Letter to Destry and the National Assembly Effort in Total

[Destry]

Since this is posted here I may as well write my response here first.

[Destry]

First of all, stop shooting the messenger!

I am under the direction of the Michigan General Jural Assembly! This whole national assembly project is sponsored by the Michigan General Jural Assembly! Not Destry! I am the trainer passing along what works for the MGJA under the direction of the MGJA.

Second I can't tell anyone enough for them to wrap their heads around the meaning and definition of "interim".

The exact specific definite point that the assemblies together come out of interim status is the exact specific definite point that the corporation is nullified! While interim we are off their corporation's radar as we are private and do NOT trespass! The Homeland Security Domestic Terrorism Unit came into one of our assembly meetings a few years ago. They observed us during the day and they informed us that we are perfectly lawful doing what we are doing. We are operating under Article1 of the Bill of Rights. Nobody has been arrested for being an assembly member. The assemblies started in 2009. My kidnappings were due to my expatriation and battles with them building a massive case to be brought forward to the Quo Warranto Board of Inquiry and go after them for Contempt of Constitution. I decided to engage this in 2011. I did the Act of State/ Apostille in 2012 gaining diplomatic immunity that the corporation ignored. That is international law! Got 'em!

Setting your status is a personal choice for yourself. Nobody has issues with that. The issue that has arisen is Anna's insistence that everyone must set their status before joining the assemblies. That is false! Did our founding fathers set their status with Anna's paperwork when they were listed as terrorists and hunted down and killed? Will an armed robber obey gun laws? We have satanic worshippers in power and you think a piece of paper will stop them? Anna has not been kidnapped from the roadside and drug in front of one of these demons in a black robe who make their own laws as they go and ignore all other laws.

While the assemblies are interim and do no trespass upon that criminal cartel corporation, they leave the assemblies and their members alone. Meeting together and relearning how to self govern is our most basic fundamental right as long as it is done in a private peaceful manner. Someone please put my finger on one thing that is assembly involved that would warrant protection from armed corporate policy enforcers! Give me just one thing!

I personally believe the corporation is foreign and does not belong on our land. Why should we dig and claw at any scraps that we would hope to make us unseen to them? I think they need to leave. We rise and they must yield to us. They are illegitimate. That means de facto. We are legitimate. We are We THE People assembled. At the moment the assemblies come out of interim status, then everyone's status will be set to de jure automatically.

Our records and procedures must be proper and complete so if we get challenged then we can present evidence of self governing. At this time only one state assembly can produce this record. 10 years of record at state level and 7 years at national level. Every motion, every meeting, every bit of information has been recorded and archived since the first few founders gathered together to witness and autograph each other's membership documents.
This is done for international support to back the assemblies. We have the right to alter or abolish a government that becomes harmful to the people. That is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. We are not worried about that right being challenged as a right is a right. Lawful international recognition and support is what is needed.

What we have here is a failure to communicate!
I suggest a conference call between Anna and the Michigan General Jural Assembly to get this ironed out for once and for all. Time to get some questions answered!

[Destry]

Here is a valid point I am making:
Filing paperwork into the insolvent corporation is giving it life! We don't want to have intercourse with it to give it life.

[Destry]

Now that I have a minute, I will.

Every time you make the statement that you made on last Thursday's call, you sow seeds of confusion, doubt and fear. You should only state that it is a personal preference and leave it at that. Instead, you insist that people don't need to do that. That is only your opinion. Because of your position in the assembly, it creates its own cognitive dissonance for people who do not understand who they are, and what jurisdiction they are in.

I will state the obvious: that the Michigan Jural Covenant Documents you autographed and witnessed, were unable to protect you in any way from the Corporate Trespass. Not once, on the multiple occasions that you had to go too jail, did they get you out of jail or keep you out of jail.

First of all our documents for membership are none of the insolvent corporations business. They serve no purpose to them. Those are the living people's declarations. I chose to do what I did to build a case for the Quo Warranto Board of Inquiry for other reasons. I have all the evidence I need. I was not looking for protections! I was setting up the criminal actors for a fall!

People are looking for ways to protect themselves from the fraud and corruption that is pervasive. Anna's Basic Package of Editable Forms is one path that many people are having success with including myself, Candi Lee Liles, and many others. If you can name how the Michigan Jural Covenant Documents have helped you in some way, we would all be interested to learn how. Please share.

As I stated in my above response I see nothing wrong with people doing those documents on a personal basis though I do not like the idea of breathing life into that insolvent corporation by interacting with them. And since when do those corporate pirates obey laws they wrote to protect themselves? Last I witnessed they do as they choose and ignore all laws but those that work in their favor. I do not agree with making them mandatory before assembly involvement as for assembly involvement they protect you from nothing as the assemblies are INTERIM and very few seem to comprehend what that means.

I also do not understand why your Michigan Common Law Grand Jury was unable to help you in any way. Please explain that.

I have explained it many times! The grand jury is interim! It is private and does not trespass while interim! That is how we stay out of harms way. I did include a demand to the Eastern District Federal Court to use the grand jury that published county settlement notice in the local paper and the court has refused to schedule a trial date! That can be done without a trespass!

As far as the Apostille goes, Anna explains why Authentication is important, not Apostille in Article #791 " Why "authentication" and why not an "apostile" nor a "certification"? Countries that are signers on the Hague Conventions use apostilles to verify genuine documents
passing between themselves. Countries that are not part of the Hague Conventions use authentication for the same purpose. Certification is an "in-house" domestic equivalent of a guarantee and isn't strong enough for international use. The United States of America never signed the Hague Conventions. The United States did.

That is right. That is why I used the Netherlands as the country and not the United States of America! That is a no brainer. And the U.S. Marshalls honored my authenticated Act of State and was very polite and courteous with me after I presented it to them as my ID.
Also where in anything published by the MGJA is the Act of State/Apostille located? In the handbook? In the forums? In the 10 steps? Any where else?

As a result, documents issued by or pertaining to The United States of America and its international functions have to be "authenticated" while documents issued by or pertaining to the United States have to "apostilled". Both processes serve the same purpose of verifying the record and the paper. When you act as an American state national you are acting under the auspices of The United States of America, so when you are ready to reclaim your assets and exercise your exemptions, you use documents that are authenticated. If you were an actual federal employee or dependent and acting under the auspices of the United States, Inc. as a franchise of the Municipal government or as a citizen of the Territorial government
(either one) you would use documents that are apostilled." Meaning if you apostille, you are still in the CORPORATE.

The Act of State is internationally certified and state authenticated. I do not understand the basis you are presenting here. I am not acting as a U.S. Citizen or an American State National when I use my Act of State. I act as a foreign Ambassador. People need to learn international law and what it is to be an ambassador. Do I need to upload the Andersons manual on Ambassadors to this forum?

You have mentioned on several occasions that the Michigan Assembly and Common Law Grand Jury are in interim. Does that mean that they are not functioning? Is the Michigan Assembly having regular meetings or not? When I go to the Michigan website there is no information there. There is no record of regular meetings or posted minutes or anything else. There is a State of Trust statement from 2018, but that is the most recent posting I am able to see.

You should pay more attention to what is said on the calls. More than half the people on the calls can answer this question. Interim means in existence but not in effect. The same as Donald Trump between November 6th 2016 and January 20 2017. Trump was interim. I hope that example will give you the idea. MGJA assembly business is private to keep out provocateurs. That is why you see nothing on activity.

in·ter·im (ĭn′tər-ĭm)
n.
An interval of time between one event, process, or period and another.

Completely functional but not in use at the time.

When I look at the list of counties, there is no information of any county that is active, other than Oscoda, which is the county you recently moved from. Again, why is this? It was my understanding that once your Jural Assembly gave notice, that the assembly was required to have a standing and ongoing public record of the meetings? Please clarify as that is an important point for all assemblies.

Those forums are brand new and have not been used yet. Looks the same way the national forums did the first few days they were up. There are members only side to the forums and website that public cannot see. That includes the second set of forums. What you see is what the MGJA chooses to disclose to public forum.

On the Michigan website it shows this:
Michigan a Free and Independent state
July 4th 1776, c.1795-r.2010

what does the r. stand for?

r. means resettled

Another question that I have is if as you state: "I am under the direction of the Michigan General Jural Assembly! This whole national assembly project is sponsored by the Michigan General Jural Assembly! Not Destry! I am the trainer passing along what works for the MGJA under the direction of the MGJA." Have you volunteered for this position, were you elected to this position, is it a paid position, or some combination of that?

