisations internationales, les médias et le grand public sur divers aspects de l’Organisation et des négociations de Doha, afin d’intensifier la coopération et de mieux faire connaître ses activités. III.- Ce que nous défendons Les Accords de l’OMC sont longs et complexes parce que ce sont des textes juridiques qui portent sur un large éventail d’activités. Mais ils s’articulent tous autour de quelques principes fondamentaux simples qui constituent la base du système commercial multilatéral. Non-discrimination Un pays ne doit pas faire de discrimination entre ses partenaires commerciaux ; il ne doit pas non plus faire de discrimination entre ses propres produits, services et ressortissants et ceux des autres pays. Plus d’ouverture L’abaissement des obstacles au commerce est l’un des moyens les plus évidents d’encourager les échanges ; ces obstacles comprennent les droits de douane (ou tarifs) et les mesures telles que les interdictions à l’importation ou les contingents, qui limitent les quantités de façon sélective. Plus de prévisibilité et de transparence Les entreprises, les investisseurs et les gouvernements étrangers devraient avoir l’assurance que des obstacles au commerce ne seront pas érigés de façon arbitraire. La stabilité et la prévisibilité encouragent l’investissement et la création d’emplois et permettent aux consommateurs de profiter pleinement des avantages de la concurrence – plus large choix et prix plus bas. Plus de compétitivité En décourageant les pratiques « déloyales » telles que les subventions à l’exportation et la vente de produits à des prix de dumping, c’est-à-dire à des prix inférieurs aux coûts de production pour gagner des parts de marché ; les questions sont complexes, et les règles tentent d’établir ce qui est loyal et déloyal et d’indiquer comment les gouvernements peuvent

5 Alain Célard – Cours de relations internationales – Licence droit – Première année réagir, notamment en imposant des droits d’importation additionnels calculés de manière à compenser le dommage causé par le commerce déloyal. Plus d’avantages pour les pays moins développés En leur laissant plus de temps pour s’adapter et une plus grande flexibilité et en leur accordant des privilèges spéciaux ; plus des trois quarts des Membres de l’OMC sont des pays en développement et des pays en transition vers une économie de marché. Les Accords de l’OMC leur accordent des périodes de transition pour leur permettre de s’adapter aux dispositions moins familières et peut-être plus difficiles de l’OMC. Protection de l’environnement Les Accords de l’OMC permettent aux Membres de prendre des mesures pour protéger non seulement l’environnement, mais aussi la santé des personnes et des animaux et pour préserver les végétaux. Toutefois, ces mesures doivent être appliquées de la même manière aux entreprises nationales et aux entreprises étrangères. Autrement dit, les Membres ne doivent pas utiliser les mesures de protection de l’environnement comme des mesures protectionnistes déguisées. b) La guerre c) La neutralité B. Les institutions diplomatiques 1/Les ambassadeurs a) L’apparition et la stabilisation des ambassadeurs

Bernardino Mendoza (1540-1604) est un diplomate et homme de lettres espagnol ; il est notamment résident d’Espagne à Londres de 1578 à 1584, puis résident d’Espagne à Paris de 1584 à 1591. Les rapports qu’il envoie au ministère à Madrid constituent une des sources fondamentales de la vie politique anglaise, puis, française durant ses deux missions diplomatiques. Comme homme de lettres, il publie divers ouvrages à caractère historique ainsi que la traduction, en espagnol, des ouvrages de Juste Lipse (1547-1606), philosophe néerlandais (né à Bruxelles), professeur à l’université de Louvain et fondateur du néo-stoïcisme.

