Talk:Diplomatic mission/Archive 1

Archive 1

Commonwealth

May be useful to explain why the difference re the UK and Commonwealth countries in more detail. I would, if I knew. Basically, it could do to add far more to this. -Penta 14:08, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's explained quite well under High Commissioner. 81.156.163.79 01:10, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Extrateritorial and local laws

Embassies are not -as described in the article- extraterritorial. It is property of a foreign government under special protection of the vienna convention. The term "extraterritorial" is only used for territories overseas that are part of the homecountry/nation. e.g. french guinea etc. [quote]"Contrary to popular belief, however, diplomatic mission and consular post properties are not extensions of the sending state's territory. Both in fact and in law, diplomatic premises are within the territory of the receiving state."[/quote] source:http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/membassy.htm

They are also not "exempt from local law". They are exempt from some local law, but have to obey certain other local laws: e.g if an embassy owns a "landmark building" (e.g. like a historic building in georgetown , washington d.c.)it still has to obey certain regulations by local authorities. e.g.: they can't destroy a 200 year old historic building in georgetown and build a skyscraper on the site in washington d.c. or elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.65.165 (talk) 14:58, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Wretched service hours, etc.

I'd like to see some detail on exactly why embassies are so wretched involving service hours, contact, overall friendliness, use of technology, etc. Many are only open for four hours a day if that. Mithridates 00:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

→ Monopoly Jpatokal 02:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wartime

I know the info below to be correct (in some cases), and it is pertinent; I don't have the sources or expertise to word it correctly. If someone could insert this I would appreciate it.

A common outcome of a formal war declaration is that neither side is permitted to have people in the hostile country; the workaround to this is one country friendly to the nation(s) allows their mission to host the ambassador of another nation; for example an American ambassador to Germany in World War II would be a Swiss ambassador with American nationality.

I know there is at least one example of this on Wikipedia already; I just don't recall where. Thanks. Daemon8666 19:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

First you need to open diplomatic ties, then you send a letter of credence. Jpatokal 02:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any law which states that the embassies of two states in conflict with each other need to be 'closed down' - historically embassies have usually been evacuated before it is necessary to moot this point, and diplomats are accorded protection according to the Treaty of Vienna. States are then obliged to protect the (vacant) embassies belonging to their enemy.

The example above is wrong - while Switzerland was the protecting power for many allied and axis states in WW2, you cannot say the Swiss ambassador had the role of 'American ambassador'. No Swiss ambassador was invested with the authority to represent the US. Kransky 09:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Creating an embassy

How are embassies created? The article doesn't cover this, and I don't know where to find out. -- 12.5.49.27 20:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Vatican diplomacy?

The article claims the Vatican is the oldest continuous diplomacy in the world. I realize the cardinals DO vote for the pope, but I can't help feeling as if it still is a bit of a stretch to consider the Vatican a diplomacy, especially since it's not as if anyone can run for the office of the Pope. -- 71.108.43.58 02:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Are you perhaps confusing diplomacy with democracy? But it's a fairly meaningless statement (what is "a diplomacy"?) so I've taken it out. Jpatokal 13:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You are definitely confusing 'diplomacy' with 'democracy'. Diplomacy simply means that you're sending representatives of your state/body to represent you in meeting with governments, inter-governmental organisations, non-governmental organisations, international organisations, etc. This is something the Vatican do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.83.143 (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Closing of embassies?

If a host nation wishes to protest another nation, can they close down said embassy?

