Diplomatic and Consular Services Introductory Lecture by Agybay Smagulov Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Kazakhstan,Candidate in Historical Sciences Almaty, 2024

Introduction to the discipline "Diplomacy and Consular Service"

 So, today we are starting the course “Diplomatic and Consular Service”. Why not just “Diplomatic Service”, which would also include the topic “Consular Service”? The question arises: Are diplomats and consuls the same thing, or are they different specialties? Judging by the fact that there are two Vienna Conventions, one on diplomatic relations, the other on consular relations, there are differences in the work and status of diplomats and consuls.

 The main difference between these two professions is that diplomats deal with issues of interstate relations, or, as they say, international relations, and consuls, as a rule, deal with issues of relations between foreign citizens and his (the consul’s) own country, or citizens of their own country (individuals) and legal entities) with a foreign state. That is why in a foreign country there is one embassy, ​​one ambassador in the capital, who is accredited to the head of state (or charge d'affaires accredited to the minister of foreign affairs of the host country). The embassy has a consular section, which can be contacted by citizens of the host country living anywhere in their country. Consular offices focused on working with specific people - citizens of their own state and the host state - can be opened and operate in several consular districts in order to be closer to persons applying for state services. For example, consulates general of the Republic of Kazakhstan operate in Russia in St. Petersburg, Astrakhan, Omsk, Yekaterinburg and Kazan. In China today, general consulates have been opened in Hong Kong, Shanghai and Xi'an; the passport and visa service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan exists in the XUAR of the People's Republic of China, which also deals with issues of repatriates. In the north of Iran, in Gorgan, there is a consulate general of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The huge number of our citizens going on holiday to the United Arab Emirates predetermined the opening of the Consulate General in Dubai; the embassy is located in the capital - Abu Dhabi.

In other words, diplomats deal with political, economic, cultural, military and other issues of interstate, intergovernmental relations, in general, implement the developed foreign policy of their state. Consuls are mainly engaged in protecting the interests of citizens (individuals and legal entities) of their state in the host country, providing public services abroad for foreign and their own citizens. Consulates do not negotiate with the government of the host state, do not sign agreements and, as a rule, do not communicate with central authorities. The prerogatives of consulates apply only within the consular district. Consular fees and duties - money for government services provided - are part of government revenues and consular offices send them to the budget.

 Judging by the contents of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, a consular officer does not have the full scope of rights to diplomatic privileges and immunities provided for by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and cannot be a diplomatic agent, whose personality is inviolable (as well as the members of his family living with him) . A diplomatic agent is not subject to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State is obliged to treat him with due respect and to take all appropriate measures to prevent any attacks on his person, freedom or dignity. There are certain differences between diplomatic and consular immunities. This is explained by the fact that diplomatic missions operate on both a functional and representative basis, while the functional approach is decisive in relation to consular privileges and immunities. This leaves an imprint on the features of consular privileges and immunities and their difference from diplomatic ones.

Nevertheless, both of them, passing through the diplomatic department, are called diplomats. According to the Consular Charter of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the head of the consular post and the consular officer are employees of the diplomatic service, and the consular service is part of the diplomatic service. On the basis of bilateral consular conventions with a foreign state, consular officials, including the head of a consular mission, may be extended the privileges and immunities granted to members of the diplomatic staff, based on the principle of reciprocity in relation to each individual state. It is necessary to clarify that privileges mean special legal advantages and benefits, while immunity means exclusion from the jurisdiction of the host state.

Let us note one more nuance concerning other persons who claim diplomatic privileges and immunities solely by virtue of their possession of diplomatic passports. Having a diplomatic passport does not make its owner a diplomat. It is necessary to recognize him in this capacity by the other party by either issuing a diplomatic card in the host country or affixing a diplomatic visa to the passport. Without this, the holder of a diplomatic passport can only count on respectful attitude towards him.

The diplomatic service is the professional activity of civil servants holding positions in the system of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the country: in the central office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in diplomatic missions and consular offices, representative offices at international (interstate and intergovernmental) organizations, as well as in some other organizations subordinate to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Here it is necessary to immediately note that the Vienna Convention of 1961 says nothing about diplomats working in the missions of member states of international organizations, and even more so about employees of the secretariats of these organizations, although member states issue them diplomatic passports.

The diplomatic service ensures the implementation of a unified state policy in the field of relations with foreign states and international organizations, as well as coordination of activities in this area of ​​other central and regional government bodies.

Thus, this course could be called in short - “Diplomatic Service”, keeping in mind that the activities of consuls are covered by this title. Some textbooks are called that way and include chapters on the consular service. For example, a textbook published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan in 2005 under the general editorship of K.K. Tokayev is called “Diplomatic Service of the Republic of Kazakhstan”, in the appendix of which the Vienna Convention of 1963 and the Consular Charter of the Republic of Kazakhstan are given. At the same time, this discipline also includes the topic “State bodies of external relations,” starting with the head of state. This, in turn, forces us to touch upon such broader concepts as “diplomacy”, “foreign policy”, “international relations”, “international politics” and “world politics”.

After all, the head of state determines foreign policy - the general course of a sovereign state in the international arena in each specific historical period, based on the current state of international relations, international politics and world politics, aimed at protecting and promoting national interests, determining the nature of relations with other states and international organizations , approaches to solving modern international problems and expressed in specific international diplomatic activities of relevant government bodies and officials. Diplomacy is a means of implementing foreign policy at all these three levels and is much broader than the concept of diplomatic service. But at the same time, diplomatic service employees need to be prepared to work at all of the above levels of diplomacy. After all, it is the diplomatic service that prepares the concept of the country’s foreign policy, basic materials on all aspects of international relations, international and world politics. These requirements are specified in the “Regulations on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan”.

Various definitions of the concept of “diplomacy” can be found in the textbook I prepared for the course “Diplomatic and Consular Service”. In the lecture I will give one definition from the book of the living English political scientist Jeff Berridge, “Diplomacy: Theory and Practice.” It should be noted that this book actually covers many of the topics in the course “Diplomatic and Consular Service”, but, as you can see, it is called “Diplomacy”. This work, which has already become a classic of the genre, has been reprinted six times, the last edition published in 2022. The table of contents of this book and a summary of the contents of the chapters can be found on the author’s website http://grberidge.diplomacy.edu/:

The Foreign Ministry;

Part I: The Art of Negotiation (Prenegotiations; ‘Around-the-Table’ Negotiations;  Diplomatic Momentum; Packaging Agreements; Following Up;

Part II Diplomacy and Diplomatic Relations: Embassies;  Telecommucations; Consulates; Secret Intelligence;  Conferences;  Summits; Public Diplomacy;

Part III:  Diplomacy Without Diplomatic Relations: Embassy Substitutes; Special Missions; Mediation Conclusion: The Counter-revolution in Diplomatic Practice

The book itself can be downloaded from this link: https://vk.com/search?c%5Bper_page%5D=40&c%5Bq%5D=Berridge&c%5Bsection%5D=auto

“Diplomacy is an essentially political activity and, well resourced and skillful, a major ingredient of power. Its chief purpose is to enable states to secure the objectives of their foreign policies without resort to force, propaganda, or law. It achieves this mainly by communication between professional diplomatic agents and other officials designed to secure agreements. Although it also includes such discrete activities as gathering information, clarifying intentions, and engendering goodwill, it is thus not surprising that, until the label ‘diplomacy’ was affixed to all of these activities by the British parliamentarian Edmund Burke in 1796, it was known most commonly as ‘negotiation’—by Cardinal Richelieu, the first minister of Louis XIII of France, as négociation continuelle. Diplomacy is not merely what professional diplomatic agents do; it is carried out by other officials and by private persons under the direction of officials. As we shall see, it is also carried out through many different channels besides the traditional resident mission. Together with the balance of power, which it both reflects and reinforces, diplomacy is the most important institution of our society of states.”

Indeed, in the classic work on diplomacy published in 1716, “On the Manner of Negotiating with Sovereigns. On the benefits of negotiations, on the selection of ambassadors and envoys, and on the personal qualities necessary to achieve success in these positions” by Francois de Callieres - only talks about diplomats and does not use the word “diplomacy” at all. It is not mentioned in another book by an unknown author in 1726, “Treatise on Embassies and Ambassadors.” At that time, let me remind you once again, the concept of “continuous negotiations” given by Cardinal Richelieu was used.

Let's compare D. Berridge's definition with that given in the Oxford English Dictionary: “Diplomacy is the conduct of international relations through negotiations; the method by which these relations are regulated and conducted by ambassadors and envoys; the work or art of diplomacy." It is to him that G. Nicholson refers in his book “The Art of Diplomacy,” written in 1954. But we can also cite the words from the famous work of E. Satow “A Guide to Diplomatic Practice”, published in 1917: “Diplomats”, however, should be considered all civil servants engaged in affairs of a diplomatic nature, regardless of whether they serve in their homeland - at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or abroad - at embassies or other diplomatic missions.

