In January 2021, a row emerged between the United Kingdom and the European Union
over the status of the EU's ambassador in London.
While the dispute may seem like a relatively minor spat
between the Union and its former member it actually raises a very important point.
As the EU becomes an ever more significant act on the world stage,
should its personnel abroad have the same diplomatic status as representatives of states?
[MUSIC]
Hello and welcome. If you're new my name is James Ker-Lindsay and here I take an
informed look at international relations, conflicts and the origins of countries.
Traditionally, sovereign states have formed the fundamental unit of the international system.
However, the world is changing.
In this day and age, there are any number of other bodies
that operate at the international level and interact with states.
Indeed, it's telling that one of the four traditional criteria for statehood under
Montevideo Convention - the idea that the state can be defined by its ability to enter
into relations with other states - is now widely regarded as redundant precisely because so many
other types of entity can also enter into relations with states in the modern world.
Just consider the way that bodies such as the United Nations,
the Red Cross, major sporting organisations such as the International Olympic Committee
and FIFA - the world governing body of football - and even major companies and corporations,
like Google and Amazon, now interact with states.
As a result, the boundaries between states as sovereign actors
and international organisations and other bodies have become increasingly blurred.
This came to the fore when it emerged that the United Kingdom, following its departure
from the European union had decided not to grant the European Union's representative in London,
Ambassador Joao Vale de Almeida, the same status as the ambassadors of states based in the British
capital on the grounds that the EU is not a state, but is instead an international organisation.
Marking a break with widespread practice elsewhere,
the move was greeted with anger from EU officials.
So, should EU officials have the same status as diplomats from sovereign states?
By way of introduction, the European Union originated in the aftermath of the
Second World War when the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was founded in 1952.
In 1957, the six members of the community - Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg,
and the Netherlands - signed the Treaty of Rome.
This established the European Economic Community
and explicitly envisaged an ever closer union between the peoples of Europe.
In the years that followed, the membership grew.
The first three new entrants were Britain, Denmark and Ireland, in 1973.
Then Greece joined, in 1981.
Spain and Portugal were next, in 1986.
Followed by Austria, Finland and Sweden, in 1995.
Then, in 2004, it welcomed 10 countries from central and eastern Europe and the Mediterranean.
This was followed by Bulgaria and Romania, in 2007.
And on 1 July 2013, it accepted its then 28th new member: Croatia.
This expansion of new members also saw a number of important
steps towards the original goal of ever closer union.
In 1968, a customs union saw the lifting of all duties and restrictions on trade between members.
This was followed by the creation of the single market in 1993 - at
the same time as it adopted its current name the European Union.
Then 1 January 1999, the euro - the EU's single currency - came into being.
Meanwhile, as the Union grew and evolved, cooperation between member states also grew
in a range of other areas, including justice and home affairs, the environment and transport.
To manage all this, the EU also developed a range of institutions.
These included the Council of the European Union,
which serves as the voice for member states, adopts EU laws and coordinates EU policies.
The European Commission, which acts as the eu's administrative arm.
The European Parliament, which co-legislates alongside the Council.
The European Court of Justice, which ensures that EU laws are equally applied throughout the Union.
And the European Central Bank, which is responsible for the euro.
In addition to its internal development, the EU has also built a presence on the world stage.
The first move came in 1955 when the European Coal and Steel Community
opened an office in London, followed by one in the United States.
Since then, the number of these offices has expanded dramatically - not only in
countries, but at international organisations.
In 1974, the European Union became a permanent observer at the United Nations
and has even become a member of other institutions in its own right.
For example, in 1991, it became a founding member
of the London-based European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
But the major change came with the Lisbon Treaty, which came into force in 2009.
This introduced a number of major innovations in
terms of the European Union's foreign policy capabilities.
At a conceptual level, the European Union now
assumed a formal legal personality internationally.
It also granted the Union a right to enter into agreements
with international organisations and states.
At the same time, it established a key institution:
the European External Action Service, the EEAS.
Formerly created on 1 December 2010, and led by the High Representative for Foreign
Affairs and Security Policy, a post currently held by the former Spanish Foreign Minister,
Josep Borrell, it operates as the EU's diplomatic service
and is responsible for running the EU's presence around the world.
So, where does the row with Britain come into it?
The dispute emerged with the United Kingdom's decision
to leave the European Union on the 31 January 2020.
As Britain became a third country, the EU's Representation in London,
the term used for offices within member states, changed to a delegation.
This would be led by an ambassador.
However, in January 2021,
news emerged that Britain had decided not to grant the ambassador full diplomatic status.
According to reports, the British government argued that as the European Union was
not a state, it should not be treated as such.
Instead, it should be regarded as an international organisation.
To this extent, and so as not to set a precedent, its head of delegation and his
25 staff would not be accorded the privileges and immunities given to diplomatic staff from states,
but would instead be treated like personnel from other international organisations.