I volunteered as I was the only MGJA member that had the proficiency and skills to accomplish this venture. Nobody gets paid. In fact I am paying out of my pocket the costs of the server, domains, and personal bills associated with the conference calls and endless hours of 1 on 1 phone calls. The server was $94 per month and is now $139 per month and the domain and privacy is $30 per year. I have a financial investment into this that is greater than anyone else. I do have 2 monthly donors that pitch in. One is $5 per month and another is $5.55 per month. The rest is from my pocket. I have a rather substantial investment and do not want to see it go to waste. Many times over the last 3 years I was scraping the bottom of the money pit to cover bills and the server. My income was between $300 and $600 per week and I was paying on a home and 10 acres. Now that I am in Alaska and making much more than I used to, It is no sweat to cover the bills.

As I stated in my notice regarding the nation states meetings, while we are grateful for Michigan bringing us to this place and time. Their work has provided a possible platform for us to move to a DeJure government, if We the People choose to do so. We the people have the power, as living men and women standing on the land and soil individually, and together, as county and nation state jural assemblies, to determine our course of action. It is not up to Michigan to make those decisions for us individually or collectively.

That is right and reflects what I always have said. One state cannot tell another state what to do. We can only suggest. Due to 10 years of experience and mistakes made and learned from, we created a blueprint of what works and how to do it in a safe and effective manner that keeps people out of trouble and keeps our ducks in a row in case we get challenged at the time we come out of interim status. We don't have to worry about the insolvent corporation as they go away by automation and law. We may get challenged by the international community. We must have our elections in place and our offices properly seated. This means having proper credentials like the JCO and in good standing. At this time I am the only legitimate office holder in the national level assembly as I have a valid JCO in good standing. This is why I am entrusted with everyone's contact information and will never give it out without proper instruction. I am under oath and penalty to protect that information. That is one thing that will be looked at if we are challenged. Can you say the same? Or will your position having other peoples private info and disclosing it without authorization and without an oath to protect it be a negative if we get challenged? I think so. The operations and functions document must be read and honored by all to keep us safe and proper. Same goes with the handbook and 10 steps. You got upset because I would not give out the coordinators contacts from other states. If I did without their prior consent, I would have been yanked for violating my JCO and have it suspended until a future time. Without that I would not be able to function as Comsec for the national assembly.

Please stop sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt in the meetings. Stop trashing Anna and her work. It reflects poorly on yourself and the National Assembly. I wonder where the National Assembly would be without her? I found the National Assembly through her website and her work. I am sure there are many others out there who have as well and will continue to in the future.

I want references and subject matter to her claims! Is that not a reasonable request? When questions go unanswered and she skates around it, then what are we supposed to do? A mark of intelligence is to question everything. Put my finger on it. I am not just going to accept a bunch of babel without anything to back it. And neither are many others who examine it critically. This is how we ended up in this mess over the last 150 years is people just accepting it and not questioning it. This national assembly was here before Anna came into the picture. The national assembly would have done just fine without her. Maybe a few less members but we would be in a nice tight line. I am using her for getting new members just as I am using nesaranews and any other way I can utilize. I called Anna one day and introduced myself, the MGJA, and the national assembly to her back when she had around 300 articles out. Something changed with her after the feds visited her when the Colorado 9 went down. ???????????
Another question is why did all these assembly articles come out immediately after our discussions on sending instructions to Trump? The material in Anna's publishings is not matching the handbook, 10 steps, operations and functions documents, and our procedures. Her stuff does not even match the 1854 Jefferson Manual! She knows this will cause issues. What is behind this? I want to know!! Are people so blindly led by Anna and question nothing that they would walk off a cliff if she said to do it? We have too many red flags popping up.

I don't think a call with Anna is necessary. Just stop berating and belittling her work. Anna is one of many methods of protecting yourself. Let the people and their nation states decide for themselves. We all need to assemble. Let's keep this on a positive track providing information, possible solutions, methodologies, and sharing success stories so that we can grow and advance together to restore our lawful government Of the People, By the People and For the People.

A call is necessary as answers are needed. Time to clear the air. There is no other way around it. Too many extracurricular things getting in the way of us getting our assemblies reseated.
Too many people trying to reinvent the wheel. We are already proven and unrebutted. Why are many others trying to inject a change outside of what is already proven? Homeland Security Domestic Terrorism Unit gave us the green light. Other countries responded in recognition of our Hague notice. Spain even offered funding which we turned down. People need to just use what is proven and stop trying to add to it! Those additions could be the undoing to a proven system! Not one MGJA member has done Anna's paperwork because it is not necessary and we will not breathe life into that civilly dead defunct insolvent corporation that is illegal and only exists because we are not assembled. The MGJA is not trying to manipulate and control. The MGJA is protecting a proven system and trying to keep people from walking off the damned cliff!

