38

There are numerous Afghan nationals and Afghan embassies abroad, with at least some of the staff in those embassies not supporting the new regime/government.

What would happen to the embassy staff, their status, the embassy and the buildings it occupies?

Would all the staff become refugees or stateless?

phoog
  • 17,829
  • 3
  • 58
  • 81
Boolean
  • 913
  • 1
  • 7
  • 14
  • 3
    Does this answer your question? What may happen to the diplomatic missions of Afghanistan once the Taliban takes over? – Joe C Sep 05 '21 at 21:27
  • 1
    @JoeC It answers it for the example I gave, but I was asking in a more general sense, not just for the Afghan embassies (another example might be the former Nazi Germany embassies, such as in Switzerland, Turkey and Sweden after the second world war.) – Boolean Sep 05 '21 at 22:38
  • @Boolean it might also be interesting to see what became of the German embassy in Japan and the Japanese embassy in Germany after the second world war. I suppose the German embassies in Italy and France were abandoned during the allied invasions, but the details might also be interesting. – phoog Sep 07 '21 at 00:02
  • How could a the country stop existing? Regime change doesn't affect the country and what's left? Annexation? By the way, how is this about politics, rather than logistics? – Robbie Goodwin Sep 07 '21 at 03:38
  • @RobbieGoodwin Clearly, in this context "country" is being used to refer to the political entity, not the geographical location. – Acccumulation Sep 07 '21 at 05:34
  • @Acccumulation Yes, as in "Regime change doesn't affect the country…" – Robbie Goodwin Sep 07 '21 at 10:03
  • 1
    @RobbieGoodwin - How could a the country stop existing? For about 20 years, Vietnam was partitioned as if it were two countries. When reunited, one of those stopped existing. Korea is still partitioned and one day it too may reunite. – Rick Smith Sep 07 '21 at 10:56
  • @RobbieGoodwin I dont see an East Germany these days… –  Sep 07 '21 at 22:23
  • @RickSmith; Moo Vietnam and Germany were and Korea might turn out to be examples of "unification" rather than "annexation", but could you explain a useful difference in this context?

    How d'you think what happened to any South Vietnamese or East German establishments abroad -embassies or consulates, commissions or whatever - goes toward solving the Question in general?

     – Robbie Goodwin Sep 08 '21 at 00:06
  • 1
    @RobbieGoodwin - Each part of Korea has an embassy in Berne, Switzerland. Under reunification, one of those embassies would likely no linger be needed. I don't know, but it seems likely, that each part of Vietnam had an embassy in Berne since relations with the North began in 1971. I was simply suggesting how a country could stop existing. It would be interesting to know more about whether it did happen regarding Vietnam, since that would serve as an example for answering the question. – Rick Smith Sep 08 '21 at 00:48
  • @RickSmith Yes and I'm sorry I didn't ask for clarification about this right from the get-go but even Boolean's own details seem to contradict the Question, at best.

    There is no suggestion Afghanistan has stopped existing, or will; merely that it might no longer to have an internationally recognised government.

    Boolean's "another example might be the former Nazi embassies…" seems to stress this is purely about politics.

    Your two Koreas and Vietnams with surplus assets seems to address a very different Question.

    All of which emphasizes the vagueness of the original Question.

     – Robbie Goodwin Sep 09 '21 at 18:31
  • @RobbieGoodwin - While reunification was first to my mind, the most dire consequences of rising sea-levels could make some island nations uninhabitable, Either those peoples and their governments must be moved to ceded territories from another country or they will cease to exist. The example of Afghanistan was a poor and confusing choice, but the other parts of the post may have reasonable answers. – Rick Smith Sep 09 '21 at 19:04
  • @RickSmith I still suggest the Question might reasonably apply only to full-out invasion, or annexation. Is there another circumstance not covered by your reminder that each part of Korea had embassies and under reunification, half(ish) of them were no longer needed? – Robbie Goodwin Sep 09 '21 at 19:14
  • @RobbieGoodwin - I think full-out invasion or annexation by war would be contrary to the UN Charter, making it hypothetical. The question would need to be answered in a context that is not hypothetical. Subject to the limitation "the country ... stops existing", that leaves reunification (Korea), complete destruction of a country by any cause (island nations). or peaceful annexation (similar to the 9-year independent Texas becoming a US state). Only in the case of destruction would the status of the ownership of the embassy be in question. – Rick Smith Sep 09 '21 at 20:28
  • @RickSmith You're welcome to take Austria or the Sudetenland, Poland or Czechoslovakia, Crimea or anywhere you want to ignore to the UN and complain about charter infringement and until you do, why not treat the question in its own, real context?