As can be seen from the comparison, in the past, diplomacy meant only negotiations by ambassadors and their effective use to achieve the goals of a particular state, the art of negotiations by diplomatic service employees, as well as, we add, diplomatic protocol, ceremony and etiquette. Later, a consular service was added to them. Today, the concept of “diplomacy” is much broader and, I repeat, also includes the development and implementation of foreign policy, the establishment and maintenance of diplomatic and international relations, participation in identifying and regulating global problems and challenges of world politics. Diplomacy implies contacts, communication and interaction not only with states with which diplomatic relations are established de jure, but also with other subjects of international relations (communication): states recognized de facto or ad-hoc, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, public associations, transnational companies, etc. We especially note that special attaches can work as part of diplomatic missions - for culture, science and technology, agriculture, economics, industry, finance, labor, border issues, etc. Special attachés are qualified specialists in their field; they are entrusted with studying issues in their specialty in the host country, as well as conducting operational work related to maintaining and developing relations between their departments and the relevant departments of the host country. Sometimes special attachés have diplomatic advisor ranks. Thus, employees of the diplomatic service are, willy-nilly, and will be involved in these most diverse world processes, including globalization, integration, democratization, transport issues, this or that energy, water problems, delimitation and demarcation of state borders...

Perhaps it is still worth citing E. Satow’s definition from his famous book “A Guide to Diplomatic Practice” that diplomacy is the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between the governments of various independent states. Intelligence and tact. This definition highlights precisely the exceptional mental abilities required by a diplomat, the breadth and depth of his knowledge about all aspects of public, state, and international life, as well as tact, tact, and the ability to behave in accordance with accepted etiquette and ethical standards, diplomatic protocol rules and ceremonies in the country during your stay.

American scholars James Goldgeier and Elizabeth Saunders in their article “Good Foreign Policy is Invisible” (Foreign Affairs.com, February 28, 2017) write: ... diplomacy can be called “an invisible force " Diplomacy is often a low-key, hidden effort aimed at building alliances, twisting the arms of adversaries, softening differences, and investing long-term in the development of relationships and societies. Diplomatic work rarely leads to high-profile victories that the whole world knows about. The benefits it provides are not easy to quantify. Crises averted are not trumpeted as loudly as triumphs on the battlefield. The decline in consumer prices as a result of trade agreements cannot be felt; it is not as noticeable as the closure of a factory. The preventative measures that most diplomats are engaged in are not as spectacular as dramatic military surgeries.”

It is interesting to note that scientists and practitioners avoid defining the concept of “foreign policy”; it is absent from the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. The world-famous American diplomat, in his almost 700-page book “Does America Need a Foreign Policy?,” found no place for such a definition, except for the statement that “foreign policy always comes down to a problem of choice” and “foreign policy is bound by various circumstances.”

However, we need to define these terms. Foreign policy is associated with a separate state. Foreign policy is the general course of a certain sovereign state in the international arena in each specific historical period, aimed at protecting and promoting its national interests, determining the nature of relations with other states, international organizations, towards solving modern international problems and expressed in the specific international activities of the relevant state bodies and officials.

International relations are political, economic, cultural, military and other relationships and connections between subjects of the world community (peoples, organizations, states and subjects of domestic politics) conducted at the bilateral, regional, multilateral and global level and based on national interests, covering all spheres of society life, which is governed by customary international law and treaties (treaty law) concluded between nation states as the main subjects of international relations. The nature of international relations is largely determined by the foreign policy of states (confrontation, rivalry, coexistence, maintaining a balance of interests or cooperation) in the absence of a single authority center for decision-making (laws) and coercion for all participants in the global process, the presence of many equal and sovereign centers and the strong influence of the subjective factor that gives unpredictability and spontaneity to international political processes. The main factors influencing the development of international relations: the global economic situation, the military and economic capabilities of states, the state of raw materials and natural resources...

It is believed that the term “international relations” was coined by the English philosopher and jurist Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832), meaning spontaneously emerging relations between national states and nation-states.

Recently, research and teaching aids have appeared on such a subject as “Intercultural communications and international cultural exchange”. International communication exists simultaneously with international relations, and, as a rule, it is not bound by any rules of customary international or treaty law.

To describe the various relationships and interactions between groups and individuals of different states, another, less commonly used term is used: transnational relations. In this case, we mean that they are not constrained by state borders (compare with transnational rivers), and are not initiated by government agencies or international governmental organizations. They are driven by non-governmental, religious, charitable, criminal groups, organizations or institutions operating in two or more countries, as well as transnational or multinational corporations, i.e. firms that operate economic entities in two or more countries.

Paul Meertz in his book “Diplomatic Negotiations. Essence and Development”, published in 2015, introduces the concept of “transnational negotiations”, by which we mean negotiations within the framework of advanced integration associations such as the European Union (we will add the Eurasian Economic Union, although in this case ratification by national parliaments is required), where a single The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopt legislative norms in many areas of the economy that are binding in all its member states. They are different from international negotiations conducted within the World Trade Organization, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Chronologically, international communication is older than international relations. When international communication takes on a political character, then it becomes an international, interstate relationship. We can say that the basis of international relations is international communication; through communication, relationships are established and their character is formed. In other words, the nature of communication affects the nature of international relations, and vice versa. The political situation and interests are often decisive for international communication. In the event that political conditions are unfavorable for international communication, it is either very limited or “curtailed” to a minimum.

Modern interstate contacts only benefit from the expansion and deepening of all possible forms of communication, exchange of opinions, and knowledge of each other. These forms of communication are informal in nature and take various forms that allow the exchange of opinions, ideas, experiences, etc. Examples include congresses of leaders of world and traditional religions, meetings on interaction and confidence-building measures in Asia, Astana international forums, international economic forums in different countries (Astana, Davos, St. Petersburg, Tianjin (China) .... Numerous forms of international communication take place in the CIS: youth formulas, sports competitions, congresses of teachers, scientists, etc. International communication is expanding within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

International politics is essentially the result of joint activities of subjects of international relations to discuss and develop approaches and solutions to existing common problems and issues and their subsequent implementation in various forms. We can say that the international policy agreed upon between states regulates international relations through international treaty law, through the obligations that parties to agreements undertake, including in relation to other regions of the world, to other regional international policies.

If the concept of foreign policy characterizes the course of one sovereign state, then the term international politics formulates the course of a group of states: towards competition or confrontation with another group of states, etc. If a group of states takes a course towards economic integration, then in this case we are talking about the development of a transnational unified economic policy covering the territories of all states included in the integration association. (Let us refrain from using such a stronger term as supranational politics)

In the course of international relations, in the course of relations between states, international policy is developed, a policy agreed upon between states. Here it could be noted that the term in English international relations would be correctly translated by the phrase “interstate relations, or as they used to say - international communications, intercourses, not relations.

It is necessary to distinguish the principles of international relations recorded in the relevant international documents (recognition of the sovereign equality of states; inviolability of established borders; the principle of non-use of force or threat of force in interstate relations; recognition of the territorial integrity of states; peaceful settlement of disputes; non-interference in the internal affairs of other states; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; equality and the right of peoples to decide their own destinies; the need for cooperation between states and the conscientious fulfillment of obligations under international law) from the principles of international politics. One could name some of them: objectivity, specificity, optimality, “common good”, economic development, open borders, interconnectedness of transport infrastructures, feedback or receptivity of peoples.

When defining world politics, we understand challenges and problems of a general nature and approaches to solving them, general global trends in the development of the world, which cover both interstate relations and the activities of various transnational entities. These problems, challenges and problems are extremely diverse: globalization, regionalization, democratization, integration, disintegration, environmental pollution, ecology, demography, migration, organized crime, drug trafficking, terrorism, problems of North-South relations, global stability, provision of weapons and commercial use. Economic, legal and information components today occupy the main positions in world politics. Politicians, scientists, diplomats are asking the question: how to regulate global processes in the modern world. Ideas or concepts such as “Community of the Common Destiny of Humanity”, “Greater Eurasian Partnership Initiative”, “G-global” are proposed.

Now we have come to understand for ourselves such a frequently used phrase as “diplomatic art” or “the art of diplomacy.” The word “art” is also used in such a combination as “military art”, which includes strategy, operational art and tactics. In turn, these three components have a lot of their own laws, patterns, principles, techniques and methods for solving problems. In relation to other professions, the word “skillful” is used, which means having high skill and a creative approach, skillfully in the sense of a precisely calculated combination of various means and methods, using the available capabilities in this particular case, and performing his job with knowledge of all the subtleties. This is precisely the essence and content of another phrase: “the art of management”.

Diplomatic art is the ability to use the entire arsenal of capabilities already accumulated by diplomatic practice with the utmost precision in time and place, and to find new combinations of their use in the conduct of the country’s foreign policy. Diplomatic art is a creative activity based on deep knowledge, experience and intuition at the level of collecting information, analyzing and predicting the situation, developing foreign policy strategy and tactics, conducting conversations and negotiations, influencing public opinion, building a system of connections and contacts, presenting material . Much the same can be said about the concept of “the art of negotiations.” Negotiations are also a constant creativity of their participants, based on deep knowledge of the negotiation process.

Foreign policy, diplomatic relations, diplomacy and the activities of the diplomatic service begin with the recognition of the sovereignty and independence of the state.

