1 Introduction
As it has been clearly and very simply explained by Shaw, rules regulating the various aspects of diplomatic relations constitute one of the earliest expressions of international law while the field of diplomatic immunities represents one of the most accepted and un-controversial of international law topics; this is because it is in the interest of all states ultimately to preserve an even tenor of diplomatic relations, although not all states act in accordance with this.1 The principle of personal diplomatic immunity, i.e., that the person of a diplomatic agent is inviolable under article 29 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR), is the most fundamental rule of diplomatic law and at the same time its oldest established rule.2
The established nature of important legal rules constituting the modern diplomatic law notwithstanding, the contemporary customary practice in the field of immunities and privileges for both diplomatic missions and agents has not become less interesting or relevant. In fact, the growing number of cases involving personal as well as proprietal immunities, consular immunities, unusual issues such as waiver of immunity, indicates towards the opposite. Questions continue to arise as to, for example, when and on what grounds a diplomat may be arrested or detained – even with the existing exceptions to immunity in the domestic law, or what considerations, diplomatic or otherwise, are guiding the states in their practice of applying the pertaining exceptions to diplomatic immunities towards diplomatic agents of sending states, or of declaring an agent a persona non-grata. This fully applies to the region of Central Asia as well. Very little has been discussed in English scholarly literature on how diplomatic and consular law, in particular, privileges and immunities granted to diplomatic representations and diplomatic agents, is being implemented in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.3
This article aims at starting to fill in that gap. It first looks at the ratification status of diplomatic treaty law in the region, then reviews the applicable domestic law on privileges and immunities of all five states, and eventually proceeds to the analysis of the volume and extent of legal regulation on the matter. It the process, it notes the current practice of granting privileges and immunities; the author also attempts to review possible factors and reasons (e.g., of a political nature) that might have been affecting the corresponding decisions of receiving states in the region. The article concludes by briefly reflecting on certain observed trends in that practice.
2 Diplomatic Treaty Law: Ratification Status in Central Asia
In order to provide a better picture of the situation with implementing the requirements for diplomatic immunities at the domestic level, it is useful to first look at what relevant important treaties, multilateral or bilateral, the Central Asian states have ratified since gaining independence in the beginning of the last decade of the 20th century. But prior to doing so, one would probably need a concise description of how international law interacts with domestic legal systems in Central Asian states, and of its place in the national legislative framework.
Since becoming independent, the states in Central Asia have been trying to build up and gradually develop their own statehood, political and legal systems, and establish their own place in the world despite the challenges they had/have to overcome, as noted by this author elsewhere.4 The domestic legal systems of all five states in the region – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan – belong to the continental civil law tradition, or Romano-Germanic legal family: normative legal acts are considered the main source of law, with their respective written Constitutions serving as the Supreme Law of the state and providing the legal basis for all other – constitutional and ordinary – laws, codes and what are known as sublegal acts.5 All Central Asian states recognize international law as a source of law, to varying extents.6
For example, Article 4(1) of the Constitution of Kazakhstan stipulates that “international agreements and other commitments of the Republic” are a part of the functioning law in the Republic of Kazakhstan.7 It can logically be assumed that “other commitments” include, in particular, customary international law and the law of various international organisations of which Kazakhstan is a member.8 Article 4(3) stipulates further that “[i]nternational agreements ratified by the Republic have primacy over its laws.9 The domestic legislation of the Republic determines the procedure and conditions of operation of international agreements in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan to which Kazakhstan is a party,” hence ratified treaties hold quite a superior position in the hierarchy of sources of Kazakhstani law.10 And all states of Central Asia have enacted laws on treaties, which regulate the order of their conclusion, observance and application, domestic implementation, amendments and modifications, invalidity, suspension or termination of their operation, etc., with due regard to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT).11
1961 VCDR:12 all five states in the region have ratified (acceded to) this key treaty of diplomatic law, with Uzbekistan doing so as early as in 1992, followed by Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan in 1994, and by Tajikistan and Turkmenistan in 1996.13
1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR):14 the same is true with respect to another crucial treaty instrument, or the VCCR; apparently, the states in question decided to become State Parties to VCCR at the same time as they joined the VCDR.15
1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (UNCPI):16 this particular treaty instrument was ratified by the Central Asian states at a much later time than the two previously mentioned instruments. Uzbekistan, again, joined it first before all the others – in 1997; it was followed by Kazakhstan (1998), Kyrgyzstan (2000), Tajikistan (2001) and finally Turkmenistan (2007).17
1969 VCLT:18 one of the most crucial treaties of international law, the VCLT, was acceded to by all five states of the region in the following chronological order: Kazakhstan (1994), Uzbekistan (1995), Turkmenistan (1996), Tajikistan (1996) and Kyrgyzstan (1999).19
In addition to these main treaties, all five states have also concluded a number of bilateral treaties with states from other regions of the world as well as with some international and/or international-like organizations represented in the region.20 It is also worth noting that when acceding to all four multilateral treaties referred to above no state in Central Asia made any single reservation, declaration, or objection.
3 Domestic Law on Privileges and Immunities
When it comes to the matter of domestic implementation of international legal obligations of the Central Asian states under the applicable treaty law, all five states have adopted specific normative acts dealing with immunities of diplomatic missions and agents. What follows is a very brief overview of the most pertaining implementing legislation in Central Asia.
Kazakhstan: The Law “On the Diplomatic Service of the Republic of Kazakhstan” was adopted back in 2002.21 Much more recently, in 2017, the Kazakh Minister of Foreign Affairs issued a decree titled “On Approval of the Rules for the Registration of a Diplomatic Mission, an International Organization and (or) Its Representative Office, a Consular Institution and Accreditation of Heads, Members of the Staff of Diplomatic Missions, International Organizations and (or) Their Representative Offices, Employees of Consular Institutions in the Republic of Kazakhstan.”22 The Rules states that they have been elaborated in accordance with the provisions of the VCDR, the VCCR, international treaties ratified by the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On the Diplomatic Service of the Republic of Kazakhstan.”23 The document regulates the procedure for registration of diplomatic missions, international organizations and (or) their representative offices, consular institutions and accreditation of heads, members of the staff of diplomatic missions, international organizations and (or) their representative offices, employees of consular institutions in the Republic of Kazakhstan.24
Kyrgyzstan: The Government of the Kyrgyz Republic adopted a resolution called “On the Issues of Accreditation of Employees of Representative Offices of Foreign States, Employees of Representative Offices of International Organizations and Registration of Diplomatic License Plates” in September 2015.25 Somewhat similarly to the Kazakhstani Rules, this resolution regulates the procedure for accreditation of employees of diplomatic missions, consular offices of foreign states, as well as representative offices of international organizations and other representative offices equivalent to them operating in the territory of the Kyrgyz Republic, in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kyrgyz Republic, in accordance with the provisions of the VCDR, VCCR, UNCPI and international treaties to which the Kyrgyz Republic is a State Party, as well as normative legal acts of Kyrgyz Republic.26
Tajikistan: Tajikistan’s “Procedure for Accreditation of Personnel of Diplomatic Missions, Consular Offices, International Organizations and Their Representative Offices, as well as Members of Their Families in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Tajikistan” was adopted in 2013.27 Again, it is stated in the Procedure’s text that it was developed in accordance with the provisions of the VCDR, VCCR, UNCPI, international legal acts recognized by Tajikistan and the current legislation of the Republic of Tajikistan, and that it determines the procedure (order) for accreditation and issuance of accreditation cards to the personnel of diplomatic missions, consular institutions, international organizations and their representative offices, their family members, as well as honorary consuls of foreign states in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Tajikistan.28
Turkmenistan: In Turkmenistan, the Law “On Diplomatic Missions of Foreign States in Turkmenistan” was adopted way back in December 1996.29 Without much ado or declarative introductions or preambles, the document stipulates that diplomatic missions of foreign states permanently operating in Turkmenistan represent their states, maintain official interstate relations, and protect the rights and legitimate interests of these states and their citizens.30
Uzbekistan: The Cabinet of Ministers issued a resolution in May 2001 approving the Regulations “On Diplomatic Missions and Consular Offices of Foreign States in the Republic of Uzbekistan.”31 According to this Regulations, a diplomatic representation (embassy or mission) of a foreign state in the Republic of Uzbekistan, a consular institution (consulate general, consulate, vice-consulate or consular agency) of a foreign state in the Republic of Uzbekistan as bodies of a foreign state, employees of diplomatic missions and members of consular institutions for the performance of their functions are granted the privileges and immunities provided for by this Regulations, which are determined in accordance with the VCDR and VCCR, international customs, legislation and international treaties of the Republic of Uzbekistan.32
4 Volume and Extent of Legal Regulation
The foregoing overview demonstrates that the authorities in Central Asian countries have relied on both legislative and sub-legal normative acts in their efforts to implement the state obligations under the applicable treaty law on diplomatic immunities. This is in addition to their obvious and explicable tendency to pursue the conclusion of bilateral treaties when it comes to granting privileges and immunities to representatives of particular states.
As for the specific content of this legal regulation, the following types of diplomatic privileges and immunities, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the VCDR, have been implemented by the states in the region under review:
-
(1) Personal inviolability of diplomatic agents (art. 29 of the VCDR);33
-
(2) Inviolability and protection of residence / premises (art. 30(1) of the VCDR);34
-
(3) Protection of property, correspondence and documentation (art. 30(2) of the VCDR);35
-
(4) Immunity from criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction (art. 31(1) of the VCDR);36
-
(5) Exemptions from tax, dues, customs and duties (art. 34(1), art. 36(1) of the VCDR);37
-
(6) Exemptions from personal, public and military services (art. 35 of the VCDR).38
A quick glance at the reviewed normative instruments reveals that establishment and implementation of diplomatic immunities and privileges in domestic law appears to have been done to more or less full extent in all five Central Asian contexts. This has been carried out at a sufficiently early stage during the last decade of the last century with the use of either legislative acts (adopted at the parliamentary level) or sublegal acts (issued by authorized state structures). That concerns first of all diplomatic agents including consular officers especially in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
In these contexts, along with legal regulation of diplomatic immunities, certain express requirements and duties in law for diplomatic agents are also observed as demonstrated and cited further below. This is true for Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Out of these three states, Tajikistani “Procedure for Accreditation of Personnel of Diplomatic Missions, Consular Offices, International Organizations and Their Representative Offices, as well as Members of Their Families in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Tajikistan” stipulates the most comprehensive list of duties and obligations of diplomatic agents (i.e., holders of accreditation cards):
The owner of the accreditation card, regardless of the status of stay, is obliged to:
a) Respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state;
b) Not interfere in the internal affairs of the Republic of Tajikistan;
c) Use the premises of the representative office, residences and vehicles only for purposes compatible with the functions of the representative office;
d) Respect the culture, customs, traditions and way of life of the peoples living in the Republic of Tajikistan, and not show intolerance towards a particular nationality or religion;
e) Treat the issued accreditation card with care;
f) Upon final departure from the Republic of Tajikistan or dismissal from office, regardless of the validity period, return the accreditation card to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Tajikistan.39
In Turkmenistan, a separate article in its Law “On Diplomatic Missions of Foreign States in Turkmenistan” provides that “Persons enjoying the privileges and immunities specified in this Law are obliged to respect the Constitution, laws and other normative legal acts of Turkmenistan, the culture, traditions and customs of its people.”40 In Uzbekistan, the Regulations “On Diplomatic Missions and Consular Offices of Foreign States in the Republic of Uzbekistan” contain a provision according to which the “employees of diplomatic missions and employees of consular institutions, who are granted the privileges and immunities provided for by the Regulations, are obliged to respect the laws and rules of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the culture, traditions and customs of its people.”41
This status quo confirms the authorities’ understandable desire to make sure that together with obtaining certain professional immunities and privileges (in other words, exceptions in law), the diplomatic agents – both diplomatic per se and consular officers, are not exempted from the purview of the national law. They still carry general duties and obligations similar to other types of foreigners in the receiving countries. This particular point need not be construed as some sort of an indicator of unjustifiable intention to restrict the actions or freedoms of the agents, or cast doubt upon the significance of the legal institution of immunities and exemptions in diplomatic law. It appears more logical to assume that this rather serves as a reminder that the agents of the sending states still remain subjects of law who are enjoying a particular legal status in the receiving state, due to their professional official assignment, but that status should not be counted as a carte blanche to do whatever they may please while they are serving their mission.
The situation with legal regulation of diplomatic exceptions for diplomatic agents in Central Asian states and implementation of their corresponding duties under the applicable treaty law such as the VCDR – as reviewed above, suggests that they (i.e., states) (1) all opted to adopt / include necessary norms in the relevant legislation – again, as cited in the preceding paragraphs; (2) they did it during different periods of time; (3) the level of integration varies from country to country but (4) in general the extent to which the implementation work was done is more or less full. While certain privileges under the VCDR have not been specifically provided for in some states of the region such as the exemption from public and military services (in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan), this still does not imply that the diplomatic agents in those contexts will have to serve in the army in the receiving states: national legislation in Central Asia already generally provides for such an exemption for all foreigners.42
5 Practice of Granting Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities
When it comes to the state practice in the region concerning the provision of diplomatic immunities to individuals it looks no less interesting than the state of affairs in domestic legal regulation. Perhaps, the most illustrative way to look into it would be to see the way states in Central Asia accord privileges to representatives of international or quazi-international organizations. Judging by how some entities’ status has been agreed upon and subsequently formulated as well as realized, one can draw several general and/or specific inferences. A good example to use would be the status and immunities of the members of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), a private humanitarian organization with an international mandate under international humanitarian law (IHL),43 in Kazakhstan, where it opened its representative office the last among all Central Asian states.
Although the “Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the International Committee of the Red Cross on the Status, Privileges and Immunities of the Representative Office of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the Republic of Kazakhstan”44 was concluded back in 2011, the ICRC was able to open its representation in the capital, Astana, only in 2018, after the Agreement passed all the necessary domestic legal procedures.45 A Kazakhstani law ratifying this Agreement was signed by the first President in 201846 allowing for the Red Cross to establish its Office in Astana.47
According to this bilateral Agreement, members of the international staff of ICRC missions, their spouses and their dependent family members are granted the same status as members of diplomatic missions of foreign states accredited in the Republic of Kazakhstan.48 The same provision grants them a range of protections and immunities as reviewed above in section 4: personal inviolability, protection of residence, transportation, documentation, manuscripts, immunity from judicial (!) and administrative jurisdiction, exemptions from tax, dues, customs and duties, as well as exemptions from certain public and also military services.49
Based on this example, one very logical and simple inference would be that not all privileges and immunities are always expressly covered in domestic law: despite the existence of legislative or sublegal normative instruments regulating immunities and privileges for diplomatic agents, for some types of foreign individuals such as members of international or international-like entities bilateral agreements between such an organization and the receiving state need to be pursued. This comes in no way as surprising since states simply cannot name all the organizations – subjects of diplomatic law, in their domestic legislation, and hence they prefer to rely on concrete bilateral instruments in each specific case. This is a well-established state practice. It is true not only for the ICRC but for all international and/or quasi-international organizations whose representatives are entitled to the status of diplomatic agents and may claim the diplomatic immunities similar to the “classical” diplomatic agents.50
Another inference would be that granting the legal status and immunities or privileges to international entities and diplomatic agents may well be dependent on political reasons. Again, this should not be a revelation as many decisions states take as subjects of international law are based on or guided by their political and national interests. At the end of the day, the Westphalian system stands on its state subjects’ independent and sovereign political will. Correspondingly, this should not be a surprise if not each and every international entities / organizations’ members are accorded a diplomatic status and ensuing privileges by a conclusion of specific bilateral treaties.