6 Alain Célard – Cours de relations internationales – Licence droit – Première année b) Les relations diplomatiques contemporaines Source : Organisation des Nations Unies

By Eileen Denza Professor of International Law Introduction In terms of near-universal participation by sovereign States, the high degree of observance among States parties and the influence it has had on the international legal order, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations may claim to be the most successful of the instruments drawn up under the United Nations framework for codification and progressive development of international law. Its success is due not only to the excellence of the preparatory work by the International Law Commission and the negotiating skills of State representatives at the Conference, but also to the long stability of the basic rules of diplomatic law and to the effectiveness of reciprocity as a sanction against non-compliance. Historical Context Among all peoples who wished to engage with each other on a basis other than that of conquest and subjugation, it was practice from the earliest times that the person of the envoy or intermediary between them was sacrosanct. Until it was accepted – originally as a matter of religious scruple – that the herald or emissary could pass safely in order to negotiate terms of truce or agreements to settle quarrels, there could be no peaceful international relations or rules on questions of substance. The personal inviolability accorded to envoys, for example among the ancient Greek cities and among the states of ancient India, became of less importance with the rise of the Roman Empire and later of Byzantium – both of these intent on subjugation rather than co-existence. Diplomacy in the modern sense revived with the Renaissance and during the sixteenth century – a period of violent religious strife – the special protection and immunity from criminal jurisdiction even for ambassadors suspected of conspiracy against the sovereign to whom they were accredited became established in practice among sovereign rulers. By the time of the Congress of Westphalia in 1648, permanent legations were accepted as the normal way of conducting international business among sovereign States, and over the next century detailed rules emerged in relation to the immunity of ambassadors and their accompanying families and staff from civil as well as criminal proceedings, the inviolability of their embassy premises and their exemption from customs

7 Alain Célard – Cours de relations internationales – Licence droit – Première année duties and from taxes. These rules of customary international law were described in detail by early writers such as Grotius (1625), Bynkershoek (1721) and Vattel (1758). The first international instrument to codify any aspect of diplomatic law was the Regulation adopted by the Congress of Vienna in 1815 which simplified the complex rules on the classes of heads of diplomatic missions and laid down that precedence among heads of missions should be determined by date of arrival at post. Until then precedence – which guaranteed direct access to the receiving sovereign as well as ceremonial honours – had caused numerous and bitter disputes. Codification among States of immunities and privileges of diplomatic agents did not begin until the Havana Convention of 1928 drawn up among the States of the Pan-American Union – but this did not well reflect current practice either in its terminology or its rules. More influential was the Draft Convention drawn up in 1932 by the Harvard Research in International Law. The establishment within the United Nations framework of the International Law Commission opened the way to comprehensive codification to confirm what were accepted as well-established – if not universally respected – rules of international law. There remained areas on which State practice was divergent – in particular the privileges and immunities of junior staff, the position of a diplomat who was a national of the host State and the extent of exceptions to the immunity from jurisdiction of a diplomat – so that any convention would contain an element of “progressive development” as well as codification of the law. Negotiating History The preparatory work for the Vienna Conference followed the standard United Nations procedure for the codification of international law – applied in fields where there is already extensive State practice, precedent and doctrine. In 1952, Yugoslavia proposed that the topic should be given priority, and after discussion in the Sixth (Legal) Committee, the General Assembly requested the International Law Commission to undertake as a priority topic codification of the law of diplomatic intercourse and immunities. The Commission appointed Mr. Sandström of Sweden as Special Rapporteur and his report formed the basis for the draft articles adopted by the Commission in 1957. These articles were debated in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly and sent to all members of the United Nations or any of its specialized agencies with an invitation to submit comments. Comments from 21 Governments were taken into account by the Commission who in 1958 prepared revised and extended articles and recommended that they should form the basis for a Convention – a decision endorsed by the General Assembly. Eighty-one States took part in the Conference held at Vienna from 2 March to 14 April 1961 and the Convention was signed on 18 April. The success of the Conference and of the Convention which it drew up may be ascribed first to the fact that the central rules regulating diplomatic relations had been stable for over 200 years. Although the methods of setting up embassies and communicating with them had radically changed, their basic functions of representing the sending State and protecting its interests and those of its nationals, negotiation with the receiving State, observing and reporting on conditions and developments there remained and still remain unaltered. Secondly, because the establishment of diplomatic relations and of permanent missions takes place by mutual consent, every State is both a sending and receiving State. Its own representatives abroad are in a sense hostages who may on a basis of reciprocity suffer if it violates the rules of diplomatic immunity, or may be penalized even for minor restrictions

