United Arab Emirates: Diplomacy And International Court Of Justice: An Analysis (Part I Of II)

Last Updated: 13 October 2017
Article by George SK
Most Read Contributor in United Arab Emirates, September 2019

'Peace comes at a price. And that price is diplomacy. We may all know who is paying the price, but sometimes, we cannot comprehend the amplitude of the price paid.'

{C}- International Relations Department, STA Law Firm

The oldest evidence of diplomatic relations dates back to 1259 BC between the Pharaohs of Egypt and the rulers of the Hittite Empire (part of present-day Turkey). The Egyptian-Hittite Peace Treaty is perceived to be the evidence to this ancient diplomatic treaty that was drafted to end the war between the two kingdoms over the jurisdiction of eastern Mediterranean. The treaty was the result of war at the city of Kadesh due to the attempted invasion by Egyptian warriors to gain control over the lands. However, the mighty Hittite army resisted the attack, and the two empires fought for the years to come. Noting that the pen is mightier than the sword, intermediaries (diplomats of today) of both the empires starting negotiating the possibility of peace between the monarchs. Hence, the world's first diplomatic treaty came into force between the empires even without a personal meeting of both the monarchs. Centuries later, nations still employ intermediaries (diplomats) to negotiate and implement treaties with the view of securing peace.

Therefore, various nations ratified the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 (the Diplomatic Relations Treaty) and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 (the Consular Relations Treaty) with the view of ensuring that these intermediaries obtain a higher level of protection while negotiating with other countries. And with the same intention (of attaining peace), the United Nations established the International Court of Justice (the ICJ) in 1945 to adjudicate legal issues between nations of the modern world. But over the course of time, both, the Treaty and the ICJ, has faced uncertain predicaments regarding the validity of the former over domestic legislation and the jurisdiction of the latter.

From Around the World

The world wars and the subsequent cold war taught the governments around the world about war and diplomacy more than ever before. Yes, I just used war and diplomacy on the same line. Although countries have used their techniques of diplomacy as a means to end the conflict(s) from as far as 1259 BC, they tend to perceive diplomacy from other nation(s) as a weapon to obtain an advantage. But does this permit them to implement their domestic legislation on foreign diplomats? Hopefully, the reader would able to form an opinion to this rhetorical question with more than just prejudiced personal or cultural influence at the end of this article.

In 1979, the United States (US) Embassy in Tehran, Iran was attacked by armed Iranian mob who detained the diplomats and seized the offices of the diplomatic mission. Subsequently, the US Department of State instituted legal action against the Islamic Republic of Iran at the ICJ. The primary contentions of the US, in this case, was that Iran was in violation of the Diplomatic Relations Treaty and the Consular Relations Treaty and that the Iranian Government has an obligation to secure the release of all detained US nationals, inter-alia. Further, the support provided by the Iranian Government to the accused militants was also globally scrutinized due to the former's failure to safeguard the US diplomatic mission and the diplomats.

Therefore, after carefully studying the issues in question, the learned court ruled that: (i) Iran is in clear violation of its obligations towards the US; (ii) Iran is responsible for these violations; (iii) the Government of Iran should release the US nationals who are detained and pass on the possession of the seized US Embassy to the protecting power; (iv) US diplomats or consular should not be subjected to any judicial proceedings in Iran; and (v) Iran should repatriate the US for all the injury and damage caused to the latter. This issue was in the global limelight primarily due to two (2) reasons: (i) over sixty (60) US diplomats were unlawfully detained for over 444 days by militants; and (ii) the Iranian government (that had the obligation to protect the embassy) did not even file their pleadings (through their lawyers) before the ICJ.

As seen in the above case, frequently nations try to retaliate with other nation(s) regarding issues between them by imposing biased domestic legislation or by failing to protect the citizens of the latter who are assigned to diplomatic missions in the former.

Therefore, the primary question that arises in this regard is about the validity of public international law over the domestic regime of a state. That is the extent of authority that a state can exercise over the diplomats or consular of a foreign country while on official duty of the home state. However, domestic courts have the responsibility of prosecuting those who violate these international norms. Hence, a conflict of interest may arise between the nation (that is looking to enforce their domestic laws onto the diplomat) and the international community since international customary law envisages national courts of the state(s) with the obligation to enforce these laws. Although, this platform (local courts) often neglect international laws and fail to prosecute those in violation of international laws or human rights abuse since the defendant(s) in these cases are the governments of those states themselves. Therefore, it is evident that these domestic courts may apply their local statutes to escape the jurisdictional ambit of international law by finding a loophole and rejecting the applicability of international law.