The Catholic Church is the only religious body that has its own professional diplomatic service. The Pope, in addition to the power of the head of the Catholic Church, also serves as the head of the papal state (although it avoids full membership in the UN, limiting itself to observer status of this world organization). After the Peace of Westphalia and as a result of the establishment of the principle of state sovereignty, the secular rather than the religious principle came to the fore in papal diplomacy. The international status of the papal diplomatic service has undergone significant changes. The rulers of the states agreed to recognize the foreign policy and secular aspect of the diplomatic mission of the papal nuncio. From now on he was considered a representative of a sovereign state. At the same time, the ecclesiastical nature of the mission, which provided for the right to intervene in the internal affairs of the state, was no longer recognized. Submitting to the demands of the time, the Holy See began to build relations with modern sovereign states on an equal basis. This required bringing the system of papal diplomacy into line with the secular one: the pope sends his ambassadors exclusively to secular rulers, their activities cover the entire sphere of relations between the Holy See and the receiving state. The Vatican currently does not have its own consular missions, but does not exclude the possibility of creating a consular service based on the international legal personality of the Holy See.

At the Congress of Vienna, the Holy See managed through diplomatic measures to ensure recognition of the temporal power of the pontiff. The papal diplomats represented at the congress paid special attention to determining the status of the pope and his diplomatic service. The pope's temporal power in the symbolic state and his religious authority gained formal recognition in the "Regulations on the Ranks of Diplomatic Representatives", which included the pope among the major monarchs. For the first time in the practice of diplomacy, the European powers legally recorded the recognition of the papal nuncio as an official diplomatic representative with the rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, as well as his doyen in the diplomatic corps.

When traveling abroad, like other heads of state, the pope enjoys “sovereign immunity.” His privileges include the right to a ceremonial reception and special honors, freedom of communication with his own and other countries by code and couriers, personal integrity, as well as the inviolability of personal belongings and premises, vehicles.

At the same time, in the diplomatic practice of the Vatican it is not customary to focus attention on one’s citizenship. Vatican diplomats never identify themselves as representatives of the Vatican City State. They consider themselves representatives of all humanity, that is, the universal church. Their ethnic origin does not play any role in this. They emphasize that the diplomatic relations of the Holy See are international, not interstate, because the subject of these relations is the Apostolic See, and not the Vatican City State. In diplomatic practice, it should be taken into account that back in 1957, the UN, in agreement with the leadership of papal diplomacy, recommended using the term “Holy See” instead of “Vatican City State” in official documents and at international conferences. Therefore, representatives of the pope do not have a passport of the city of the “Vatican State”, but a diplomatic or official passport issued by the Holy See.

In 2010, the Portuguese Parliament ratified an agreement with the Ismaili Imamat, which recognizes the Ismaili Imamat as an international legal entity with the right to conclude international treaties and confirms the official recognition of the constitutional governing body of the Ismaili community, which is created by the Imam. Based on this document, for the first time in Ismaili history, a global headquarters was created in Lisbon to manage all aspects of the community's activities, including external relations - the Divan. On July 11, 2018, the opening ceremony of the Diwan of the Ismaili Imamat in Lisbon took place. To date, the following countries and organizations have entered into official relations and exchange of representations with the Imamat: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, the European Commission, the East African Community, France, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Pakistan, Portugal, Syria, Tajikistan, as well as American states of California, Illinois and Texas.

For example, a protocol of mutual understanding between the Imamate and Canada on the mutual appointment of diplomatic representatives was signed in 2014, and since then the Canadian government under the Divan has been represented concurrently by two people: a permanent representative to the UN and then a high commissioner in the UK. In April 2024, a message appeared on the Divan website that for the first time in the history of the Imamat, a ceremony of presenting credentials by a diplomatic representative had taken place. It was presented by the Canadian High Commissioner to Great Britain. Thus, another religious structure becomes a subject of international relations.

Another feature of modern relations between states is the creation of the foreign policy mechanism of the European Union, when, in parallel with the diplomatic missions of the national member states of this association, diplomatic missions (delegations) and EU ambassadors appeared in host countries and at international organizations. In addition to the foreign ministers of national states, the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy appeared. The diplomatic activity of the European Commission is also evidenced by the fact that representatives of both EU member states and representatives of about 165 third countries are accredited with it. In February 2023, a Joint Statement was adopted by the Deputy Prime Minister - Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan Mukhtar Tleuberdi and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy - Vice-President of the European Commission Josep Borrell on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations.

 There are currently 193 sovereign and independent states in the world that are members of the United Nations.

On December 26, 1933, at the VII Pan-American Conference in Montevideo (Uruguay), the Convention on the Rights and Duties of States was adopted, which is one of the few documents listing the characteristics that determine the legal personality of a state from the point of view of public international law. The international community has not yet reached a consensus regarding the mechanisms of international legal recognition. The Montevideo Convention of 1933 came into force on December 26, 1936 and established four characteristics of a state as a subject of international law: a permanent population, a defined territory, its own government, and the ability to enter into relations with other states. Recognition by other states is not required (Article 3), that is, the convention enshrines the declarative theory of statehood, according to which only the very fact of declaring a new state is sufficient for it to acquire international legal personality. At the same time, the readiness to establish diplomatic relations and maintain interstate relations is in itself an act of recognizing the emergence of a new sovereign state and its recognition. In this regard, in many other states, including the Republic of Kazakhstan, there is no legal provision on the procedure for recognizing a new state.

Article 3

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conversation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services. And to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

The excise of these rights has no other limitation than the excise of the rights of other states according to international law.

Article 4

States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not dependent upon the power which is possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

Article 6

The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.

Article 7

The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act which implies the intention of recognizing the new state. 

There is also a constitutive theory of state recognition, according to which only recognition by other states creates a new state as a subject of international law.

The rules for recognizing states are governed largely by international legal custom. Some criteria follow from general principles of international law. Thus, states formed during the coming to power of a minority pursuing racist or other prohibited policies cannot be recognized (as, for example, in the case of the declaration of independence of Southern Rhodesia in 1965, when the UN Security Council called not to recognize the “illegal regime of a racist minority”), as well as states formed during aggression or occupation of the territory by another state.

Diplomatic relations are established and maintained between states, which begin, as a rule, with recognition in the form of a greeting of the new state as a sovereign and independent, equal subject of international relations. These relations in the modern world are regulated by a number of documents that form the basis of interstate relations and interactions. These are, in particular:

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Privileges and Immunities, adopted on April 18, 1961 at a specially convened UN Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities, which is designed to ensure the effective implementation of the functions of diplomatic missions as bodies representing states. The Republic of Kazakhstan joined it on March 31, 1993, when Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 2057-XII was adopted. The Convention entered into force for the Republic of Kazakhstan on the thirtieth day after our state deposited its instrument of accession.

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Privileges and Immunities of April 24, 1963. This document ensures the effective implementation by consular offices of functions on behalf of their states. The Republic of Kazakhstan acceded to this document by resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated March 31, 1993 No. 2058.

We will have to carefully study these two documents as part of the course “Diplomatic and Consular Service”. For now, let us note that according to Article 2 of the Convention on Consular Relations, “Consent given to the establishment of diplomatic relations between two states means, unless otherwise specified, consent to the establishment of consular relations.” At the same time, “the severance of diplomatic relations does not ipso facto entail a severance of consular relations.”

Convention on Special Missions, adopted by UN General Assembly resolution 2530 (XXIV) on December 8, 1969 and entered into force on June 21, 1985.

Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, adopted by resolution 2625 (XXV) of the UN General Assembly on October 24, 1970.

Modern interstate relations cannot be imagined without the active role and participation of international organizations, which have become an integral part of the entire process of international relations and, in fact, the main form of multilateral diplomacy. In this regard, both customary and conventional international legal frameworks have been developed.

Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations of February 13, 1946 and

Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of November 21, 1947

The 1946 Convention established several groups of privileges and immunities - the Organization itself, its officials, representatives of member states of the Organization, experts on business trips on UN affairs. The privileges and immunities granted to diplomatic agents derive from the privileges and immunities of the organization itself. By establishing provisions on the inviolability of premises, archives and property, the 1946 Convention thereby guarantees the protection of UN missions from attacks, since inviolability in this case should be interpreted precisely as “protection from any attack.” The premises of missions, as enshrined in the 1946 Convention, “are not subject to search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation or any other form of interference.”

The immunity of senior UN officials in its content and scope is, as a rule, equal to the immunity of diplomatic representatives of states. The rest of the international employees enjoy functional privileges and immunities, which brings them closer in status to consular officers and members of special missions. However, this does not exclude the duty of the receiving State to treat them with due respect and to take all appropriate measures to prevent any attacks on their person, freedom or dignity.