8 Alain Célard – Cours de relations internationales – Licence droit – Première année regarding privileges or protocol. There was at the 1961 Vienna Conference no general underlying conflict of interest between opposing groups of States. The exception to this symmetry of interests lies in the matter of communications between the embassy and its sending State – and this was apparent at the Vienna Conference where probably the most controversial issue was whether sending States were entitled as of right to install and use a wireless transmitter. Although the right of free communication between the sending State and its missions abroad was long established in terms of the inviolability of couriers and the diplomatic despatches which they carried – so that any interference was covert and denied if discovered – in 1961 only those States with advanced technological resources operated transmitters. Other States expressed concern that these transmitters might be used for broadcasting local propaganda, and that because they were situated in inviolable premises beyond the control of the receiving State they might lead to breaches of the International Telecommunication Convention. An amendment which would have expressly required not only the consent of the receiving State for a wireless transmitter but also “proper arrangements for its use in accordance with the laws of the receiving State and international regulations” was adopted by the Committee of the Whole Conference against the wishes of all major States. In plenary session, however, a compromise was reached, and the above words within quotes – which might have implied a right of inspection for the receiving State – were withdrawn.

This example illustrates the readiness of the delegates to the 1961 Vienna Conference to seek compromise solutions which would make the final Convention text acceptable to the Governments and national parliaments who would later decide on ratification rather than to press home the advantage of numbers. A similarly constructive approach was also shown over the controversial matter of the diplomatic bag. Under previous customary practice it was

9 Alain Célard – Cours de relations internationales – Licence droit – Première année permissible for a receiving State suspecting that a diplomatic bag contained material other than permitted official documents and equipment to challenge the courier – upon which the sending State could either return the suspect bag unopened or submit it to inspection supervised by the authorities of both States. There was prolonged controversy in the International Law Commission as to whether this possibility should be retained, but ultimately it was decided that although there was a duty on the sending State to use the bag only for diplomatic documents or articles for official use, the bag could not be opened or detained under any circumstances. Despite numerous amendments and arguments in the Conference, this was the rule ultimately adopted in article 27. A third question where previous State practice was inconsistent was the extent of immunities and privileges accorded to the administrative and technical staff of a mission – junior employees without diplomatic rank such as secretaries, translators and senior security staff. In some States these had been given the same immunities and privileges as diplomats while in others their immunity was limited to their official acts. The International Law Commission, after much argument, proposed that they should be given full diplomatic immunities and privileges and some States at the Conference supported this approach, while others expressed concern – in particular at possible abuse of full customs privileges. The Conference limited exemption from customs duties for junior staff to articles imported on first arrival at post and later – after it seemed that there might be a total failure to agree on the immunity to be given to administrative and technical staff – accepted a United Kingdom compromise under which they would enjoy full immunity from criminal proceedings, but would not enjoy immunity from civil and administrative proceedings for acts performed outside the course of their duties. They can therefore be sued in respect of a road traffic accident occurring while they are off duty or for other matters unrelated to their work for the mission. Key Provisions The Vienna Convention provides a complete framework for the establishment, maintenance and termination of diplomatic relations on a basis of consent between independent sovereign States. It specifies the functions of diplomatic missions, the formal rules regulating appointments, declarations of persona non grata of a diplomat who has in some way given offence, and precedence among heads of mission. It sets out the special rules – privileges and immunities – which enable diplomatic missions to act without fear of coercion or harassment through enforcement of local laws and to communicate securely with their sending Governments. It makes provision for withdrawal of a mission – which may take place on grounds of economy or physical security – and for breach of diplomatic relations which may occur in response to abuse of immunity or severe deterioration in relations between sending and receiving States. In either of these cases – or where permanent missions have not been established – a framework is provided for the interests of each sending State to be protected in the receiving State by a third State. Article 22 confirms the inviolability of mission premises – barring any right of entry by law enforcement officers of the receiving State and imposing on the receiving State a special duty to protect the premises against intrusion, damage, disturbance of the peace or infringement of dignity. Even in response to abuse of this inviolability or emergency, the premises may not be entered without the consent of the head of mission. Article 24 ensures the inviolability of mission archives and documents – even outside mission premises – so that the receiving State may not seize or inspect them or permit their use in legal proceedings.

