# Is the diplomatic bag inviolable?
It is an old idea. An idea about trust between nations. A state must be able to speak with its representatives abroad. It must be able to send its messages in secret, without fear of the host country reading them. To do this, it uses the diplomatic bag. The law gives this bag special protection. It says the bag is inviolable. This means it must not be opened or held up on its journey. But this rule, which seems so simple, has caused much trouble. This essay will look at the law on the diplomatic bag. It will show that while the law says the bag is safe, states have sometimes challenged this. The rule is absolute in theory, but in the real world, it is not always so certain.
## The Rule in the Vienna Convention
The main rules for diplomats are found in a treaty. It is the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 (VCDR). Almost every country in the world has agreed to follow it. The United Kingdom brought the Convention into its own law with the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964. This means the rules of the Convention are part of English law.
The important rule for the diplomatic bag is in Article 27. It deals with the communications of a diplomatic mission. It says that the host state must permit and protect free communication for the mission (VCDR 1961, art 27(1)). The diplomatic bag is one way this happens. The rule on the bag itself is very clear. Article 27(3) states that “The diplomatic bag shall not be opened or detained”. The language is strong. It uses the word “shall”. It gives no exceptions. The bag’s contents are also protected wherever they are.
The Convention also says what a bag is, and what can be in it. Article 27(4) explains that the packages must have “visible external marks of their character”. They can only contain “diplomatic documents or articles intended for official use”. So, it is not just any bag. It must be a properly marked bag with official things inside. The person carrying the bag, the diplomatic courier, also has special protection (VCDR 1961, art 27(5)). This whole system is designed to make sure messages get through securely.
## The Purpose of the Privilege
There must be a good reason for such a strong rule. A rule that tells a country it cannot open a bag, even if it is on its own land. The reason is not to give diplomats a special personal benefit. It is to help them do their job. This is known as the functional necessity theory (Shaw, 2017). A diplomatic mission cannot function properly if it cannot communicate in confidence with its own government.
Diplomacy involves sensitive talks. It involves negotiation and reporting on the host country. If the host country could simply open the bag and read the mission’s reports, the trust that is needed for international relations would break down. The ambassador could not give an honest opinion to their government. The government could not give secret instructions to its ambassador. The principle of inviolability protects the channel of communication. It allows states to talk to each other frankly, even when they disagree. It is a practical rule for a practical purpose. This purpose is seen as so important that it outweighs the host state’s normal right to inspect goods coming into its country.
## A Story of Abuse: The Dikko Affair
The privilege of the diplomatic bag depends on trust. The host state trusts the sending state to follow the rules. It trusts that the bag contains only official documents and articles. But sometimes, that trust is broken. The diplomatic bag has been used to transport drugs, weapons, and even people. A famous story from London shows this danger.
It happened in the summer of 1984. The man was Umaru Dikko, a former government minister from Nigeria. He was living in London, and the new government in Nigeria wanted him back to face charges of corruption. One day, he was kidnapped off a London street. He was drugged and put inside a large crate. A second man, a doctor, was put in another crate to keep Mr Dikko alive during the journey. The crates were taken to Stansted Airport to be flown to Nigeria. They were marked as diplomatic baggage, addressed to the Nigerian Ministry of External Affairs.
The plan almost worked. At the airport, the Nigerian officials insisted the crates were diplomatic bags and could not be opened. But British officials were suspicious. The paperwork was not quite right, and they had not been told a bag would be coming. They also knew that Mr Dikko had been kidnapped. Under the eye of a senior Nigerian diplomat, the police opened the crate. Inside, they found Mr Dikko, unconscious but alive. This event showed the world how the immunity of the diplomatic bag could be abused in the most serious way (Denza, 2016). It was not just a case of hiding illegal goods. It was the kidnapping of a man on British soil.
## The State’s Response
The Dikko affair, and the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher from the Libyan embassy in the same year, forced the UK to think hard. What can a state do when it believes a diplomatic bag contains something dangerous or illegal? The Vienna Convention says it “shall not be opened”. It does not give a list of exceptions.
After these events, the British government made its position clear. It stated that if it had strong grounds for suspicion, like a bag being unusually heavy or smelling strange, it would consider using scanning equipment. It also said it would have the right to request that a suspect bag be opened in the presence of a member of the diplomatic mission. If the mission refused, the UK would refuse to let the bag into the country and would make it be returned to its country of origin (Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 1985).
This position is controversial. Many argue that scanning a bag is a form of search, and therefore it is not allowed under Article 27. They say it breaches the spirit, if not the letter, of the rule (Barker, 2015). The Convention does not mention scanning, as it was written before the technology was common. There is no international agreement on whether scanning is allowed. By declaring it might scan bags, the UK was making a choice. It was choosing to put its national security concerns on a level with its treaty obligations. This is a path other countries have also considered.
## A Difficult Balance
There is a clear tension here. On one side is the principle of inviolability, which is vital for the work of diplomats. On the other side is the right of a state to maintain law and order, and to protect its own security. The Vienna Convention seems to put diplomatic communication first. The rule is written in absolutist terms.
Yet, practice shows that this is not the end of the matter. When faced with abuse, states do not simply stand by. The Dikko affair is a clear example where the UK felt it had to act, despite the diplomatic status of the crate. A state’s first duty is to the safety of its own people and the rule of law within its borders. When the diplomatic bag is used for kidnapping or terrorism, it directly attacks these duties.
The law does not provide an easy way to solve this conflict. It does not have a mechanism to check a bag if there is a good reason to be suspicious. This has led to what is sometimes called a “self-help” system. States like the UK have made their own rules for dealing with suspect bags. These rules might violate the letter of the VCDR. But states justify them by pointing to the abuse of the privilege by others. The result is that the law is less certain than it appears. The inviolability of the diplomatic bag is a strong legal principle, but it is not unbreakable.
## Conclusion
So, we must return to the question. Is the diplomatic bag inviolable? The law is simple to state. The Vienna Convention says yes, it is. It shall not be opened or detained. This is a cornerstone of diplomatic law, and it has been for a very long time.
But life and law are not always the same. The history of the diplomatic bag is also a history of its abuse. It has been used for smuggling, for espionage, and for crime. These abuses have put the host states in a very difficult position. They must choose between their treaty duty to protect the bag, and their national duty to protect their citizens.
In practice, this means the bag’s inviolability is not absolute. When faced with a real threat, states have shown they are willing to challenge the rule. They may use scanners or demand the bag is returned. What the Dikko affair taught the UK, and the world, was that the protection of the bag is based on the assumption that it will be used for its proper purpose. When that assumption is destroyed, the protection itself becomes weak. Therefore, the diplomatic bag is inviolable in law. But in reality, its protection can be, and has been, set aside.
## References
- Barker, J. (2015) The No-Nonsense Guide to International Law. New Internationalist.
- Denza, E. (2016) Diplomatic Law: A Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964.
- Foreign and Commonwealth Office. (1985) The Abuse of Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges: Government Report and Conclusions. London: HMSO.
- Shaw, M.N. (2017) International Law. 8th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) 500 UNTS 95.