The 1946 Convention defines the special status of UN experts on missions on UN business. In particular, in section 22 of Art. VI stipulates that “experts ... carrying out assignments from the UN shall enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent performance of their functions while on mission, including time spent traveling in connection with the mission.” UN experts on mission enjoy immunity from personal arrest or detention and from seizure of their personal luggage. The participating states also guarantee to the UN expert on business trips the inviolability of all papers and documents that constitute his luggage. Unlike a diplomatic agent, who, according to the Vienna Convention of 1961, enjoys immunity from the jurisdiction of a foreign state, but not the state of his nationality (the sending state), the privileges and immunities of a UN expert acting in an official capacity also apply in the territory of the expert’s state of nationality.

 There are 135 states participating in the 1946 Convention.

The 1947 Convention provides for the provision of heads (only heads) of international organizations - specialized agencies of the UN system, as well as members of their dependent families living with them, the same regime of privileges and immunities, exemptions and benefits as foreign diplomats states These immunities and privileges are also enjoyed by those officials who perform duties during the absence of the general director.

Almost 110 states participate in the 1947 Convention.

An analysis of the provisions of the 1947 Convention allows us to identify the following features in the issue of suppressing attacks on diplomatic agents of specialized agencies: firstly, the 1947 Convention established that “Privileges and immunities are granted to representatives of members of specialized agencies not for the personal benefit of individuals, but for the purpose of to ensure the independent performance by them of their functions related to the work of specialized institutions” (Section 16, Article V); secondly, the premises of specialized institutions are inviolable (Section 5, Article III). This is an absolute provision and does not imply any exceptions or limitations to immunity; thirdly, Representatives of members of specialized agencies in the meetings convened by them, during the performance of their duties and when traveling to and from the meeting place, enjoy the same immunities and benefits as are provided to diplomatic representatives of the corresponding rank (Section 13, Article V); and, finally, fourthly, senior officials of specialized institutions enjoy in relation to themselves, their wives and minor children the privileges and immunities, exemptions and benefits provided, according to international law, to diplomatic representatives (Section 21, Article VI). Thus, the 1947 Convention established absolute inviolability of both the specialized institutions themselves, as well as representatives of states attached to them and diplomatic agents of specialized institutions, thereby equating their immunity from inviolability to diplomatic ones.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents of 14 December 1973. According to this convention, the following persons enjoy international protection:

a) the head of state, including each member of the collegial body performing the functions of the head of state, according to the constitution of the relevant state, or the head of government, or the minister of foreign affairs located in a foreign state, as well as accompanying members of his family;

b) any representative or official of a State, or an official, or other agent of an intergovernmental organization, who, at the time when an offense was committed against him, his official premises, his residence or his means of transport, and at the place where such offense was committed has the right, in accordance with international law, to special protection against any attack on his person, freedom and dignity, as well as on a member of his family living with him.

Today, almost 110 states are parties to this convention.

The Vienna Convention on the Representation of States in Their Relations with International Organizations of a Universal Character of March 13, 1975 is the primary international legal act regarding the diplomatic representation of a state in international organizations, which, first of all, determines the legal status of such representation. The 1975 Convention has not yet entered into force, mainly due to the resistance of the states on whose territory the organizations are located, but despite this, it represents a very authoritative source. It clearly outlined the legal status, privileges and immunities of permanent representatives, permanent observers, delegations, as well as observers in bodies and at international conferences.

According to Art. 23 of the Vienna Convention of 1975 categorically establishes: The premises of the mission are inviolable. The authorities of the receiving State may not enter these premises except with the consent of the head of the mission. The receiving State has a special duty to take all appropriate measures to protect the premises of the mission from any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance to the peace of the mission or insult to its dignity. In the event of any encroachment on the premises of the mission, the receiving State shall take all appropriate measures to prosecute and punish the persons responsible for such encroachment...

Enshrined in Art. 28 and art. 58 of the Vienna Convention of 1975, the principle of personal immunity of the head and members of the diplomatic staff of the permanent mission and delegation in the body and at the conference almost textually reproduces the wording of Art. 29 of the Vienna Convention of 1961, but with an important addition: it also provides for the duty of the receiving state “to prosecute and punish the perpetrators of such attacks.”

Another guarantee of the inviolability of the personality of a diplomatic representative to an international organization is his immunity from the criminal and civil jurisdiction of the host country. Diplomatic agents at international organizations must have certain guarantees against pressure exerted on them by local authorities, therefore the Vienna Convention of 1975 excludes the possibility of detention or arrest of this category of employees (Article 28).

The Vienna Convention of 1975 also establishes the inviolability of archives and documents (Article 25), as well as official correspondence and mail of a mission (Article 27). Documents, correspondence and property of the head and members of the diplomatic staff of the mission also enjoy inviolability (clause 2 of Article 29). Thus, similar provisions of the Vienna Convention of 1961 are included in this convention.

Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel of 9 December 1994. The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel was adopted on 23 December 2005 and opened for signature from 16 January 2006 to 16 January 2007 This protocol expands the scope of the Organization's employees and associated personnel who will be eligible for legal protection under the 1994 Convention.

Currently, 85 states are parties to the 1994 Convention. However, the Convention has been ratified by less than half of the Member States, and over 80% of the Member States have not yet ratified the 2005 Protocol to this Convention.

According to Art. 1 of the 1994 Convention, UN personnel include members of all components of a UN peacekeeping operation, as well as UN officials and experts on assignment who are present in an area of ​​UN operations in an official capacity.

The category of personnel associated with the UN includes: persons appointed by States and intergovernmental organizations, persons engaged by the Secretary-General, and persons deployed by a humanitarian non-governmental organization in accordance with an agreement with the Secretary-General or with a specialized agency.

The Convention prohibits any attack on UN and associated personnel, their facilities and premises and obliges Member States to ensure the safety and protection of such personnel, in particular protection from crime (Article 7).

The violent actions provided for by the 1994 Convention largely coincide with the offenses enshrined in Art. 2 of the 1973 Convention. According to the 1994 Convention, such acts include any of the following acts: murder, kidnapping or other attacks directed against the person or freedom of any member of the UN and associated personnel, violent attacks on business premises, living quarters or vehicles of such personnel; the threat of any such attack, an attempt to commit it, and an act constituting complicity in any such attack or the commission of an attempted attack. States parties to the 1994 Convention are obliged to recognize such acts as a crime under their national legislation and to establish appropriate punishment, taking into account their grave nature (Article 9). Moreover, the right of states to establish appropriate punishments for such crimes is undeniable.

Kazakhstan has a number of regulatory legal acts that implement these international legal norms into domestic legislation and regulate diplomatic activities. These are, first of all, the Laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On the Diplomatic Service”, “On the Civil Service”, “On International Treaties of the Republic of Kazakhstan”, the Consular Charter approved by the decree of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, “State Protocol of the Republic of Kazakhstan”, “Regulations on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan” ”, “Regulations on the diplomatic and equivalent representation of the Republic of Kazakhstan”, “Regulations on the procedure for assigning diplomatic ranks”, “Rules for the issuance, recording, storage and destruction of diplomatic and service passports of the Republic of Kazakhstan”, and other legislative and regulatory acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The main principle in the regulation of immunities and privileges of diplomatic personnel by the norms of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan is the priority of international law in the system of national law, enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Article 4).

The provisions on diplomatic immunity contain the norms of the Criminal Procedure, Administrative Codes of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and other regulatory legal acts.

In particular, in accordance with the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offenses of January 30, 2001, exemptions from administrative jurisdiction are established, provided by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Immunities affect issues of personal and property integrity of diplomatic personnel:

- inspection, administrative detention and bringing of persons enjoying diplomatic immunity;

- diplomatic immunity from testimony;

- diplomatic immunity of premises and documents.

The Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 13, 1997 also defines a number of personal and property immunities from criminal jurisdiction. Personal immunities include, in particular:

- detention and arrest of persons enjoying diplomatic immunity;

- diplomatic immunity from testimony.

The immunities granted to the property of diplomatic personnel are included in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Kazakhstan: diplomatic immunity of premises and documents.

Types of recognition

- state recognition. Recognition of a state made by another state indicates that the new state is recognized as an independent and sovereign state, a full participant in international relations.

- government recognition. (including governments in exile or others that do not yet have real state power, but intend to have it in the future). Such recognition indicates that the new government is now regarded as the legitimate government of the given state, representing it in the international arena. The question of such recognition may arise during revolutions or coups, but almost never arises during an ordinary change of power in a particular country, for example, as a result of democratic elections. Example: During World War II, the Soviet Union's ambassador to Egypt was accredited to the Yugoslav King Peter and the Greek King George, who were in exile in Egypt.

- recognition of the rebel (belligerent) side;

- recognition of nations fighting for independence or national liberation movements;

From 1954 to September 1958, the Algerian National Liberation Front (NLF) opened several bureaus abroad. The employees of these bureaus did not have any public or official status, for they represented a political organization, but not the Algerian government, which did not yet exist in nature. However, some of the NLF representatives enjoyed diplomatic privileges. These privileges extended to Algerians who worked in the NLF bureaus in the Arab states (for reasons of politeness), as well as to the Algerian representative in New York, who enjoyed a “borrowed” diplomatic statute, because officially he was a diplomat at the Yemeni embassy.