10 Alain Célard – Cours de relations internationales – Licence droit – Première année Article 27 guarantees free communication between a mission and its sending State by all appropriate means, and ensures that the diplomatic bag carrying such communications may not be opened or detained even on suspicion of abuse. Given the purposes of diplomatic missions, secure communication for information and instructions is probably the most essential of all immunities. Article 29 provides inviolability for the person of diplomats and article 31 establishes their immunity from civil and criminal jurisdiction – with precise exceptions to immunity from civil jurisdiction where previous State practice had varied. Immunity from jurisdiction – like other immunities and privileges – may be waived by the sending State, and article 32 specifies the rules on waiver. Article 34 sets out the tax exemption accorded to diplomats along with detailed exceptions in respect of matters unrelated to their official duties or to ordinary life in the receiving State. Article 36 provides for exemption from customs duties on diplomatic imports throughout a diplomat’s posting. Articles 37 sets out a complex code for the treatment of families and junior staff – where as pointed out above previous practice was varied and negotiation of a compromise difficult. Article 38 bars from all privileges and immunities, except for immunity for their official acts, nationals and permanent residents of the receiving State. These two provisions in many States drastically reduced the numbers of those persons more likely to bring into disrepute the system of privileges and immunities and were fully in accordance with the basic justification applied throughout the Convention of limiting immunities to what is essential to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing States. Influence of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations The Convention has established itself as a cornerstone of modern international relations. Despite the need for implementing national legislation in a number of States, it came into force following 22 ratifications only three years from its adoption and almost all States in the world are now parties. The régime it sets out for the conduct of diplomatic relations has become remarkably uniform as reservations made by ratifying States on a few points which had been controversial during the negotiations have in many cases been withdrawn or simply never applied. The Convention has proved resilient to attack on its fundamental principles. This came during the 1980s from those alarmed at the opportunities it provided for abuse – as demonstrated in particular when following the murder of a policewoman by shooting from the premises of the Libyan diplomatic mission in London the United Kingdom broke diplomatic relations and all those within the mission left England under the shield of immunity. More recently attacks have come from scholars concerned at the conflict between immunity and the human right of access to justice, or at immunity for violators of international criminal law and in particular torturers. But in practice there has been remarkably little erosion of the immunities of diplomats as it has been widely accepted that the Convention rules limit immunities to what is essential for the functioning of diplomacy. The focus of public concern has instead shifted to the vulnerability of diplomats to terrorist attacks. These might take the form of kidnapping diplomats with demands for ransom or release of prisoners – a serious problem in the 1970s until brought somewhat under control by collective determination by Governments that taking “all appropriate measures” to protect diplomats did not mean capitulating to blackmail. Alternatively terrorism might involve besieging or bombing embassies – most horrifically the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. For the most part, parties to the Convention are in no way complicit in