This is it! America's last chance! Either our assemblies succeed or the U.N. rolls in and we are gonners. There is nothing else standing in the way of the deep state and the global agenda. It's us and it's now or nothing. There is no other way. We are out of time and options. All other remedies have been exhausted. Assemble or lose it all. No more chances. Our generation will witness the death of our nation if we fail.

[Destry]

This will be addressed on Thursday's call. This is extracurricular crap that is not in the handbook is coming to an end and for a very good reason. I am not the one who will be speaking. Though I may chime in after.
You mention self governing. Gotta be smart enough to do it!

Beware the poison dart hidden in the raisin tart. Let me know if you figure that one out.

[CrystalRose]

Please upload Anderson's Manual on Ambassadors.
Please put it in an unlocked forum.
Thank you.

[Destry]

Please upload Anderson's Manual on Ambassadors.
Please put it in an unlocked forum.
Thank you.

It has a different name but here it is. And what's up with the locked forums part? They are only locked if you are not logged in or the subject is closed.

protocol_for_diplomats.pdf

(103.06 KiB) Downloaded 104 times

PRECEDENCEINDIPLOMATICPRACTICEARTICLE.pdf

(216.13 KiB) Downloaded 118 times

J. Craig Barker, The Abuse of Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities: A Necessary Evil? (1996)
J. Craig Barker, The Protection of Diplomatic Personnel (2006)
Paul Behrens, Diplomatic Interference and the Law (2016) [review]
Eileen Denza, Diplomatic Law: Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 3rd ed (2008)
The work of a former legal counsellor in the FCO and now visiting professor of law at UCL, Eileen Denza’s book, published by Oxford Univ. Press, provides the definitive text on the VCDR (1961) and subsequent state practice. It is a pity that, as with most law books, the price is outrageous and second-hand copies are difficult if not impossible to find.[ buy this book ]

Sir Ivor Roberts (ed), Satow’s Diplomatic Practice, 7th ed (2016)
See our entry on this in the Dictionary of Diplomacy, although this pre-dated the new edition. The English language manual of the profession, this has now been completely revised and updated. Strongly recommended.
Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, 7th ed (2014), ch. 13

THE CONCEPT AND PRINCIPLE OF PRECEDENCE IN DIPLOMATIC
PRACTICE
Peter W. Naankiel1 Egara W. Oviemuno2 Christopher J. Chollom3 Abdullahi S. Sani4

Abstract
This paper examines how the concept of precedence came about in diplomatic practice and
how it has developed over time. Similarly, the paper x-rays the various principles and order
of precedence within diplomatic practice. It would be stated that the concept of precedence
will be looked at vis-à-vis protocol in order to shed more light on the discourse. In the end,
the study suggests an equitable procedure in ensuring that each person receives the position
and respect to which his office entitles him and which are recognised by other political and
administrative authorities, and by the society at large. Thus, rules of precedence are not to be
departed from because a deliberate departure from them will be that of injustice and distrust,
as in the case of the French and Spanish ambassadors in 1616.
Keywords; Precedence, Diplomatic, Protocol, Ambassador

 Citation for this Paper: The Pillar, Journal of Arts and Social Sciences Vol. 1
Number 1, September, 2013 (PP. 54-62)(ISSN:1118-8784). A Publication of Faculties
of Arts and Social Sciences, Plateau State University Bokkos- Nigeria.