Difficulties in the process of negotiation of those immunities and exemptions, their scope and volume need to be mentioned, too. The substance of the negotiations may range from the legal status of the organization itself (e.g., similar or equal to that of the intergovernmental or international entities), nuances of its legal personality and capacity, differences in the extent of immunities between the expat members of the organization (equal to diplomatic agents) and nationals of the receiving (i.e., hosting) state, identity documentation, and so on. A lot will depend on to what degree the state authorities will be willing to concede in a given treaty and certainly to the (political) role, relevance and significance of the organization in question. By extension and using the same logic, this will apply to diplomatic agents of any state or institution with whom the hosting state is entering into a diplomatic relationship.
Declaring someone a non grata person (article 9 of the VCDR) is a rather extreme step that any hosting state would not take lightly. This applies to Central Asia as well. In order for an agent to be declared persona non grata, he or she would have to have committed acts of political nature that would represent a threat to the receiving state’s image, or spoken things that put the relationship between the sending and receiving states in danger, and so on. Given the lack of publicly confirmed and reliable information on non grata declaration cases in this region – the authorities here tend to keep such information more or less confidential, it appears hard to analyze this particular practice in a scholarly manner in the present article.
6 Conclusion
The foregoing overview discussed, in a succinct way, the law and practice of implementing diplomatic privileges and immunities in the region of Central Asia constituted by five states: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. It looked into the ratification status of the major diplomatic law treaty instruments such as the VCDR, VCCR and VCLT, then moved to a brief analysis of the national implementation of some of those treaties, namely, the VCDR, and analyzed the status quo with the legal regulation in the sphere of immunities and privileges granted to diplomatic agents in Central Asia reviewing the most relevant legal documents in this sphere. The article also gave a quick glance at the practice of granting privileges and immunities using the example of a quazi-international organization in one of the reviewed contexts – Kazakhstan, to be exact. Based on this analysis, certain trends may be observed and the following conclusions may be drawn.
First, all five states of the region have acceded to the major diplomatic and consular law treaty instruments rather early on after their gained their independence in the beginning of the 1990s. This clearly suggests they all wanted – at least at that time – to be part of the world community and play a role in the network of international relations between sovereign state subjects of international law. Their realization of the importance of globalization and risks of isolation from the global community of states may explain the absence of any declarations, reservations or objections on any one of them when they were joining these treaties.
Second, and as stated above in section 4, the authorities in Central Asian countries have relied on both legislative and sub-legal normative acts in their efforts to implement the state obligations under the applicable treaty law on diplomatic immunities. This is in addition to their obvious and explicable tendency to pursue the conclusion of bilateral treaties when it comes to granting privileges and immunities to representatives of particular states. Bilateral treaties constitute a good, reliable and efficient tool for formalizing the relations between two states.51 As is the case, when it comes to granting privileges to representatives of international or humanitarian organizations, official authorities in the region tend to rely on these, too.
Third, the establishment and implementation of diplomatic immunities and privileges in domestic law appears to have been done to almost full extent in all five Central Asian contexts. This has been carried out at a sufficiently early stage during the last decade of the 20th century. Still, certain express requirements and duties in law for diplomatic agents are also observed which is true for three out of five contexts: Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, with Tajikistan stipulating the most comprehensive and detailed list of duties and obligations of diplomatic agents. The latter goes as far as to obliging the diplomatic agents (i.e., holders of accreditation cards) to not interfere with internal affairs of the receiving state. In the author’s opinion, this, however, need not be construed as an indicator of unjustifiable intention to restrict the actions or freedoms of the agents. It merely serves as a reminder that the agents of the sending states still remain subjects of law who are enjoying a particular legal status in the receiving state, but that status should not be counted as a carte blanche to do whatever they may please while they are serving their official mission.
Fourth, not all privileges and immunities are always expressly covered in domestic law, so for some types of foreign individuals such as members of international or international-like entities bilateral agreements with the receiving state are pursued. This is not surprising because states simply cannot name all the organizations in their domestic legislation, and therefore they prefer to rely on concrete bilateral instruments in each specific case. This does not contradict a well-established state practice.
Fifth, granting the legal status and immunities / privileges to international entities and diplomatic agents can be dependent on political reasons. This is not a secret since many decisions states take as subjects of international law are based on or guided by their political and national interests. At the end of the day, the Westphalian system stands on its state subjects’ independent and sovereign political will. Correspondingly, this should not be a surprise if not each and every international entities / organizations’ members are accorded a diplomatic status and ensuing privileges by a conclusion of specific bilateral treaties.
The study of diplomatic law and practice, especially when it deals with such a pivotal part of that law as diplomatic immunities and exemptions, is never an empty or useless exercise. It helps in the determination of how domestic norms and practices adapt international legal principles and rules in a particular given (regional) context. Moreover, it may also assist in better understanding what direction or directions the states, including the states in Central Asia, are taking in terms of national implementation of international law overall. For the time being, the states in this part of the world appear to be well established in what concerns granting immunities to diplomatic agents, either “classical” – representing their respective states, or their “equals” from international organizations, with a more or less comprehensive integrative legislation and bilateral treaty frameworks. Even if this particular topic has apparently not attracted much scholarly attention – judging by lack or scarcity of academic literature on it – that is not indicative of its irrelevance or vapidity. Rather, it is quite the reverse: for example, undergraduate students in Central Asian universities who take classes on diplomatic and consular law appear to be most interested in this particular topic. At the end of the day, according immunities to diplomats and consular officers represents one of the crucial questions of diplomatic law that emphasizes just how important the role of diplomacy and its international legal codification, regulation as well as domestic implementation are. If this is the case for all other regions of the world – Asian and non-Asian alike – then this is no less true for Central Asia.
Associate Professor of Public and International Law, Associate Dean at KIMEP University School of Law, Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law 568 (8th ed. 2017).
Id.; Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, art. 29, opened for signature Apr. 18, 1961, 23 U.S.T. 3227, 500 U.N.T.S. 95 (entered into force Apr. 24, 1964) [hereinafter VCDR].
There is also quite scarce literature on the matter in Russian. Just to cite a couple of non-recent semi-scholarly analytical sources where personal immunities are only very briefly and indirectly mentioned: Shuxrat Rakhmanov, Legal Frameworks and Pressing Issues of Application of Privileges and Immunities of Representations of States to International Organizations, 4 Bulletin of the Academy of the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Uzbekistan 26 (2018) (Uzb.); M. Suleymenov, Ye. Osipov, Immunity of an International Organization, Paragraph WWW (2011), available in Russian at: https://online.zakon.kz/lawyer (last visited Jan. 3, 2023).
Rustam B. Atadjanov, Building the State of Law (Rechtsstaat) in the Countries of Central Asia: An Unachievable Dream or Realistic Objective? 3(92) Law & State 52 (2021); Rustam B. Atadjanov, Teaching Public International Law in Central Asia: Significant Challenges, Problematic Issues, Coping Strategies and Useful Methods, 20 Indonesian Journal of International Law 1 (2022).
See Atadjanov, 20 Indonesian Journal of International Law 1 (2022); see also Atadjanov, 3(92) Law & State 52 (2021).
See generally Sergey Sayapin, State Report Overview | Central Asia, Encyclopedia of Public International Law in Asia, Oct. 2021; Sergey Sayapin, Human Rights in Post-Soviet Central Asia, in State-Building, Rule of Law, Good Governance and Human Rights in Post-Soviet Space (Lucia Leontiev & Punsara Amarasinghe eds., 2022), for context on region-specific issues related to international law. See Rustam Atadjanov, Domestic Implementation of Crimes against Humanity in Central Asia, 17 Asian Journal of Comparative Law 268 (2022), for a discussion of issues that arise during implementation of international law.