On September 19, 1958, the creation of the Provisional Government of the Argiers Republic was officially announced. In the period before independence, the foreign service of the PGAR - NLF was constantly developing. At the end of December 1961, the country's international position was as follows:

1. 28 countries recognized the Provisional Government of the Algerian Republic: all Arab states, five African states (Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Togo, Mali), seven Asian states (Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Cambodia, etc.), three European countries (Czechoslovakia , Bulgaria, Yugoslavia), one Latin American state (Cuba) and two great powers (USSR and China).

From the book of memoirs of Dubinin Y.V. Diplomatic story.

“Paris reacted sharply to the Soviet government’s recognition of the de facto provisional Algerian government in October 1960. A warning came from France: if the Soviet Union recognizes the Algerian government de jure, this will entail a severance of diplomatic relations between France and the USSR. On March 18, 1962, agreements were concluded between the French government and the provisional government of the Algerian Republic on the cessation of hostilities in Algeria on the terms of the implementation of self-determination of the Algerian people. The next day, the Soviet government recognized the provisional government of the Algerian Republic de jure and declared its readiness to establish diplomatic relations with it. In response, the French government recalled its ambassador Dejean from Moscow. The Soviet ambassador was told that he "must come into direct contact with his government." This elegant formula meant the demand for the ambassador's departure from Paris. The relationship was thus reduced to the level of chargé d'affaires."

2. 24 states recognized the PGAR de jure, four recognized it de facto (USSR, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Liberia). Yugoslavia and Ghana, which initially recognized the UPAR de facto, announced their recognition de jure on September 5, 1961.

3. In addition to the 28 countries that recognized the PGAR, many other countries, while hesitant about legal recognition, actually took into account the existence of this government. Most of these countries belonged to the Afro-Asian world and Eastern Europe. All this allowed the PGAR to participate in international conferences, establish the necessary contacts there, and establish, with the tacit consent and even with the permission of local authorities, permanent delegations of NLF.

- recognition of resistance organizations.

(East Timor, South Sudan, Palestine Liberation Organization, Mujahideen, Taliban, Jammu and Kashmir, DPR and LPR, Northern Ireland, Scotland...

In addition, according to the criterion of time, recognitions are divided into:

- premature - produced before the formation has acquired the characteristics of a state (territory, population, independence of government and the ability to enter into international relations) or the government has fully come to power. In theory, most scientists perceive this as interference in the internal affairs of the state. Example: US-Taliban agreement February 29, 2020

- belated - made after a long period of time after the state has acquired all the characteristics of a subject of international law (for example, recognition of the PRC by the United States of America in 1979).

There may be individual recognition, when one state recognizes another state or government, or collective recognition - the simultaneous recognition of a state (government) by a group of states within the framework of an international conference.

The following forms of international recognition exist:

- De jure recognition is the full official recognition of states or their governments. The establishment or maintenance of diplomatic relations always indicates such recognition, although it is not mandatory for it.

- De facto recognition is incomplete and not finished recognition. With such recognition, diplomatic relations may not be established, but bilateral trade, financial, educational and other agreements are concluded. It is used when the recognizing state does not have confidence in the strength of the new subject of international law, or when the subject itself considers itself a temporary entity. Unlike bilateral treaties, the mere fact of participation of two states in one multilateral treaty or international organization cannot indicate their mutual recognition in any form.

The People's Republic of China in the fall of 2023 became the first country to de facto recognize Taliban rule in Afghanistan and sent a new representative with the rank of ambassador, then received a Taliban representative in its capital also with the rank of ambassador. The People's Republic of China replaced its Ambassador to Afghanistan, who presented a copy and credentials to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister of the IEA on September 13, 2023. According to a statement by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, this is a routine rotation of the Chinese ambassador to Afghanistan, which is related to promoting dialogue and cooperation between China and Afghanistan. Two months later, on November 25, 2023, the IEA Foreign Ministry confirmed the information about the appointment of its ambassador to China. The statement does not mention the full name - the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan - but says that “the Group’s ambassador to China has been appointed.” Both sides avoided mentioning the official names of their states in their official statements. Thus, a new practice has emerged in modern international relations (and diplomacy) where a state is not recognized de jure as a sovereign and independent state, but nevertheless a representative is appointed with the rank of ambassador, a rank that traditionally signifies the establishment of diplomatic relations.

- Ad hoc recognition is a one-time temporary recognition when such an act is forced in order to resolve specific issues between states that officially do not want to recognize each other. For example, the United States and the Taliban signed the Agreement on Restoring Peace in Afghanistan on February 29, 2020 in Doha. It included a disclaimer after every mention of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that the United States “does not recognize it as a state and is known as the Taliban.”

Thus, international or intercountry communication, namely communication, or appeal to can begin without international legal recognition - a unilateral act of a state, through which the emergence of a new subject of international law is legally recognized in order to establish diplomatic relations with it. In this case, diplomatic actions can take place without the establishment of formal diplomatic relations. When the United States began the process of rapprochement with the People's Republic of China, from 1973 until the establishment of diplomatic relations on January 1, 1979, “permanent liaison missions” were opened in both capitals, which were headed by diplomats with the rank of ambassadors, but without formal diplomatic status. From September 1974 to December 1975, the mission in Beijing was headed by future US President George W. Bush.

In cases where diplomatic relations between states are suspended, but the desire to maintain contact remains, interest sections may be opened in the embassies of third countries, staffed by diplomats of a particular state. Their activities are usually limited to consular issues. For example, sections of Russian or Georgian interests operate in the Swiss embassies in Tbilisi and Moscow, respectively. Or the Iranian interests section at the Pakistani embassy in Washington, or Cuba until 1991 at the Czechoslovakian embassy, ​​and then at the Swiss embassy. In Havana, the US Interests Section operated at the Swiss Embassy until July 2015, when diplomatic relations between the two countries were restored. Iran has refused the presence of American diplomats in its capital; protection of US interests has been transferred to the Swiss embassy. Sometimes the host country allows these diplomats to work in its embassy buildings.

If the presence of diplomats from conflicting states is unacceptable, the protection of the interests of a particular state and its citizens can be transferred to the embassy of a third state (Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Spain). For example, the Swedish Embassy in North Korea protects the interests of Australia, Canada and the United States.

Consulates may be maintained or other forms of foreign institutions may be created to perform some of the functions of missions. Article 2 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 states that the severance of diplomatic relations does not entail a severance of consular relations. To maintain ties between the United States and Taiwan, the Economic and Cultural Representative Office and the American Institute operate in the latter's capital. There is a “liaison office of the Kurdish Regional Government” in the United States. Representations of the Palestinian National Authority abroad gradually rose in status: 1. Information office/trade office/representative office/delegation 2. General delegation 3. Mission/diplomatic mission 4. Embassy.

If any of the above forms of maintaining relations between states that do not have diplomatic relations are absent, short-term unofficial (secret) or official special missions of high or medium level can be sent. Often these missions are led by trusted representatives (personal friends, businessmen) of heads of state or government. Special envoys may also be prominent political figures, ambassadors-at-large, or high-ranking military or intelligence officers. The Convention on Special Missions, adopted by the UN General Assembly resolution of December 8, 1969, is devoted to this issue. According to this document, a “Special Mission” is a temporary mission, representing a state in nature, sent by one state to another with the consent of the latter to consider with it certain issues or to carry out a specific task in relation to it.” The presence of diplomatic or consular relations is not necessary for sending or receiving a special mission (Article 7).

I will give two examples from the history of US diplomacy.

There was an exchange of telegrams between the President of the United States of America, William Wilson, and the 4th All-Russian Extraordinary Congress of Soviets. They were announced at the congress meeting on March 14, 1918

I) Wilson Telegram

Taking advantage of the Congress of Soviets, I would like, on behalf of the people of the United States, to express my sincere sympathy with the Russian people, especially now that Germany has rushed its armed forces deep into the country in order to interfere with the struggle for freedom, destroy all its gains and, instead of the will of the Russian people, implement plans of Germany.

Although the Government of the United States is unfortunately unable at the present time to give Russia the direct and active support which it would like to give, I would like to assure the Russian people, through this Congress, that the Government of the United States will use every opportunity to ensure that Russia will again have full sovereignty and complete independence in its internal affairs and the complete restoration of its great role in the life of Europe and modern humanity.

The people of the United States wholeheartedly sympathize with the Russian people in their desire to free themselves forever from autocracy and become the arbiter of their own destiny.

On February 29, 2020, in Doha (Qatar), the “Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan” was signed in three languages ​​(Pashto, Dari and English) «between the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, which is not recognized by the United States as a state and known as the Taliban and the United States of America».

Recognition of new states or governments is the exclusive prerogative of other sovereign states. On December 20, 1991, after the declaration of independence of the Republic of Kazakhstan, on the eve of the Almaty meeting on December 21, 1991, the President of Kazakhstan N. Nazarbayev signed decrees recognizing the independence of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine and Estonia. At the same time, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan was ordered to conduct appropriate negotiations with them and sign agreements on the establishment of bilateral relations between Kazakhstan and each of the independent states.