• It would be far more common to close down one's own embassy in the other country as a protest. Forcibly closing a foreign embassy in your country could probably be considered to an act of war.--Pharos 10:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations the embassy (and its premises) are to be considered the soverign territory of the sending state, the receiving state therefore have no judicial means of closing down an embassy of another nation. However, the receiving state may choose to break off diplomatic relations meaning that the abovementioned Vienna Convention is void. The sending state would thereby be forced to downgrade its representation from an embassy to a representative office or consulate, which in effect would mean the closure of the embassy. Sir Tanx 11:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

it is incorrect to say an embassy is on the soil outside that of the host nation (forget Homer Simpson's America-Australia routine). Countries can express displeasure by recalling its ambassador, and let somebody else serve as charge d'affaires (ad interim). Kransky 09:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Chancery

Hmm-m -- it appears that the word chancery is sometimes used to describe the building [1], and sometimes to describe the internal divisions of the embassy staff [2]. Somebody who knows their stuff should make this a little clearer in the article... Jpatokal 04:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This was just added to the article:

Strictly speaking, an "embassy" is an ambassador's residence. If the business offices of the mission are located elsewhere, that location is called the "chancery". In common practice, however, all of the buildings occupied by a country's mission are called the "embassy" of that country, even if they are not located in a single compound. To avoid confusion, the ambassador's home may be known as the "residence" of the embassy.

However, it conflicts with the existing text lower down in the same section:

The term "embassy" is often used to refer to the building or compound housing an ambassador's offices and staff. Technically, "embassy" refers to the diplomatic delegation itself, while the office building in which they work is known as a chancery, but this distinction is rarely used in practice. Ambassadors reside in ambassadorial residences, which enjoy the same rights as missions.

Just my two cents, but I've never heard of an ambassadorial residence being called an embassy. Jpatokal (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Embassy- the meaning

I find that the whole piece of writing is fairly useless if you want to find out what an EMBASSY really is. This piece may have lightly skimmed the point but what is an EMBASSY? Why are embassies built in other countries? Once again i emphasise my meaning, what is an EMBASSY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitalittleone2 (talk • contribs) 08:16, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

From the Straight Dope

The Straight Dope tackled diplomatic missions recently and their article contradicts a few points in this article.

From the wikipedia article:

“ they are exempt from local law and in almost all respects treated as being part of the territory of the home country. They are also only required to pay taxes equal to their respective countries' guidelines. ”

from the Straight Dope:

“ What causes the confusion is the general rule that diplomatic missions are inviolable. That means the receiving state's police can't enter an embassy without the sending state's consent. It doesn't mean the receiving state's laws don't apply there. For example, embassies must comply with local building and fire codes. ”

Given the Straight Dope article was better sourced, it seems it's the more credible source. hateless 23:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see a huge difference. While embassies may technically have to comply with fire codes etc, in practice there's no way to shut them down if they don't. This is the same as the infamous parking ticket problem: illegal parking by diplomats is still illegal, there's just no way for the host country to enforce the law. Jpatokal 16:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no infamous parking ticket problem: if you're are parking illegaly and you don't pay your fine more than three times, you are loosing your diplomatic license plate. see:http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/hc_docs/HC_11_06.pdf

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.65.165 (talk) 10:23, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 

List of Embassies

Today is the first day I see the embassy (or diplomatic mission, doesn't matter) article on Wikipedia, and I was just wondering if there's a reason why there isn't an article on any of the embassies? Is it because they are too many of them (of course there needn't be a article about every embassy mind you), because there is a consensus that there aren't any embassies important enough to deserve an article or simply because no one has bothered writing about them? --BiT (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of embassy articles, see Category:Diplomatic missions by country. However, there are way too many to list here, and none are diplomatically noteworthy enough to single out here. Jpatokal (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

See Embassy of Australia in Paris, Consulate General of the United States in Ho Chi Minh City, Embassy of Mexico in Berlin etc. Kransky (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

History?

Where was the first embassy? etc.--85.180.240.101 (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable violations