As the spokesman for the British Prime Minister stated,
"the EU, its delegation and staff will receive the privileges and immunities
necessary to enable them to carry out their work in the United Kingdom effectively.
It's a matter of fact that the EU is a collective of nations, but it's not a state
in its own right."
This decision has sparked anger in Brussels, where it's viewed as a deliberate snub
and an ideological attempt to undermine the European Union.
Writing to the British Foreign Secretary, the EU's High Representative stated that,
"the arrangements offered do not reflect the specific character of the EU nor do they
respond to the future relationship between the EU and the UK as an important third country."
From a very formal and legalistic position,
the British stance could in fact be regarded as correct.
As noted, the international system has traditionally been built around states
and this is reflected strongly in the key documents cited by Britain
to defend its position - the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
This is the main reference point for the conduct of diplomatic relations.
Reading through the text, it quickly becomes clear that it's
wholly centred on diplomatic relations between states.
As the EU is not a state, there is a good case to be made that the terms
of the convention don't actually apply to the EU.
That said, and as the European Union has emphasised,
it's wrong to view it as merely an international organisation.
It goes far beyond this.
After all, it has its own currency,
political institutions, and integration across a range of significant policy areas.
In this sense, it falls into a strange place in the modern international system.
All this accepted, the fact remains that, formally speaking, it isn't a state.
But, at a practical level, there are in fact a number of powerful
counter-arguments to the British position.
For a start, the arrangements under the Lisbon Treaty
quite clearly upgraded the European Union's international presence in important ways.
More to the point, these changes were fully endorsed and supported by the United Kingdom
when it was a member of the European Union.
It certainly never raised any issues about EU officials, many of which were British citizens,
being given diplomatic status by other countries when it was part of the EU.
Indeed, it stood fully behind the principle.
Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly,
Britain's decision sets it wholly apart from the rest of the international community.
In every one of the 142 other countries, territories and organisations where the European
Union has diplomatic representation, its officials are regarded as equal to diplomats from states.
This makes Britain an outlier on this issue.
Interestingly, though, this isn't the first time a dispute of this type has emerged.
In October 2018, and in the midst of tensions over trade negotiations,
the United States also downgraded the EU's ambassador in Washington.
In that case, the move didn't last long.
Following a backlash from the European Union,
which significantly reduced its contact with US officials, Washington soon backed down.
Calling the EU a "uniquely important organisation and one of America's
most valuable partners in ensuring global security and prosperity", in March 2019,
the US ambassador to the European Union, announced that the State Department would again recognise
the European Union's representation in Washington as equivalent
to that of a bilateral mission in the diplomatic corps order of precedence.
All this raises the question of why it matters so much?
While it might seem like a relatively trivial point, it carries enormous consequences.
As has been pointed out,
this could pave the way for others to follow suit and try to downgrade the European Union.
This would fundamentally undermine the EU's standing at a political level.
For this reason, EU anger at this issue is not about feeling slighted or snubbed.
It has very important policy implications.
And, for this reason, Britain's position on the issue will be taken extremely seriously
and as a sign of intended hostility - even if London insists that it's
merely following the letter of international law.
This has also led to speculation that the European Union will now
start to take retaliatory steps, such as freezing British officials out of meetings.
However, it seems that the issue is far from over.
For its part, the foreign office insists that negotiations are ongoing.
Meanwhile, as Michel Barnier, the EU's former Brexit negotiator, put it,
the UK will need to think "very carefully" about its next steps.
As he said, "I know the spin and sometimes more than the spin of
UK authorities speaking about the EU like an international organisation.
But we are not an international organisation like others.
It would be wise in my view for the UK to find a clever solution."
The United Kingdom's decision to resist granting diplomatic status to the European
Union's representative in London has raised a very interesting question about the European Union,
as well as the nature of diplomatic representation in the modern world.
While the international system is still centered on states,
over the past 70 years or so it has evolved dramatically.
Many other entities now play a role in international relations.
And while their presence is now increasingly accepted,
and states seem to be able to take a pragmatic position on this,
occasional questions, such as the one we're seeing on this issue, do arise.
In the case of the European Union, it has steadily expanded its presence in international relations
over the course of the past six decades - to the extent that today it seems that the vast majority
of the world's countries are willing to view it as an equal partner and extend diplomatic status
to its officials as a mark of their acceptance of its increasingly important role in world affairs.
In view of this, this latest battle, while seemingly trivial,
is actually incredibly important.
The question now is whether the United Kingdom really wants to force a showdown over this issue
and just how far the European Union will be willing to go
to protect its place as an effectively equal partner to states on the world stage.
I hope you found that interesting.
If so, here are some more videos that you might like.
Thanks so much for watching and see you in the next video.