Introduction
Diplomatic relations between states are often accompanied by conflicts that affect the work of embassies and consulates. One of the tools that allow a state to express distrust towards a foreign representative is to declare them persona non grata. This measure means that the receiving party refuses to maintain the diplomatic presence of a particular person on its territory and demands their departure. The reasons for such decisions can be varied: from suspicions of activities incompatible with diplomatic status to a serious political crisis between the two countries. At the same time, the expulsion of diplomats often becomes part of a broader confrontation, when one state responds to another’s actions with similar measures.
The legal basis for this mechanism is the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. According to Article 9, the host state has the right at any time and without giving any reason to notify the sending state that the head of a diplomatic mission or any member of its diplomatic staff has been declared persona non grata. After such a notification, the sending state must recall the relevant person or terminate their functions at the mission. If it fails to meet this requirement within a reasonable timeframe, the receiving party may cease to recognize the diplomat as an employee of the diplomatic mission.
The mechanism for declaring someone persona non grata
The building of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
The main international legal document regulating the procedure for declaring diplomats persona non grata is the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. Its Article 9 закрепляет the right of the host state to notify the sending state at any time and without giving reasons that the head of a diplomatic mission or any member of its diplomatic staff is unacceptable. For other members of the mission, the Convention provides for the possibility of declaring them unacceptable. This provision allows the state to independently determine which foreign representatives may continue diplomatic activities on its territory.
The procedure begins with an official notification from the state that sent the diplomat. In international practice, such decisions are usually communicated to the ambassador through the foreign ministry of the host country. The notification may contain a demand to recall a specific employee of the diplomatic mission or to terminate their functions. At the same time, the host party is not obliged to publicly disclose evidence of alleged violations or to provide a detailed explanation of the reasons for the decision. This is especially important in cases involving suspicions of espionage activities: disclosing specific circumstances may affect the sources of information and the methods used by special services. Upon receipt of the notification, responsibility for further actions passes to the sending state. It must recall the relevant person or terminate their functions in the mission. Article 9 also provides for the possibility of declaring a diplomat persona non grata even before their arrival in the country. If the sending state refuses to comply with the demand or fails to do so within a reasonable time, the receiving party has the right to cease recognizing the person as an employee of the diplomatic mission. Thus, the Convention allows the issue to be resolved without mandatory judicial proceedings and without
The issue of diplomatic privileges and immunities deserves special attention. According to the Vienna Convention, a diplomatic agent enjoys personal inviolability and immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the host state. Therefore, even if there are serious suspicions of unlawful activity, the authorities of the host country cannot treat a foreign diplomat in the same way as they would treat an ordinary suspect, ignoring his status. Declaring a person persona non grata allows for the demand for their recall without retroactively revoking the guarantees provided for in the Convention. In accordance with Article 39, after the termination of functions, diplomatic privileges and immunities generally remain in effect until the person leaves the country or a reasonable period for departure has expired.
Consequently, the mechanism of persona non grata is a tool for protecting the interests of the host state, based on its right to control the composition of foreign diplomatic missions. Its distinctive feature is that the decision is made without the need to provide mandatory reasons, but the subsequent actions of the parties are governed by international law.
The international practice of political pressure.
The declaration of diplomats as persona non grata is used in international relations for various reasons. One of the most common is suspicion of intelligence activities carried out under diplomatic cover. Diplomatic status provides certain opportunities to establish contacts with representatives of government bodies, attend official events, and obtain information about the political and economic life of a country. At the same time, states may use diplomatic missions for activities that go beyond their official functions. If the host country believes that such actions threaten its security, it may demand the recall of the relevant personnel.
At the same time, suspicions of espionage are far from always accompanied by the public presentation of evidence. States often rely on information from intelligence services that cannot be disclosed without compromising the sources of the information. As a result, the decision to expel becomes an independent political signal: the host country demonstrates that it considers the continued presence of certain employees undesirable. At the same time, this measure makes it possible to restrict the activities of a suspected intelligence network without resorting to an open legal conflict with a foreign state.
A telling example was the diplomatic crisis between the UK and Russia in March 2018, following the poisoning of former Russian military intelligence officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the British city of Salisbury. The British government held the Russian state responsible for what had happened and announced the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats, whom it identified as undeclared intelligence service personnel. The Russian side rejected the accusations and regarded London’s actions as politically motivated. The crisis went far beyond bilateral relations. On March 26, 2018, the United States announced the expulsion of Russian representatives, and a number of European states, Canada, and other partners of the United Kingdom adopted similar decisions. According to a statement by the British government dated September 5, 2018, as part of a collective response, more than 150 Russian employees whom the relevant states linked to intelligence activities were expelled from the countries that supported the United Kingdom. This situation became one of the largest cases of collective expulsion of Russian representatives in modern diplomatic practice.
The significance of this case lay in the fact that the expulsion ceased to be solely a bilateral measure. It became part of a coordinated response by a group of states seeking to demonstrate solidarity with the United Kingdom and put pressure on the Russian leadership. At the same time, the decisions were made by individual national governments: there was no single international body that would automatically require all states to expel diplomats in such circumstances. Each country independently determined whether to support the collective response and how many employees to declare undesirable.
Another distinctive feature of diplomatic expulsions is the possibility of using them in the context of broader political confrontation. In such cases, the reason for the decision may not be a single incident, but a set of disagreements related to foreign policy, issues of national security, or mutual accusations of interference in internal affairs. States may reduce the number of diplomatic missions, limit contacts between officials, and revise the terms of bilateral cooperation. Expulsion becomes part of a set of measures aimed at expressing protest and demonstrating readiness for further deterioration of relations. However, it is necessary to take into account that the official explanations of the parties reflect their own positions. An accusation of intelligence activity may be justified, but the mere declaration of someone as persona non grata does not automatically confirm it. Therefore, when analyzing specific cases, it is important to distinguish between established information, government statements, and assessments by political observers. This allows us to view diplomatic expulsions as a legally provided mechanism, without accepting one side’s arguments as definitive proof of its correctness.
Former British Prime Minister Theresa May
Response and consequences of diplomatic expulsion
One of the characteristic features of the mechanism of the person of non grata is the possibility of retaliation by the state whose diplomats were declared undesirable. In international practice, such decisions are often taken on the principle of reciprocity: if one state sends employees of the foreign embassy, another may require the departure of the same number of representatives of the first country. The Vienna convention does not establish a mandatory rule according to which each expulsion must follow an equal answer. Response measures are a political choice of the state and depend on the nature of the conflict, the state of bilateral relations and the assessment of possible consequences. In response, the state may focus on the number of staff sent out, their diplomatic rank or the nature of the initial charges. Sometimes the answer is limited to expulsion of comparable number of representatives. In other cases, the host party requires more diplomats to be left, closes individual consular institutions or impose additional restrictions on the work of diplomatic missions.
Events of March 2018 clearly show how such sequence develops. After the decision of the UK, 23 Russian diplomats sent the Russian government announced the response measures. In particular, on March 17, the British side reported that Moscow required the departure of 23 British diplomatic missions, as well as announced the closure of the UK consulate general in St. Petersburg and the British Council in Moscow. Thus, the initial conflict led to a reduction in the diplomatic presence of both countries and affected the institutions that had been beyond direct political contacts.
The response expulsion allows the state to show that it is not intended to leave the actions of the other side without reaction. However, such practice is capable of becoming a consistent exchange of restrictive measures. After the first decision, the answer should be followed, then a new step from the original initiator. As a result, diplomatic missions gradually lose employees, and opportunities to maintain a constant dialogue are reduced. Such consequences in the relations of States between which there are serious differences in security or foreign policy. The reduction of diplomatic personnel creates practical difficulties. The embassies are engaged in maintaining official contacts, preparing negotiations, providing consular assistance to citizens and transmitting information between state bodies. When the number of employees is reduced, these tasks can be complicated. The closure of the consulate further makes it difficult to obtain some services to citizens of the country concerned. If diplomatic relations are significantly limited, States are becoming more difficult to resolve controversial issues and prevent further deterioration of the situation.
The question of the range of response is also important. The Vienna convention provides the state to declare foreign diplomats to the non grat characters, but does not turn mutual expulsion into a mandatory element of diplomatic practice. Each state decides whether to respond to the actions of the other party and how to be the scale of such an answer should be. However, diplomatic immunities, inviolability of offices and other obligations enshrined by the Convention continue to be of importance regardless of the political nature of the conflict. The deterioration of relations in itself does not abolish the international legal obligations of the parties.
In some cases, states seek to limit escalation by maintaining the minimum necessary level of diplomatic interaction. Even in the event of serious disagreements, channels of official communication may be important for discussing security issues, resolving incidents, and protecting citizens. Therefore, refusing to respond with a reciprocal expulsion does not necessarily indicate the weakness of a state’s position. It may reflect a desire to avoid further reduction of diplomatic presence and to preserve opportunities for negotiations.
Retaliatory measures in the context of expelling diplomats occupy an intermediate position between a legal mechanism for protecting a state’s interests and a political tool of pressure. The Vienna Convention defines the legal basis for declaring a person persona non grata, while the choice of the scale of retaliatory measures largely remains within the purview of national governments. It depends on their decisions whether the expulsion will be a limited diplomatic step or will lead to a prolonged deterioration of bilateral relations.
The official closure of the British Consulate General in St. Petersburg on August 1, 2018.
Result
Declaring a diplomat persona non grata is one of the mechanisms provided for by international law to protect the interests of the host state. The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations grants states the right to demand the recall of a foreign diplomat without having to provide mandatory reasons, while establishing the procedure for terminating their functions. International practice shows that the expulsion of diplomats often goes beyond the scope of a single administrative decision and becomes part of a political confrontation. The example of the diplomatic crisis between the UK and Russia in 2018 demonstrated how an initial expulsion can trigger retaliatory measures, affect the work of diplomatic institutions, and lead to a reduction in official contacts. At the same time, the accusations accompanying such decisions are not always publicly confirmed, as states may refer to information they are not prepared to disclose.
As a result, much depends on the decisions of national governments and their willingness to prevent further escalation of relations. The main question is whether states will be able to use the right to declare a person persona non grata as a means of protecting their interests while still preserving opportunities for diplomatic dialogue and adhering to international obligations.
Tags: persona non grata, Vienna Convention, diplomatic relations, expulsion of diplomats, diplomatic immunity, international law, countermeasures, diplomatic crisis, foreign policy, international security, political pressure, Russian‑British relations.
