Short View: French Diplomatic System vs. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relation (VCDR) LONG KimKhorn, MA.

IRs, 61283, PUC, Cambodia June 10, 2013 Through diplomatic history we can define some aspects of French system and VCDR (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations) both theories and practices. First, we can see in French system they changed from death letter to living letter means delegating all authority to messanger to have plenna potesta or full power as the representative with the right to make decision. Second, they introduced resident mission. In the history we can only see the delegate bring the letter to other king and come back but later they have resident mission which a representative of one state have to live in the receiving state. Third, beside resident mission, representative or delegate has to keep the secrecy of information of the sending state. Fourth, localitis (go native) means each delegate has to study and understand the culture of receiving state and finally, delegate in the French system has to have uniformity outlook or international outlook it means that a delegate of one country not just protect the interest of their own country but they have obligation to protect the interest of the region and their neighbor as well. As for the VCDR, in 1961, VCDR introduced the immunity of the ambassador from local criminal and civil law charge. Second, VCDR banned the sending state not to colony the receiving state by new form of neo-colonialism. Third, VCDR required soldier/ army to protect the high previleged person in the capital of receiving state. Futhermore in the VCDR status also stated some more duty of sending ambassador and receiving state such as: a/ an ambassador as the representative of sending state, b/ ambassador has to protect the interest of his/ her sending state, c/ receiving state has to protect the representative from the sending state, d/ ambassador from sending state has to develop good diplomatic relation with the receiving state so on and so forth. What happen or is it possible that ambassador has to interfare the internal affair of the receiving state in order to protect their sending states interest? And due to immunity, does delegate or ambassador can do whatever they want in the receiving state? That are the big questions for international students to figure it out because there is always

conflict and controvercial issue between sending state and receiving state on what lelve of immunity and interest protection should ambassador plays.