INTRODUCTION
Man being what he is, a political and a prestigious entity, filled with the aura of
adoration among God’s creatures ranks number one in the order of precedence among other
animals based on his rationality. However, because of his insatiable desire for power and
prestige, man seeks amongst other things, to conquer his fellow being accruing for himself
the prestige and superiority of a demi god.Thus, the idea of precedence has always been of
concern to man right from antiquity, even in diplomatic practice. This has led to various
lapses in foreign relations among various states or nations.
Man has been plagued by the concept of who comes first in rank or priority where
various leaders or representatives of states are gathered .For example, where heads of
diplomatic missions are gathered (e.g. USA, France, Nigeria, Togo e.t.c), who comes first?
Who is to be addressed first since all of them want to be recognised first? Because
ambassadors personally represent the heads of their governments, the relations among them
within a country have always involved issues of prestige. Thus such details as where an
ambassador rode in a procession or which ambassador entered a room first, assumed greater
significance.
These are the kind of issues this paper seeks to address as they plagued the practice of
diplomacy until they were resolved at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and the Congress of
Aix-la-Chappelle in 1818 and more recently, at the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations in 1961.
Precedence enhances diplomatic relations which sustains and awakens relationships
among states and other international bodies with a view to enhancing international co-
operationfor the achievement of cherished values or goals as the case may be.
In the course of this paper, we shall look at the meaning of the terms used seeing
protocol alongside precedence, a brief summation of the history of precedence, and see how
effective protocol practice or precedence is to diplomatic relations, and draw a conclusion.
CLARIFICATION OF TERMS
To ensure a better comprehension of the concept of precedence in diplomatic practice
for the purpose of realizing a state’s national interests ,it is paramount to know the basic
words.
PROTOCOL
Etymologically, this term is derived from the Greek word “proto-koller” which means
a piece of paper glued to the front of a national document thereby giving it authenticity. The
word “protocol” in Byzantine diplomacy stood for the first part of the solemn written
documents where the participants were emanated (Wood and Serres, 1970: 19). However, in
the face of the contemporary state of internal affairs characterized by the complexity and
changes in thenumbers, status and roles of new entities on the international scene, the term
protocol assumed a different meaning. Thus protocol is:
…..a form of hierarchical order, the expression of good manners
among nations…..it is the set of rules of conduct for governments and
their representatives on official and private occasions(Wood and
Serres,1970:19).
This definition is quite encompassing as it concerns precedence which entails the
hierarchical order of placement of envoys.The expression of good manners among nations is
the essential ingredient of diplomacy.
According to Encyclopaedia Americana, Protocol means “the indication of the
arrangement and etiquette of diplomatic conduct and ceremonial”(Encyclopedia
Americana,1988:694).
The dictionary of international law defines protocol “as a code of behaviour and
tradition observed by government institutions, diplomaticmissions, diplomatic agents and
other officials in the sphere of international intercourse”(Grant and Parry(ed.), 1986:205).
From the above definitions, we can therefore infer that protocol is concerned with the
way and manner diplomatic agents are treated and the way they ought to conduct
themselves.However, we shall be concerned with the first definition of protocol as a
hierarchical order. It is important to note that protocol can also be seen from three main
aspects: precedence (which is the aspect we are concerned about), etiquette and courtesy. In
order to do justice to the exposition of the word protocol, it is important that we look at the
different aspects in passing. Thus:
a) PRECEDENCE: Precedence according to the Chambers Encyclopaedia is the order of
priority accorded to the more eminent members of classes of community on state or public
occasions and on formal social intercourse(Anderson and McGovern(ed.):192).
The black laws dictionary sees precedence solely as “the act of going before
,especially in the order of priority in place or time observed by or for persons of different
statutes(such as political dignitaries) on the basis of ranking during ceremonial
events”(Garner(ed.), 1995:921).
Given the above definitions, precedence can therefore be seen as an aspect of protocol
that takes care of issues which border on hierarchical placements of individuals in an
occasion of state or public functions. Precedence entails the right of a person to occupy the
place of honour at a ceremony or on official meetings (Gasiokwu and Dakas, 2006: 196).
b) ETIQUETTE: Etiquette is a component of protocol that helps make life more pleasant
and more attractive. Etiquette is the formal rules of correct and polite behaviour in society or
among members of a given profession (Hornby and Cowie(ed.),1987:410).
Etiquette gives dignity and pleasant manner which draws forth what is pleasant in
those we meet (Gasiokwu and Dakas, 2006: 196). It could also be understood as a set of
mutually accepted conventions which govern relations among states,good manners that will
ensure an offence free relationship among nation states.
c) COURTESY: Courtesy is concerned with acts of civility accorded to a person. Politeness
of character or manner, which plays a vital role towards achieving respect and attention in
attaining desired goals.
Having looked at the three areas or aspects of protocol, it suffices to say that there
exists a nuance between them such that one cannot be applied irrespective of the other as they