    Whether any of that matters, what does "only in the case of destruction…" mean to you?

     – Robbie Goodwin Sep 09 '21 at 20:37
  • 1
    @RobbieGoodwin - You asked How could a the country stop existing? I have now provided three case where that may occur within the context of the post. I previously described "destruction" as "total" and used "uninhabitable" for the result. I have nothing further to add. – Rick Smith Sep 09 '21 at 21:14
  • @RobbieGoodwin It should be noted that the UN Charter did not exist at the time that the Sudetenland, Austria, Poland or Czechoslovakia were invaded by the Germans (during the Second World War) so I’m a bit unsure where you’re going when you say “… treat the question in it’s own, real context.” I in fact asked this question, not with Afghanistan as the context, but as an example that could be used; the comment by Relaxed attached to the answer give some context for specific examples in context, so the question seems (to me) to be on topic and fully answered. – Boolean Sep 09 '21 at 21:15

1 Answers1

43

What happens to an embassy when the country it represents stops existing?

It depends on how the country stops existing, but normally there will be some provision for the country's assets to pass to a successor country, whether because the country is being broken up or consolidated with another. If ​the country's government is simply being overthrown, then the country doesn't actually stop existing, and the new government assumes control of the embassy along with the rest of the country's assets.

What would happen to the embassy staff?

Some may continue to represent their country; others may leave; others may seek asylum to remain.

Their status?

Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations they retain diplomatic status until two things have happened: first, the receiving state (the country where the embassy is) has been notified that their diplomatic function has come to an end, and second, either they have left the country or a reasonable period for them to leave has elapsed. If they remain longer, the specific status depends on the immigration law of the receiving state, although if they seek asylum then their status should be governed by the refugee convention.

Would all the staff become refugees or stateless?

They would not become refugees automatically: they would have to make a claim, and the claim would have to be accepted. Whether they become stateless depends on the nationality law of their country. (Indeed, it is possible for a diplomat, with the permission of the receiving state, to have the nationality of a third country, and any such people are not generally going to become refugees, much less stateless.)

Thanks to Relaxed for reminding me in a comment to add another possibility: if a government in exile arises, the embassy could continue on as a diplomatic mission of that government. This happened, for example, in the second world war, at least with the Netherlands and probably with other occupied countries. Relaxed also mentions some others:

Another scenario after a government overthrow is that some diplomats remain loyal to some minority government or government-in-exile with little or no power on the ground in the sending country. If the receiving country finds it expedient and no new ambassador is named or accepted, and the embassy somehow finds some funding, it can continue to function more-or-less as normal and the situation can last for some time. I think it happened to various representations of Estonia (during the cold war), Somalia (in the late 1990s/early 2000s), and Libya (in the 2010s). – Relaxed 14 hours ago

phoog
  • 17,829
  • 3
  • 58
  • 81
  • 14
    (+1) Another scenario after a government overthrow is that some diplomats remain loyal to some minority government or government-in-exile with little or no power on the ground in the sending country. If the receiving country finds it expedient and no new ambassador is named or accepted, and the embassy somehow finds some funding, it can continue to function more-or-less as normal and the situation can last for some time. I think it happened to various representations of Estonia (during the cold war), Somalia (in the late 1990s/early 2000s), and Libya (in the 2010s). – Relaxed Sep 06 '21 at 09:44
  • @Relaxed Having never been to any of the embassies that you mentioned (as well as some being before my time) were there any notable differences once the government has changed in these embassies? Also, are these embassies able to give valid passports/visas still? – Boolean Sep 06 '21 at 21:19
  • 4
    @Boolean any visa granted by an embassy representing a government in exile is unlikely to be of much use since the government that's actually in control of the country's territory is unlikely to recognize it. Passports are another matter, I suppose. My grandfather worked in the Dutch embassy in Washington during the second world war, and I suppose they probably did issue passports that were recognised by the countries that recognised the queen and her government as the legitimate authority of the Netherlands. I don't know where neutral countries stood on that question. – phoog Sep 06 '21 at 23:49
  • @Relaxed thanks for your comment. I was thinking about that as I was writing the answer, but somehow forgot to include it. – phoog Sep 06 '21 at 23:51
  • What happens if there is no successor for a while because the country is under military occupation, such as the Axis powers after WWII? – cpast Sep 07 '21 at 02:04
  • @cpast no idea. Someone over at [History.SE] probably knows what happened in that particular case. – phoog Sep 07 '21 at 02:05
  • An important factor could be whether the host country recognizes the new regime or not. There were historical cases where a government was overthrown, but some countries have considered the new government illegitimate. In this case they would have the incentive to support the diplomats loyal to the old regime. – vsz Aug 29 '23 at 04:49