See Sayapin, State Report Overview | Central Asia, supra note 6;
Sayapin, State Report Overview | Central Asia, supra note 6, at 2.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 3; Atadjanov, Teaching Public International Law in Central Asia: Significant Challenges, Problematic Issues, Coping Strategies and Useful Methods, supra note 4; Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (entered into force Jan. 27, 1980) [hereinafter VCLT].
VCDR, supra note 2.
See Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations: Status of Treaties, United Nations Treaty Collection, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=III-3&chapter=3&clang=_en. (last visited Jan. 3, 2023), for ratification status of all five states.
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, opened for signature Apr. 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 77, 596 U.N.T.S. 261 (entered into force Mar. 19, 1967).
Id.
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, opened for signature Feb. 13, 1946, 21 U.S.T. 1418, 1 U.N.T.S. 15 (entered into force Sept. 17, 1946).
Id.
VCLT, supra note 11.
Id.
See
On the Diplomatic Service of the Republic of Kazakhstan, https://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=1029703&pos=3;-116#pos=3;-116.
On Approval of the Rules for the Registration of a Diplomatic Mission, an International Organization and (or) Its Representative Office, a Consular Institution and Accreditation of Heads, Members of the Staff of Diplomatic Missions, International Organizations and (or) Their Representative Offices, Employees of Consular Institutions in the Republic of Kazakhstan, https://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=36022680 [hereinafter Kazakhstani Rules].
See On the Diplomatic Service of the Republic of Kazakhstan, supra note 21.
See Kazakhstani Rules, supra note 22, ¶ 1.
On the Issues of Accreditation of Employees of Representative Offices of Foreign States, Employees of Representative Offices of International Organizations and Registration of Diplomatic License Plates, http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/act/view/ru-ru/98059/10?mode=tekst [hereinafter Kyrgyzstani Resolution].
Id. at Preamble.
Procedure for Accreditation of Personnel of Diplomatic Missions, Consular Offices, International Organizations and Their Representative Offices, as well as Members of Their Families in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Tajikistan, https://mfa.tj/ru/almaty/konsulskie-voprosy/konsulskie-uslugi/konsulskie-uslugi [hereinafter Tajikistani Procedure].
Id. ¶ 1.
On Diplomatic Missions of Foreign States in Turkmenistan, https://www.mfa.gov.tm/ru/articles/75 [hereinafter Turkmenistani Law].
Id. art. 1.
On Diplomatic Missions and Consular Offices of Foreign States in the Republic of Uzbekistan, https://lex.uz/docs/324552 [hereinafter Uzbekistani Regulations].
Id. ¶ 1.1.
Kazakhstani Rules, supra note 22, Annex 1, ¶ 1(2); See generally Kyrgyzstani Resolution, supra note 25, ¶ 11; Tajikistani Procedure, supra note 27, ¶ 26; Turkmenistani Law, supra note 29, arts. 17, 20; Uzbekistani Regulations, supra note 31, ¶¶ 3.13, 3.16.
Kazakhstani Rules, supra note 22, Annex 1, ¶ 1; See generally Kyrgyzstani Resolution, supra note 25, ¶ 11; Tajikistani Procedure, supra note 27, ¶ 26; Turkmenistani Law, supra note 29, art. 12; Uzbekistani Regulations, supra note 31, ¶ 3.1.
Kazakhstani Rules, supra note 22, Annex 1, ¶ 1; See generally Kyrgyzstani Resolution, supra note 25, ¶ 11; Tajikistani Procedure, supra note 27, ¶ 26; Turkmenistani Law, supra note 29, art. 14; Uzbekistani Regulations, supra note 31, ¶ 3.4.
Kazakhstani Rules, supra note 22, Annex 1, ¶ 1; See generally Kyrgyzstani Resolution, supra note 25, ¶ 11; Tajikistani Procedure, supra note 27, ¶ 26; Turkmenistani Law, supra note 29, art. 18; Uzbekistani Regulations, supra note 31, ¶ 3.15.
Kazakhstani Rules, supra note 22, Annex 1, ¶ 1; See generally Kyrgyzstani Resolution, supra note 25, ¶ 11; Tajikistani Procedure, supra note 27, ¶ 26; Turkmenistani Law, supra note 29, arts. 15, 16, 19; Uzbekistani Regulations, supra note 31, ¶¶ 3.10–3.12.
Kazakhstani Rules, supra note 22, Annex 1, ¶ 1; See generally Kyrgyzstani Resolution, supra note 25, ¶ 11; Tajikistani Procedure, supra note 27, ¶ 26. Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have not specifically implemented this particular provision of the VCDR; Author suggests that the absence of a separate implementing provision in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan regulations may be explained by the fact that the domestic (constitutional) law in the Central Asian countries already exempts all foreign nationals from public and military duties.
Tajikistani Procedure, supra note 27, ¶ 32. Translated from Russian by the author.
Turkmenistani Law, supra note 29, art. 3. Translated from Russian by the author.
Uzbekistani Regulations, supra note 31, ¶ 1.2.
See On Legal Status of Foreign Citizens and Stateless Persons in the Republic of Uzbekistan, https://lex.uz/docs/5443901#5448262 (containing exemptions and restrictions in articles 24 and 26).
See International Committee of the Red Cross, https://www.icrc.org/en (last visited Mar. 8, 2023). See also Rustam Atadjanov, International Committee of the Red Cross and Central Asia, in Encyclopedia of Public International Law in Asia, 187–188 (Seokwoo Lee ed., 2021), for a brief overview and history of the activities of the ICRC in Central Asia.
Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the International Committee of the Red Cross on the Status, Privileges and Immunities of the Representative Office of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the Republic of Kazakhstan, opened for signature Feb. 25, 2011, (entered into force Nov. 21, 2018), https://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=30863261 [hereinafter Agreement].
See Id.; ICRC extensively negotiated the terms of the Agreement since 2003, before concluding the Agreement in 2011. Treaty instruments similar to the Agreement are frequently referred to as “headquarter agreement (HQA).” One of the most significant provisions that was actively negotiated was precisely the one on the personal status of the members of the ICRC Office.
Ratification of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the International Committee of the Red Cross on the Status, Privileges and Immunities of the Representation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the Republic of Kazakhstan, https://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=38903451.
International Committee of the Red Cross to open office in Kazakhstan, Astana Times (Oct. 9, 2018), https://astanatimes.com/2018/10/international-committee-of-the-red-cross-to-open-office-in-kazakhstan/.; see also Kassym-Jomart Tokayev meets the heads of international organizations, Official website of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Feb. 15, 2020), https://www.akorda.kz/en/events/international_community/foreign_visits/kassym-jomart-tokayev-meets-the-heads-of-international-organizations.
Agreement, supra note 44, art. 10, ¶ 1.
Id. ¶¶ 2–5, 9, 10.
See United Nations Kazakhstan, https://kazakhstan.un.org/en (last visited May 18, 2023); OSCE Programme Office in Astana, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), https://www.osce.org/programme-office-in-astana (last visited May 18, 2023); Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), http://eng.sectsco.org/cooperation/20170110/192193.html (last visited May 18, 2023); Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Kazakhstan, European External Action Service (EEAS), https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/kazakhstan_en?s=222 (last visited May 18, 2023); Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), https://e-cis.info/page/3502/ (last visited May 18, 2023); Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), http://www.eaeunion.org/?lang=en#about-countries (last visited May 18, 2023).
See Anthony Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice 10 (2d ed. 2007) (stating that bilateral treaties may be formed by two or more states forming one party, and another state or states forming the other party).