11 Alain Célard – Cours de relations internationales – Licence droit – Première année these attacks and have done their best to provide protection – sometimes helped by wealthier sending States. The striking exception was the detention for over a year of the hostages in the United States Embassy in Tehran with the acquiescence of the relatively new revolutionary Government of Iran. The United States brought proceedings against Iran before the International Court of Justice basing itself mostly on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations including the Optional Protocol on the Settlement of Disputes to which both States were parties. Iran did not make serious efforts to justify its conduct in legal terms before the Court and the Court’s Judgment in the United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran case (I.C.J. Reports, 1980) contains important analysis of many of the principles in the Convention and greatly assisted the United States in retaining the support of the international community and securing eventual release – brokered by Algeria – of the hostages. More recently, the International Court upheld a counter-claim by Uganda in the Case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) (I.C.J. Reports 2005) that Congolese soldiers had occupied the Ugandan diplomatic mission in Kinshasa and violated article 29 of the Convention by threatening and maltreating staff on the premises. In national courts there have been hundreds of cases where the Vienna Convention has been applied, since many of its most frequently invoked provisions concern whether a national court may assume jurisdiction over civil or criminal proceedings and what evidence may be admissible in national proceedings. Most of these cases concern ambiguities in the text on such questions as the true meaning of the exceptions to immunity from civil jurisdiction, the construction of the term “permanent resident”, the protection of an embassy’s bank account from enforcement proceedings, or the balance to be struck between protecting the dignity of embassy premises and permitting effective exercise of human rights to demonstrate and to speak freely. Unlike the cases described in the previous paragraph, they did not involve fundamental breaches of the Convention. The Convention has also been extensively drawn on by later treaties regulating immunities and privileges. Its provisions were used as a starting point in drawing up the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the 1969 New York Convention on Special Missions – in the latter case with unfortunate results in that insufficient account was taken of the differences between permanent missions and most special missions so that the Convention has attracted only limited support. It is used as a point of reference for determining the treatment to be accorded to the premises, archives and senior officers of a substantial number of international organizations. Sometimes it is used on a similar basis for agreements with the host State regulating the status of military forces or civilian missions despatched either by international organizations or by States providing military or civilian assistance. The 2004 United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property contains references to its provisions, since in the nature of things the rules on state immunity and on diplomatic immunity, though different in their origins and justification, are closely intertwined. As for the treatment given to heads of State, heads of Government and foreign ministers in their personal capacity – though practice is somewhat varied – it is accepted that the rules in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations form a guide and perhaps a minimum standard. Related Material A. Legal Instruments

12 Alain Célard – Cours de relations internationales – Licence droit – Première année Regulation Concerning the Relative Ranks of Diplomatic Agents, Congress of Vienna, 19 March 1815, Martens, Nouveau Recueil de Traités, 1818, vol. II, pp. 449-450. Convention regarding Diplomatic Officers, Havana, 20 February 1928, League of Nations, Treaty Series, vol. CLV, p. 261. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Vienna, 24 April 1963, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 596, p. 261. Convention on Special Missions, New York, 8 December 1969, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1400, p. 231. United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, New York, 2 December 2004 (A/59/508). B. Jurisprudence International Court of Justice, United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 3. International Court of Justice, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005. C. Documents Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities, Harvard Research in International Law, 1932, American Journal of International Law, vol. 26 (Supp 1932), p. 15. Report by Mr. A.E.F. Sandström, Special Rapporteur, Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities, (A/CN.4/91 (French only), Reproduced in the Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1955, vol. II). Observations of Governments on the draft articles concerning diplomatic intercourse and Immunities adopted by the International Law Commission at its ninth session in 1957, Diplomatic intercourse and immunities, (A/CN.4/114 and Add.1-6, Reproduced in the Yearbook of the International Law Commission,1958 , vol. II. Report by Mr. A.E.F. Sandström, Special Rapporteur, Revised draft articles, Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities, (A/CN.4/116/Add.1 and 2, Reproduced in the Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1958, vol. II). Report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its tenth session, 28 April -4 July 1958, Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirteenth Session, Supplement No. 9 (A/3859, Reproduced in the Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1958, vol. II, chapter III). United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities, Vienna – 2 March - 14 April 1961, Official Records, Volume I: Summary Records of Plenary Meetings, and of Meetings of the Committee of the Whole (A/CONF.20/14).

13 Alain Célard – Cours de relations internationales – Licence droit – Première année United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities, Vienna – 2 March - 14 April 1961, Official Records, Volume II: Annexes, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Final Act, Optional Protocols & Resolutions (A/CONF.20/14/Add.1). D. Doctrine C. Barker, The Protection of Diplomatic Personnel, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2006. J. Brown, “Diplomatic Immunity: State Practice under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 37, 1988, p. 53. E. Denza, Diplomatic Law, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008. E. Denza, “Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities”, Chapter in Grant and Barker (eds.) Harvard Research in International Law, Contemporary Analysis and Appraisal, William S. Hein & Co, Buffalo, New York, 2007. S. E. Nahlik, “Development of Diplomatic Law, Selected Problems”, Recueil des Cours, 1990, vol. 222, issue III, p. 187. J. Salmon, Manuel de Droit Diplomatique, Bruylant, Bruxelles, 1994. E. Satow (ed. Ivor Roberts), Guide to Diplomatic Practice, 6th ed, Oxford University Press, Oxford, September 2009. 2/ Les consuls (§) II – Les doctrines internationales des XVème – XVIIème siècles A. Les premières doctrines 1/ L’Ecole espagnole ou de Salamanque a) Francisco de Vitoria