 Recognition can be declared in a variety of forms: exchange of letters or messages by heads of state, telephone call by the head of state or in his address to his nation, decree of the head of state, joint communiques of two states, exchange of notes between ministries of foreign affairs, multilateral declaration of states (Almaty Declaration, 1991). Then confirmed by an agreement on the principles of friendly relations and cooperation or other documents. International recognition of the state sovereignty and independence of a country is also the resolution of the UN General Assembly on the admission of a country to membership in this world organization. The Republic of Kazakhstan became the 168th member of the UN on March 2, 1992.

When establishing diplomatic relations, various forms of agreements are also used. In the case of the Republic of Kazakhstan, these were: a personal message from US President George W. Bush to President of Kazakhstan N.A. Nazarbayev, a joint statement by the Foreign Ministers of Great Britain and Kazakhstan, a letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs or an exchange of letters between foreign ministers, a joint communiqué (PRC, DPRK, Spain, etc.), a protocol on the establishment of diplomatic relations (France, Iran, India, etc.) and exchange of notes on the establishment of diplomatic relations. In 1992, an exchange of notes took place with 52 countries of the world. Each note had to be responded to immediately, since delay could be interpreted by the other side as reluctance to establish diplomatic relations. At the beginning of 1997, the Republic of Kazakhstan established diplomatic relations with 110 countries.

There is no uniform procedure for establishing diplomatic relations between states. The corresponding negotiations can be entrusted to: a special government delegation sent to the country on the occasion of the declaration of its independence; one of the diplomatic missions abroad. To avoid different interpretations in the future, states prefer to consolidate the agreements reached on the recognition and establishment of diplomatic relations in writing.

The establishment of diplomatic relations does not imply the immediate opening of embassies in the contracting countries. However, such an agreement serves as an incentive to create a favorable political climate for further contacts between the governments of these countries. The opening of embassies can be postponed for years, which is usually dictated by considerations of saving foreign currency. In this case, the practice of representing the ambassador of his state in several countries at the same time is often used. In this case, an embassy is established only in the country where the ambassador is permanently located. In countries where it is accredited part-time, small representative offices headed by a charge d'affaires may, if necessary, be opened.

In international protocol practice, there are frequent cases of suspension or severance of diplomatic relations between states. The severance of relations is accompanied by the cessation of all relations with local authorities, the recall of diplomats and the closure of diplomatic and other missions. In this case, the third country may represent the interests of another state in the host country. In Iran, US interests are represented by the Swiss Embassy. Example: In January 2020, Iran's Foreign Ministry summoned the Swiss ambassador, who represents US interests in Tehran, to protest US leader Donald Trump's threat to strike Iranian targets.

 After the start of a special military operation in Ukraine, the Estonian parliament declared Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, and the government demanded that the number of personnel at the Russian embassy in Tallinn be reduced. In response, the Russian authorities expelled the Estonian ambassador from the country and announced a downgrade in the level of diplomatic relations with Estonia.

In connection with the latest events in Palestine (as of November 2023), eight states did not limit themselves to calling on both sides to cease fire, expressing concern about the bombing and ground operation in the Gaza Strip, and decided to lower the level of diplomatic relations with Israel (summoned ambassadors for consultations, Bahrain, Honduras, Jordan, Colombia, Turkey, Chile, Chad, South Africa). Bolivia went the furthest, announcing the severance of diplomatic ties. Israel, in turn, removed diplomats from Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Turkey and Bahrain to avoid provocations and ensure the safety of employees.

Contacts can be maintained with the protocol service of the foreign policy department of the host country exclusively on organizational and everyday issues. At the same time, a representative of the local protocol is not present when the head of the diplomatic mission departs, as is usually customary in international practice.

After the establishment of diplomatic relations, before the ambassador arrives in the country of his accreditation, a small group of diplomatic and administrative and technical workers may be sent there to prepare the embassy for the opening.

In this case, the senior diplomat brings with him a letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of his country addressed to the head of the foreign affairs department of the host country. The letter contains a request to accept the said diplomat as charge d'affaires and, to the extent possible, provide assistance in resolving organizational and technical issues at the first stage of the embassy's functioning.

This group of employees prepares premises for the embassy and housing for its staff, opens a foreign currency account in one of the country's banks, determines the conditions for renting vehicles, etc. At the same time, the protocol for the ambassador’s meeting is agreed upon with local diplomats. The official opening of the embassy is announced by a note addressed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the diplomatic corps. The note indicates the address of the embassy, ​​telephone numbers of its employees, and opening hours. Some protocol events may be held - a ceremony of raising the national flag over the embassy building, playing the anthems of one’s own country and the host country, and a cocktail party.

On September 2, 1945, at a rally of 500,000 people in Ba Dinh Square in Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh read the Declaration of Independence, announcing to the world the birth of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. And only on January 14, 1950, Ho Chi Minh addressed all governments of the world with a statement about the readiness of the government of the DRV “to establish diplomatic relations with any government that respects the right to equality, territorial and national sovereignty of Vietnam. In response to this appeal, on January 30, 1950, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR sent a message to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, in which it was reported that “The Soviet government has decided to establish diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.”

On October 1, 1949, the People's Republic of China was proclaimed. On October 2, 1949, a note from the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs was sent to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, which spoke of the recognition of the new, people's China and the establishment of diplomatic relations between the USSR and the People's Republic of China. The response note from the Chinese Foreign Ministry said: “The Chinese government and the Chinese people experience boundless joy that today the Soviet Union has become the first friendly power to recognize the People’s Republic of China.”

The United States, which did not recognize the PRC, began to restore ties with it in the early 1970s, taking advantage of Soviet-Chinese differences. Prior to this, there had only been periodic contacts and negotiations at the ambassadorial level in Warsaw, which began in 1955. In 1972 and 1975 visits of American presidents took place, the Shanghai Communiqué was adopted in 1972, and liaison offices were opened in each other's capitals in 1973. On December 5, 1978, the Sino-American Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations was adopted, which stated that the United States would begin formal diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China on January 1, 1979, and that both sides would open embassies on March 1. Thus, official diplomatic relations were restored in 1979, at which time China received most favored nation status in trade. The first steps to restore US-Chinese ties prompted Japan to establish diplomatic relations in 1972-1973 with China, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the Mongolia and the German Democratic Republic.

An interesting example is around the recognition of the Provisional Government of the Algerian Republic (PGAR). The creation of the Provisional Government was officially announced on September 19, 1958. The Algerians immediately notified all foreign states that had their diplomatic missions in Cairo about this event. Upon receiving news of this important development, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in turn, issued a warning to countries maintaining diplomatic relations with France not to take steps to recognize the PGAR. Despite threats from France, about 30 countries, most of them having diplomatic relations with Paris, recognized the PGAR. All Arab states recognized it immediately, with the exception of Lebanon, which decided on the issue of recognition only on January 14, 1959. By the beginning of March 1962, the Algerian Republic was recognized de jure by almost all Arab states and a number of Asian countries. After the conclusion of the Evian Agreements between Algeria and France during the transition period, it was recognized de jure by a new large group of states, including the USSR and other socialist countries. When the independence of Algeria was proclaimed on July 5, 1962, following France, the Algerian Republic was recognized by the USA, England, Germany, Italy and most other Western states.

The United States recognized the independence of Kazakhstan and established diplomatic relations on December 25, 1991, when President George H. W. Bush announced the decision in an address to the nation regarding the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US Embassy in Almaty was opened on February 3, 1992. The appeal says: New independent states arose from the ruins of the Soviet empire. Last weekend, these former republics formed the Commonwealth of Independent States. First, the United States recognizes and welcomes the emergence of a free, independent and democratic Russia... We support Russia's accession to replace the USSR as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Second, the United States also recognizes the independence of Ukraine, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Kyrgyzstan - all states that have made commitments to us. We will move quickly to establish diplomatic relations with these states and build new ties with them. ...today the United States also recognizes the remaining six former Soviet republics as independent states - Moldova, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Georgia and Uzbekistan. We will establish diplomatic relations with them when we are satisfied that they have committed themselves to responsible security policies and democratic principles, as have other states that we recognize today.

Thus, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States recognized all 12 independent republics and established diplomatic relations with Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. In February 1992, diplomatic relations were established with Uzbekistan, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. The civil war in Georgia prevented its recognition and the establishment of diplomatic relations with the United States until May 1992.

On December 23, 1991, the European Community and its states adopted the “Statement of the Twelve on the Future Status of Russia and Other Former Republics,” which was accompanied by a document “On EU criteria for the recognition of new states in Eastern Europe and the territory of the Soviet Union.” Below is its text.

 “The European Community and its member states note with satisfaction the decision of the participants in the meeting in Almaty on December 21, 1991 to create the Commonwealth of Independent States.

 They take note that the international rights and obligations of the former USSR, including the rights and obligations under the UN Charter, will continue to be implemented by Russia. They welcome the agreement of the Russian Government to assume these obligations and responsibilities and, in this capacity, will continue their friendly relations with Russia, taking into account the change in its constitutional status.

They are ready to recognize the other republics that make up the Commonwealth as soon as they receive guarantees from these republics of their readiness to comply with the requirements contained in the “Criteria for the recognition of new states in Eastern Europe and on the territory of the Soviet Union, adopted by the Foreign Ministers of the Twelve on December 16, 1991.