However, official diplomatic agents are not the only parties who have this level of protection. Since, if that were the case, a government would be permitted to exercise any form of undue jurisdiction on a foreign national who is residing in their jurisdiction. To this end, the Diallo Case2 was a landmark ruling of the ICJ regarding the extent and ambit of diplomatic immunity that can be conferred onto non-diplomats and consular. In this case, Mr. Ahmadou Sadio Diallo was a Guinean national who was the shareholder of a limited liability company (the Company) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Congo). Further, in the 1980s, the Company initiated legal action against various local public and private enterprises that owed substantial amounts to the Company in the course of business. However, within a few years, the Government of Zaire ordered Mr. Diallo to be deported from the country due to violation and infringement of public order in the economic, financial and monetary sectors. After that, he was arrested and detained by the authorities for sixty-six days (without due process of law) before being deported to Guinea. Further, the Government of Congo misappropriated Mr. Diallo's property and denied his future entry into the state (which is a non-appealable order by Congo's domestic statutes).

Subsequently, the aggrieved Mr. Diallo informed of these unfortunate events to the Guinean authorities who later instituted legal action against Congo since states have the discretionary right to safeguard their citizens against undue injury from foreign countries by providing diplomatic protection to them. Therefore, the representatives of the Republic of Guinea instituted an action against the Congo in the ICJ. This globally aggravated the already existing issue of the extending the arms of diplomatic protection onto shareholders and legal entities as seen in the ruling by the ICJ in the case of Barcelona Traction5. Guinea contended that Mr. Diallo should be provided with diplomatic protection stating that he is: (i) an individual who was victimized by detainment and undue expulsion; (ii) a shareholder with the right to protect his interests of the companies; and (iii) a shareholder and manager who has the duty to protect the rights of the companies (by substitution). The Republic of Guinea demanded the restitution of all the damages suffered by Mr. Diallo and the Guinea. However, the defendants took the stand that the Republic of Guinea could not confer Mr. Diallo with diplomatic immunity since the companies were not established in Guinea. They also stated that Mr. Diallo had not exhausted all the remedies that were available to him in Congo itself. After comprehending the facts and disputes of the case, the ICJ stated in its preliminary judgment that the burden of proof for establishing that Mr. Diallo had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him. However, they failed to prove the same after analyzing that the notice of expulsion given to Mr. Diallo was not appealable. Further, the ICJ also stated that the companies in question were of Congolese nationality and therefore, Guinea could not invoke diplomatic protection by substitution. However, the court upheld Guinea's claim to invoke diplomatic protection on Mr. Diallo as an individual and his direct right as a shareholder.

In 2010, the ICJ ruled on the merits of the case and stated that Congo was in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (articles 9 and 13), Consular Relations Treaty and African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Articles 6 and 12(4)). However, the court ruled that Congo had not directly violated Mr. Diallo's rights as a shareholder since he was entitled to attend general meetings and control the management of the companies. Further, in the judgment by the ICJ on 19 June 2012, the court observed that Guinea was not able to substantiate their claims with proof regarding the loss of tangible and intangible assets due to the expulsion. Therefore, the court awarded an amount of USD 85,000 regarding the detention and expulsion of Mr. Diallo from the country. This case is considered as a landmark judgment since it provides us with an idea about the extent of diplomatic protection that a country can provide its citizens.


The International Court of Justice has been set up to allow protection of people, whether diplomats or natural persons, in countries where they are foreigners. However, it is understandable that in the battle of national and international law the struggle to implement justly can be of issue. It is not possible to provide an equal degree of protection to the parties when a differing law is more advantageous for each. The tricky nature of the subject matter has seemingly resulted in an array of instances where international law is disregarded in a plot to protect the stronger hand. Nevertheless, our analysis does not end here; part II of this article will examine the procedural aspects of cases in the International Court of Justice and other relevant processes.


1 United States of America v. Iran; [1980] ICJ 1

2 Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders, 24 May 1980 (found at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/64/6291.pdf)

3 Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of Congo, ICJ, 2007

4 Also, known as Congo (between 1960 to 1971) and Zaire (between 1971 to 1997).

5 [1970] ICJ 1

6 Judgment on Preliminary Objections on 24 May 2007

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions