Comment: The Maldives – a case study in contemporary diplomacy

The Maldives is normally known for beautiful beaches and breath-taking blue sea. But these days it also brings up for a highly interesting case study in diplomatic law and contemporary diplomacy. A friend drew my attention to a recent court ruling on a case in which the Indian High Commission in Maldives failed to comply with its contractual duties as per the rent of its mission premises. According to a local newspaper article, the private landlord took the issue to the civil court which, in the first instance, rejected the claim due to a lack of jurisdiction. While this is not surprising, the court’s reasoning is. The Maldivian Civil Court ruled that it could not look into the matter because the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) included immunity for diplomatic missions and diplomatic agents.

Jurisdiction is always a tricky notion as the term itself is not always clear. Sometimes it refers to territory (custody) only, however, most of the time it can be likened to power exercised by a state over persons, property or events. So, when a Court rejects the power of jurisdiction, it is probably that it does not consider itself the correct authority to legislate in respect to the issue of the person, property and event. Referring to the current case, it will mean that the Civil Court has decided that it is not in a position to make a judgement on the President of India, who was acting on behalf of the Republic of India. Generally-speaking, diplomatic missions and personnel enjoy certain privileges and immunities to carry out their duties or for the representation of their government. While diplomatic privileges and immunities have a long tradition, they were codified in 1961 by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR).

The VCDR regulates diplomatic privileges and immunities of diplomatic missions and its agents but has little to say on civil proceedings and matters with private subjects of international law. It primarily regulates aspects of state to state relations but not the relations with international organizations, let alone private entities or individuals. The VCDR touches, for instance, in Article 21 on the obligation of the receiving state to assist in obtaining suitable accommodation (being bought or leased). In Article 23 it states that the head of mission is exempt from dues and taxes in respect of the premises of the mission and through Article 31 the diplomatic agent receives immunity from execution (measures concerning his/her personal inviolability). Interestingly enough, subparagraph 31.4 says that the immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving state does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State.  In other words, and this is the only connection to the Civil Court’s ruling, without a waiver of immunity, civil proceedings against a  diplomat can only be taken in his home country.