 In particular, they expect to receive from the republics guarantees of the fulfillment of their international obligations arising for them from treaties and agreements concluded by the Soviet Union, including the ratification and full implementation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe by those republics to which this treaty relates, as well as, that they will ensure unified control over nuclear weapons and their non-proliferation.

 The President of the Council of the EU will contact the relevant republics with a view to obtaining from them the required guarantees in a timely manner, so that recognition becomes effective from the moment the dissolution of the Soviet Union takes effect.

On EU criteria for recognizing new states in Eastern Europe  and on the territory of the Soviet Union

 By decision of the European Council (Maastricht, December 9-11, 1991), on December 16, 1991, a meeting of the EU Council at the level of foreign ministers was held in Brussels, at which the situation in the USSR and in some countries of Eastern Europe was discussed. The general approach of the “twelve” to the issue of official recognition of new states on the territory of the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe was determined.

 Having reaffirmed their commitment to the principles of the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris, in particular the principle of self-determination, the ministers expressed their readiness to recognize, subject to generally accepted international standards and based on the specific political situation, those new states that, due to historical changes taking place in the region, are developing on a democratic basis, have accepted relevant international obligations and, in good faith, have committed themselves to the peace process and negotiations.

The following criteria for official recognition have been agreed upon:

 “– respect for the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the commitments subscribed to in the Final Act of Helsinki and in the Charter of Paris, especially with regard to the rule of law, democracy and human rights;

– guarantees for the rights of ethnic and national groups and minorities in accordance with the commitments subscribed to in the framework of the CSCE;

– respect for the inviolability of all frontiers which can only be changed by peaceful means and by common agreement;

– acceptance of all relevant commitments with regard to disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation as well as to security and regional stability;

– commitment to settle by agreement, including where appropriate by recourse to arbitration, all questions concerning State succession and regional disputes.”

 At the same time, the ministers emphasized that states arising as a result of aggression would not be recognized. Communities and their member countries will also take into account the impact of recognition on neighboring States.

 The ministers stated that respect for the listed principles opens up the possibility of establishing diplomatic relations both on behalf of the Community and by individual member states, with this fact formalized by appropriate agreements.

In the 2000s, when the Republic of Kazakhstan persistently sought (and achieved) the post of OSCE chairman for 2009 (2010), Western countries again put forward criteria related to the democratization of the political system and the improvement of civil society. There was a need to appoint M.M. Tazhin (2007-2009) to the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs, who had previously been mainly involved in domestic politics (sociologist) and could professionally explain to partners the essence of the progress of political reforms in Kazakhstan and, at the same time, understand the logic of them requirements in order to promote the necessary legal norms during the ongoing internal political reforms in the country. In this case, the direct connection between foreign and domestic policies in Kazakh diplomacy was clearly visible.

If we talk about the republics themselves, then mutual recognition also took place with the signing of the Almaty Declaration of December 21, 1991. It begins with the words “independent states” and then goes on to list eleven states. Subsequently, on December 9, 1993, the Republic of Georgia joined it. It should be noted that upon coming to power in the Republic of Azerbaijan, H.A. Aliyev confirmed the signature of his country on September 24, 1993. The preamble begins with mutual recognition and respect for state sovereignty: “striving to build democratic rule-of-law states, relations between which will develop on the basis of mutual recognition and respect for state sovereignty and sovereign equality” and then goes on to list the basic principles of international law.

Turkey recognized the independence of Kazakhstan on December 16, 1991 - this was a telephone call from Turkish President Turgut Ozal to N. Nazarbayev immediately after Kazakhstan adopted the declaration of independence. In March 1992, the Declaration of Principles of Bilateral Relations was signed, on April 18 the Turkish embassy was opened, on May 20 - the Kazakh embassy in Turkey.

The Vice-President, who assumed the office of President of the Swiss Federation on January 1, 1992, Rene Felber, sent a telegram with the following content to the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan on December 23, 1991:

 "Your Excellency!

 I have the honor to inform you that the Swiss Federal Council adopted the following decision on December 23, 1991: Switzerland recognizes the independence and sovereignty of the Republic of Kazakhstan and wishes to enter into diplomatic relations with it. Please accept my most sincere wishes for prosperity to the people and the Republic of Kazakhstan.”

 The constructive domestic and foreign policies of the Republic of Kazakhstan, its desire for equal and mutually beneficial cooperation with foreign countries are increasingly recognized by the world community.

In December 1954, as the First Crisis in the Taiwan Strait escalated, the Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of China was signed. The treaty supported Taiwan's claim to be the sole legitimate government of mainland China, but refused to support any proactive actions by the Republic of China regarding mainland China. However, the treaty became invalid after the termination of diplomatic relations between the United States and Taiwan in favor of the People's Republic of China in 1979. (Great Britain recognized the government of Mao Zedong in January 1950, fearing for Hong Kong) To preserve US-Taiwanese relations and ensure US interests in the Pacific region, the Taiwan Relations Act was passed on April 10, 1979, establishing new principles of economic, cultural and military cooperation with Taiwan and a commitment to ensuring its security. The peculiarity of this document is that it declares the United States’ commitment to the “one China policy”; instead of the Republic of China, it refers to the “authorities of Taiwan” as a subject of bilateral relations. The law entrusted the maintenance of unofficial but de facto diplomatic relations to the American Institute in Taiwan, specially established in January 1979 as a non-profit organization. www.214081138.pdf CASE W. RES.J. INT. L.

The Republic of Kazakhstan officially recognized the Republic of South Sudan by publishing a statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan on July 15, 2011. It states that Kazakhstan joins the international community in appreciating the referendum and the corresponding stages of state building, which were carried out in a spirit of peace and mutual respect. Kazakhstan also hopes that the outstanding issues will be addressed and resolved peacefully by all parties involved and in full compliance with UN Security Council resolutions.

Kazakhstan pays tribute to the efforts of the African Union, the UN Secretary General, the Troika mediators and the many friends and partners from around the world who contributed to this remarkable event.

Kazakhstan wishes the newly independent state of South Sudan a successful path towards a peaceful and prosperous future.

As of 2023, the Republic of Kazakhstan maintains diplomatic relations with 184 UN member states, as well as with UN observers: the Vatican, the Order of Malta and the State of Palestine. These relations were established mainly through the exchange of notes between the ministries of foreign affairs. Among the UN member states, Kazakhstan does not have diplomatic relations with the following states: Botswana, East Timor, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malawi, Nauru, Somalia, Central African Republic, South Sudan.

In modern Russia, recognition as a sovereign and independent state is carried out by presidential decree. On May 20, 2002, the President of Russia signed the Decree “On the recognition of East Timor by the Russian Federation and on the establishment of diplomatic relations with it.

Decree of the President of the Russian Federation

On recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic

1. Taking into account the will of the people of the Donetsk People's Republic, Ukraine's refusal to peacefully resolve the conflict in accordance with the Minsk agreements, recognize the Donetsk People's Republic as a sovereign and independent state.

2. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation should hold negotiations with the participation of the Donetsk Side on the establishment of diplomatic relations and formalize the agreement reached with the relevant documents.

3. Instruct the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation to conduct negotiations with the Donetsk Side with the participation of interested federal executive authorities on the preparation of a draft agreement on friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance and submit, in the prescribed manner, a proposal for its signing.

4. ...The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation carries out the peacekeeping function.

February 21, 2022

The establishment of diplomatic relations, sending an embassy by one state and allowing the opening of a diplomatic mission by another state is essentially evidence of practical, valid mutual recognition of sovereignty and independence, the actual establishment of friendly relations and mutually beneficial cooperation. Privileges and immunities, the solemn ritual of meeting a diplomatic representative primarily pursue the goal of recognizing the sovereignty and independence of the sending state, establishing, maintaining and consolidating mutually beneficial friendship. In other words, immunity as a norm of international law follows from the generally recognized principle of sovereign equality of states and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs. It follows that immunities and privileges are not granted to employees of embassies and consulates, but to the accrediting state in relation to its employees abroad.

In the case of the Vienna Convention on the Representation of States in Their Relations with International Organizations of a Universal Character of March 13, 1975, this element is no longer missing: the need to recognize (for the second time?) the sovereignty and independence of the state that sent its representatives to the international organization. For example, there is a Russian embassy in Minsk and a separate Russian representative at the CIS headquarters in Minsk. Previously, along with the ambassador to Belarus, there was a separate representative of Ukraine to the CIS.

 By the way, it should also be noted here that the Vienna Convention of 1961 justifies privileges and immunities by the fact that they are granted “not for the benefit of individuals, but to ensure the effective exercise of the functions of diplomatic missions as bodies representing states,” i.e. functional justification.

 Previously, the special status of the embassy was explained by the principle of extraterritoriality, the meaning of which was that the territory of the embassy is the territory of the sending state, which is not subject to the jurisdiction of the receiving state. However, at present it is considered unjustified to extend legal extraterritoriality to the territory of another state.