I removed the claim the burning down of a few embassies in the Middle East were notable violations of extraterritoriality. I don't see how the claim can be made when not only isn't there even a reference 1 or 2 years after the fact mentioning them as notable violaitons but we don't even have an article on these violations (if it's notable then surely we should). They are definitely not the only violations, e.g. there was the NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade (even if it was an accident it was still a violation) and in the current Greek crisis there is a report of protestors occupying the Greek embassy in France and I suspect there have been other instances. There have also been e.g. terrorist attacks targetting embassies some of them at least successful enough to penetrate the outer part of the embassy as well as other attempts and successful instances of people burning down embassies [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Of particular note, none of these were occupied for any length of time and instead were just attacked or destroyed mostly by civilians (sometimes potentially with the tactic support of the goverment) whereas the two other major violations included people being held hostage for a number of days. Other then the terrorist attacks and the NATO bombing, there were generally no casulties either AFAIK because the embassies had usually been evacuated beforehand Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Diplomatic mission → Embassy — Per WP:COMMONNAME. Diplomatic Missions are known commanly as Embassy's. other names are mentioned in the article. Move is controversial, due to the previous merger. [8] Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. An embassy is a diplomatic mission headed by an Ambassador. It is true that ambassadors are more common than they used to be, but the upgrade when your nation began receiving actual ambassadors from the Powers was very important. It's not helpful to confuse the two, especially if this article is used as reference to explain the diplomatic use of minister. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are still many diplomatic missions with other names, for example the diplomatic mission of one Commonwealth country in another is a 'High Commission' and diplomatic missions to international organisations (e.g. the UN or the EU) also aren't called embassies. Additionally, as pointed out by Pmanderson, historically not all diplomatic missions have been embassies. All of this is made clear in the article. Taken together this is easily enough to show that 'diplomatic missions' and 'embassy' do not mean the same thing and as such WP:COMMONNAME would suggest 'diplomatic mission' is the correct term as the article is clearly about the former and this is term I hear most often to refer to this subject. Dpmuk (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per well written reasons cited above. Also would be worthwhile to include consulates.Kransky (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• comment. Respectfully, the article's main purpose is to define a Diplomatic Mission, glancing at the article's Naming section, it does not specify that a missions name is determined by the title of the resident ambassador. It is noted in the article, that High Commisions and other titles exist, to include consulates. as for the target of the article, as it exists at this point, the subject is Embassy's not any of the other uses of the title, This comes from the Naming section of the article.

"A permanent diplomatic mission is typically known as an Embassy or Chancery, and the person in charge of the mission is known as an ambassador." Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I also point to the WP:NCON guide, which indicates that if there are different orginizations that use the term Diplomatic Mission, or are of the same or similar use, we should disambiguate. We can also look at the 'objective criteria'.

   * Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources)
   * Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
   * Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

A google search will bring the US State Department as it's first link, and specifies "Embassies", and separates Consulates and Diplomatic Missions It is also of note that in widespread media, they are known as Embassies (ie. The Bourne Identity, Futurama had a episode where "Zoidberg" had to seek asylum in his "Embassy"). It is my belief, though I am by no means an expert on international policies, that at the very least, US Diplomatic Missions are known as Embassies. I have a old work acquaintance who worked as a Marine Security Guard overseas. (lol, one of our last conversations, he suggested that I work at one:) Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really follow your argument. I maintain that high commissions and embassies are for all intents and purposes the same thing, and should be included together under a mutually compatible definition. All countries have embassies and usually refer to them as thus. However The UK, India, Canada, Australia, South Africa and many other countries use the term "High Commission" for missions in each other's countries, and this practice makes it more than being a mere abberation from a common name. Kransky (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Sephiroth is citing a Wikipedia article as though it is a reliable source; it is not, and we have guidelines that say so. Go research the real world, instead of trying to make the article title consistent with past blunders.