14 Alain Célard – Cours de relations internationales – Licence droit – Première année

b) Francisco Suarez

15 Alain Célard – Cours de relations internationales – Licence droit – Première année 2/ Albéricus Gentili B. Grotius et la naissance du droit international public 1/ Grotius et sa doctrine

16 Alain Célard – Cours de relations internationales – Licence droit – Première année 2/ L’importance de Grotius

SECTION II LA FORMATION DU DROIT INTERNATIONAL (XVIIème – XVIIIème siècles)

(§) Ier- Les faits politiques et la pratique diplomatique A. Un fait politique majeur : Les traités de Westphalie (1648) 1/ La paix de Westphalie a) Les origines : la Guerre de Trente ans Pays Souverains Allemagne Matthias Ier (1608-1619)

Ferdinand II (1619-1637) Ferdinand III (1637-1657)

Danemark Christian IV (1588-1648) Empire ottoman Osman II (1618-1622)

Mustafa Ier (1622-1623) Mourad IV (1623-1640) Ibrahim Ier (1640-1648)

Espagne Philippe III (1598-1621) [Roi du Portugal sous le nom de Philippe II) Philippe IV (1621-1665) [Roi du Portugal sous le nom de Philippe III)

France Louis XIII (1610-1643) Louis XIV (1643-1715)

Grande-Bretagne Jacques Ier (1603-1625) Charles Ier (1625-1649)

Papes Paul V (1605-1621) Grégoire XV (1621-1623) Urbain VIII (1623-1644) Innocent X (1644-1655)

Pologne (Rois élus) Sigismond III Vasa (1587-1632) Ladislas IV Vasa (1632-1648)

Portugal Philippe II (Philippe III en Espagne] (1589-1621) Philippe III [Philippe IV en Espagne] (1621-1640) Jean IV (1640-1656)

Russie Michel Ier (1613-1645) Alexis Ier (1645-1676)

Suède Gustave II Adolphe (1611-1632) Christine (1632-1654)

17 Alain Célard – Cours de relations internationales – Licence droit – Première année b) Le processus de paix

18 Alain Célard – Cours de relations internationales – Licence droit – Première année c) Le contenu des traités de Münster-Osnabrück

Paix de Westphalie Vereinigung zur Erforschung der Neueren Geschichte e.V. Argelanderstraße 59 D-53115 Bonn Bundesrepublik Deutschland www.pax-westphalica.de

Site internet entièrement consacré à la Paix de Westphalie et aux Traités de Münster et d’Osnabrück qui y sont entièrement reproduits dans les différentes langues.

Alain Célard – Cours de relations internationales

Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd, at the Perry(University of Texas). 2/ Le principe d’équilibre Traité d'Utrecht (1713) : «par un juste équilibre de la puissance... meilleur fondement d'une amitié naturelle et d'une union durable Emer de Vattel écrit en 1758: « laquelle aucune puissance ne se trouve en état de prédominer absolument et de faire la loi aux autres. » Talleyrand voit, en 1814, dans le principe de l’équilibre le moyen pour que «droits de chacun [naissent le]

Cours de relations internationales – Licence droit – Première année

by William R. Shepherd, at the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection

: « la paix et la tranquillité » sont désormais assurées de la puissance... meilleur fondement d'une amitié

naturelle et d'une union durable ». écrit en 1758: « C'est une disposition de choses au moyen de

laquelle aucune puissance ne se trouve en état de prédominer absolument et de

voit, en 1814, dans le principe de l’équilibre le moyen pour que «[naissent le] le repos de tous».

19 Première année

Castañeda Library Map Collection

« la paix et la tranquillité » sont désormais assurées de la puissance... meilleur fondement d'une amitié

C'est une disposition de choses au moyen de laquelle aucune puissance ne se trouve en état de prédominer absolument et de

voit, en 1814, dans le principe de l’équilibre le moyen pour que «des