 The principles of functionality and extraterritoriality are based on the principle of the ambassador and his embassy representing a sovereign and independent state. However, this principle is not recorded in any international legal document or any convention. This principle has developed historically and is a norm of customary international law.

 You will not find what I just told you in any textbook on diplomacy, diplomatic service or diplomatic protocol. The authors only state that the ambassador and his embassy represent their country, which is also perceived as a representative office of a foreign bank or company in another country. Such simple representation does not explain the need for solemn ceremonies and rituals, or compliance with diplomatic protocol.

Now international relations scholars write a lot about the significant increase in the subjects of international relations: non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, large banks, religious organizations, individuals. And they call this one of the features of modern diplomacy. But, in my opinion, this is not diplomacy, but international communication, which exists in reality and in parallel with diplomatic activities. Only states engage in diplomacy. The word diplomacy applies to other subjects of international communication in the general understanding of the word, as the ability to observe etiquette and negotiate in order to achieve set goals in the course of rivalry, etc. Russian writer A. Chekhov has a story “The Diplomat”. Modern diplomatic services of states and diplomats need to be well versed in this diversity of international communication in order to direct and control them, which is impossible without a deep understanding of the processes in various areas of society.

 The founder of international law (at that time it was called the “law of nations”), Hugo Grotius, in his famous work “On the Law of War and Peace,” published in 1625, wrote: “... there is no state so powerful that at times does not feel the need for assistance from outside, from other states, both in the field of trade and to repel the combined forces of many foreign peoples..."

 Thus, the benefits of mutual recognition and maintenance of relations, sending an ambassador and maintaining an embassy of the state were understood in ancient times. Even then it was recognized that the right to open a diplomatic mission belongs exclusively to a sovereign, independent state. In other words, sovereignty is the basis of the law of the embassy, ​​which represents an independent state. Recognition of independence and the establishment of diplomatic relations is the basis for maintaining friendly, allied, trade and other cooperation, searching for peaceful or compromise solutions in case of acute contradictions or conflicts.

 This international custom was entrenched in international relations, despite the fact that the diplomatic representative and his staff also performed the task of collecting information about the host country (spying), or, moreover, interfered in internal affairs. At the same time, since ancient times, the right of the state to refuse to accept a diplomatic representative or to recognize him as an undesirable person has already been justified if his participation in conspiracies in the host country, in intelligence activities, or in other actions incompatible with the strengthening of friendly relations or the position of a diplomat has been proven (for example, smuggling). An example is the information that spread in the fall of 2023 in Armenia that Russia had decided to reject Gurgen Arsenyan, a member of the Armenian parliament from the faction of the ruling Civil Contract party, because of his series of “anti-Russian” statements.

At the same time, the “law of nations” provided for the punishment of a diplomatic representative in his own state (extraterritorial jurisdiction) or the renunciation of immunity from the jurisdiction of the host country for his diplomatic agents.

 The host country also has the right to establish surveillance, surveillance of the activities of a diplomatic mission, and limit diplomatic immunities and privileges through the application of administrative law. For example, establish quota restrictions on the number of personnel of foreign diplomatic missions (Bolivia, Libya, Singapore), introduce restrictions on contacts of diplomats with local officials (Bangladesh, Benin, Indonesia, Tanzania), provide for permitting or notification procedures for the movement of foreign diplomats (Burma, Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan), inspect foreign diplomatic mail (Nepal). One of the important reasons for the restrictive approach to diplomatic immunities and privileges is domestic political considerations, numerous cases of abuse of immunities and privileges by foreign diplomats and diplomatic missions.

 It must be added here that an optional protocol on the acquisition of citizenship is attached to the Vienna Convention of 1961, the essence of which is set out in its Article II: “Employees of the mission who are not citizens of the host country, and members of their families living with them, do not acquire, exclusively in the procedure for applying the laws of the host state, the citizenship of this state.” Obviously, this norm should be understood as a prohibition for a diplomat to acquire citizenship of the host country. Moreover, to acquire this citizenship in order to apply the laws of the host state to it. It can be assumed that this provision was planned to be included in the convention itself, but there was no unanimity. Therefore, as a compromise, it was decided to develop an optional protocol for it, a non-binding protocol that could be accepted by states that agreed with this norm.

 There is one more aspect worth mentioning. Modern international law recognizes two types of asylum: territorial (on the territory of a state) and diplomatic (within the walls of a diplomatic mission on the territory of a foreign state). The justification is Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

1. Every person has the right to seek refuge from persecution in other countries and to enjoy this refuge.

2. This right shall not be exercised in the event of a prosecution actually based on the commission of a non-political crime or an act contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

 On July 28, 1951, at a conference in Geneva, an international treaty was adopted - the “Convention relating to the Status of Refugees”, which entered into force on April 22, 1954 and defined the concept of “refugee” and established general rules on the basis of which refugee status is granted. Examples: Julian Assange, Australian citizen at the Ecuadorian embassy in London; Chen Guangchen at the US Embassy in Beijing; Najibulah at the UN office in Kabul; Galymzhan Zhakiyanov at the French Embassy in Almaty.

So, concluding this part of the explanation, we once again state that the representative nature of the ambassador and embassy means mutual recognition of the sovereignty and independence of the two states and the desire to maintain friendly diplomatic relations. That is why it is called a diplomatic mission.

 Secondly, the diplomatic mission remains the main channel of communication between his own government and the government to which he is accredited. Day-to-day communication and negotiations with the foreign affairs department of a given state, as well as with foreign representatives of other states accredited in this state, are also carried out through a diplomatic mission in a given country. Moreover, the ambassador is the only intermediary who can explain to his government the goals and motives of the host government. Thus, in the second case, the word “representative office” carries its usual meaning, a functional meaning, as in the case of the representation of a company or bank in a particular country.

International practice shows that the basis of the legal framework of bilateral cooperation is the following treaties and agreements: on the principles of interstate relations (on the foundations of friendly relations and cooperation - on strategic partnership - on allied interaction, on good neighborliness and alliance in the 21st century, on allied relations), on promotion and mutual protection of investments, on trade, on the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of tax evasion on income and capital, in the field of consular relations, in the field of cultural and humanitarian cooperation, on the creation of an intergovernmental commission, etc.

 Between the Republic of Kazakhstan and the United States, first the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the President of the United States of America signed a Memorandum of Understanding between the Republic of Kazakhstan and the United States of America on May 19, 1992. Then, in Washington on February 14, 1994, the Charter of Democratic Partnership between the Republic of Kazakhstan and the United States of America was signed, which came into force from the moment of signing. Although the word charter sounds impressive, it was in fact only a declaration that did not require ratification, and not a treaty. On January 17, 2018, a joint statement “Kazakhstan and the United States: an expanded strategic partnership in the 21st century” was adopted in Washington.

 In the case of the Russian Federation, the first agreement was signed between the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic and the RSFSR as union republics of one state - the USSR - on November 24, 1990. On August 17, 1991, when a new structure of a single state was being sought, two joint statements were adopted: “On a single economic space” and “On guarantees of stability of the Union of Sovereign States”, as well as “Protocol on cooperation and coordination of activities between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the KSSR and the RSFSR”. After the August putsch, on August 30, 1991, a Communique was signed in Moscow on the results of negotiations between the delegations of Kazakhstan and Russia. In it, for the first time, the term “Commonwealth” appeared in official use instead of the usual “Union”, i.e. three months before the Belovezhskaya events.

On May 25, 1992, the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance was signed between the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation. It was he who determined the principles of bilateral relations of the already independent states. Official diplomatic relations between Kazakhstan and Russia were established on October 22, 1992, with the signing of a protocol on the exchange of plenipotentiaries by the prime ministers of the two states. In total, in 1992, 50 treaties and agreements were concluded at the level of heads of state, government and various ministries and departments of Kazakhstan and Russia.

 In March 1994, during the official visit of the President of Kazakhstan to Moscow, an Agreement on further deepening economic cooperation and integration between the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation was signed. In total, 23 large-scale and voluminous documents were signed during this visit.

 In January 1995, the Declaration on the expansion and deepening of Kazakh-Russian cooperation was adopted, agreements were concluded on the legal status of citizens living in another country, on a simplified procedure for acquiring citizenship when moving from one country to another.

 The next step in strengthening the legal framework was the Declaration between the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation on eternal friendship and alliance oriented towards the 21st century, dated July 6, 1998. Then, on November 11, 2013, an Agreement was concluded between the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation on good neighborliness and alliance in the 21st century. Most recently, during the official visit of the Russian President to Astana on November 9, 2023, a joint statement was adopted by the Presidents of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation on the tenth anniversary of the signing of the Treaty between the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation on good neighborliness and alliance in the 21st century.

 So, in the introductory lecture, we looked at what the diplomatic and consular service, foreign policy, international relations, international communication, international and world politics, diplomatic relations and diplomacy are. We understood why and what privileges and immunities are granted to civil servants conducting diplomatic work, from where and how diplomatic relations are established and developed. We came to understand that diplomatic protocol is derived from the mutual recognition of the sovereignty and independence of states and the desire to maintain friendly diplomatic relations.