The OED is a good source on language; the State Department on the history of diplomatic missions; reading Henry Adams' History of the United States under Jefferson and Madison may be the most entertaining way of learning the importance of the distinction here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I quoted Guidelines and Policies that are meant to assist in these situations. As for the definition, it really doesn't matter, what matters is that as you said, most Missions are known as Embassies. If it is the common title, then the article should be renamed. The article gives sufficient weight to the term Diplomatic Mission, as well as other forms of naming. Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Read the guidelines and the sources, if they will make this clearer to you; you misunderstand them, as you misunderstand us. But no. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose as above. FYI, even the United States doesn't call all its diplomatic missions embassies, see eg. [9]. Jpatokal (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The above mentioned Mission is to the UN. As notated in the article, All Missions to the UN are known as missions, As I stated above, the US maintains separate Missions, Embassies, and Consulates. Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, they are also known as delegations and permanent delegations. Different conventions, and they may be particular to each country concerned. However for all intents and purposes, while they are accredited to multilateral bodies rather than host countries, they are diplomatic missions. If we stick to "diplomatic mission" then we can have similar things in one article. Kransky (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That is against policy. Articles aren't meant to groups together similar entities, but to be an encyclopedic article. The article should be moved to Embassy, and Diplomatic mission should be a separate article. Sephiroth storm (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know how to explain this to somebody who takes his cues on international law through watching Futurama. An embassy is a type of diplomatic mission. It is the subset of the term. I bet you that within six months of us creating articles entitled Embassy, Consulate, High Commission, Legation, Representative office (diplomacy) people will be wanting the articles merged together to provide some coherence.

Actually Kransky(Thank you for signing your post), that was a pretty good explination. Now if only someone here will point to a policy that is in line with these views, we can be done with this. Sephiroth storm (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for forgetting to sign my name. That was the last statement I will make on the debate, suffice to say there does not seem to be any support for the proposal. Kransky (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Embassies are diplomatic missions, but not all diplomatic missions are embassies. High Commissions, Consulates, etc. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Diplomatic mission is better and consistent as commonwealth nations usually call their embassy as consulates -- Tinu Cherian - 17:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Close Ended Discussion per WP:Consensus. Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Diplomatic mission. -- DarkCrow^Caw 13:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

---

yeah, ambassadorial residences has been a stub for five years. There is, by my estimation, one sentence that is not completely useless ("[Ambassadorial] residences are considered inviolable and, in most cases, extraterritorial.") OPEC2cool (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about the merger. Missions are essentially office space, similar to a Consulate or Embassy, but generally attached to an intergovernmental body. where as Ambassadorial residences are where the Ambassadors who work in Missions/Consulates/Embassy's live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.83.143 (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hernn Schmitt.

Sehr geehrter Herrn Schmitt,

ich kann Ihnen einen Vorschlag unterbreiten. Wenn die Botschaft fertig gebaut wird, vorraussichtlich Herbst 2010, sind Sie der erste. Dann können Sie sich in Ruhe unterhalten und Ihre Neugier stillen. Aus internen Sicherheitsgründen ist eine businness connection möglich. Checken Sie Ihre e-mails regelmäßig und lassen Sie sich überraschen.

Ansonsten, das alte Spiel*G* Nur diesmal habe ich die ewigen Zänkäpfel "geklaut" und in Sicherheit gebracht. Ich kann kann die 3 Kronen auch nur in der Vitrine bewundern. Gott sei Dank ! Weiterhin denke ich mal wirtschaflicher Wettbewerb andauernd, und in Krisenzeiten an einem Strang ziehen. Sonst jeder hat seine Stärken und Schwächen, die sollten wir nutzen. Polen können kämpfen, ja. Aber verstehen nicht viel von Finanzen. Wir , K7 Corporation tragen dazu bei, dass die Europäer paar Evolutionsstufen überspringen. Uns sonst schau ma mal.

Ich bin kein Heiliger und vertauen ist gut aber Kontrolle ist besser aber nicht übertreiben. K7 passt auf mich auf auch wenn ich übertreiben sollte. Deswegen habe ich jetzt eine rote Narbe am Bein.

Nichtsdestotrotz, interessante Strategie. Aber ich denke ich habe Recht wenn ich sage "Don t mess with God"

In dem Sinne bleiben Sie gesund, und bis dann.

K7 Corp. Hojenski. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.123.52 (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ownership?

Who owns the buildings? Are they provided by the host country or does each country have to buy their building? I assume the latter, but a know-it-all I know insists on the former. Malick78 (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes the buildings are owned by the sending state, sometimes it is a rented apartment in an office complex and in some cases (especially with African embassies in the Middle East) the host country donates the embassy building to the sending state - so there's really no fixed rules.

Best Sir Tanx (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)