rest on each other and are equally vital for the smooth conduct of diplomatic relations among
states.
DIPLOMATIC PRACTICE
Hans in Encarta Encyclopaedia sees diplomatic practice as a practice and institution
by which nations conduct their relations with one another
(http//:www.mtholyoke.edu….15/2/2009).It has also been defined as “any means by which
states establish or maintain mutual relations ,communicate with each other ,or carry out
political or legal transactions in each case through their authorised agents”(Gasiokwu and
Dakas,2006:202).
Diplomacy according to Earnest Satow,is the application of intelligence and tact to
the conduct of official relations between the government of independent states extending
sometimes also to their relations with vassal states; or more briefly still, the conduct of
business between states by peaceful means(Booth (ed.), 1979:3).
In the Diplomatic Dictionary, diplomacy is seen as an official activity of a given
state’s organs of external relations in pursuing through peaceful means the objective and task
of its foreign policy and in protecting its rights, its interest as well as those of its citizen’s
abroad(Diplomatic Dictionary…..Vol.11,1971:459).
Diplomacy, inferring from the given definitions, is an effective tool or instrument
which nation states employ for the maintenance, promotion of peaceful relations on the
international scene. Diplomacy in diplomatic practice thus, is a sine qua non for the
management of peaceful and sometimes harsh relations among states for the interest of
individual states. Diplomacy is the means through which nations achieve their national
interests.
HISTORY OF PROTOCOL VIS-À-VIS PRECEDENCE
Having understood the meaning of protocol cum precedence, it is important also to
have the knowledge of how protocol or precedence came to be, the problems encountered
through its dialectical transformation. It is by so doing that we will understand the principle
of precedence in diplomatic practice.
Protocol practice dates back to antiquity, even to the time when ad hoc missions were
carried out in old empires and city-states; ceremonies were observed at the reception of such
ad hoc missions.The host empires made sure they addressed the special missions with guided
respect.On the other hand, the visiting missions were mindful not to offend their host for fear
of not achieving their mission or goal.As it was characteristic of diplomatic practice in those
days,special mission made use of the tool of flattery in order to win the hearts of their hosts.
With the advent of permanent missions and the presence of more than one
staterepresentative in a particular territory,disputes began to erupt.Thus it became difficult for
a mission to have the full attention of the host state at a function since there were many state
representatives to attend to.Problems related to precedence i.e. who comes first in rank at
courts or gatherings posed serious problems since all sovereigns were considered equal.As it
is common with man, each state representative wants to assume the highest place of honour
believing that the place at which they sit also reflect the position of their kings.But this
brought serious quarrels among them since most envoys had orders from their home
governments never to allow other representatives to precede them in any ceremonial
procession,because it would reflect adversely on the prestige and honour of their own
empires.Quarrels usually emanated from this state of affairs and negotiations among states
were sometimes affected .Pope Julius, in trying to respond to this problem prepared a table of
precedence but was not enforced due to the decline in Papal authority at that
time(Booth(ed.),1979:4-5).
This state of affairs in diplomatic relations took another dimension in 1616.In this
instance there was a physical combat between the Spanish and French ambassadors at the
court of Saint James (London)(Booth(ed.),1979:20).The dispute was with regards to who
should take precedence over the other.This contributed to the breach of diplomatic relations
between France and Spain at the time.A similar dispute occurred between the Russian and
French ambassador.The French ambassador to London had had a prior instruction by his
home authorities to maintain his diplomatic rank by all means and to concede precedence
only to the Papal and Imperial ambassadors.On his part, the Russian ambassador was not
particularly asked to claim precedence over the French ambassador,but he was not to concede
to him.Thus, at a court ball in 1768, lack of precedence or the non-observance of protocol led
to a physical combat that left the Russian ambassador wounded (Gasiokwu and
Dakas,2006:198).These and such other disputes continued to dominate diplomatic relations in
utter disregard to matters of courtesy and etiquette.
The premier at bringing sanity to the conduct of affairs between diplomatic envoys
was made by Pombal, the then Prime Minister of Portugal in 1760.He circulated a notice to
all foreign representatives at the court of Lisbon which stated that except the Papal Nuncio
and Imperial Ambassadors, all other envoys would, when paying visits, rank according to the
date of presentation of their credentials. This position was however met with negative opinion
from the French Minister. He maintained that the powers of kings did not extend to assigning
rank to other crowned heads without the king’s sanction, as such Pombal’s proposal was
relegated to the background most especially because other countries also rejected it in
congruence with the French envoy (Booth(ed.),1979:23).
However, there came a major breakthrough in these problems when at the Congress of
Vienna in 1815, the system of anarchy and chaos in diplomatic relations was corrected and a
classification of diplomatic ranks was adopted(Harris and Levy(ed.),1975:768).Thus, the
Vienna Congress established four grades of diplomatic representatives which are;
Ambassador,Papal Legate and Papal Nuncio,Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extra-
Ordinary, Minister and Charge d’affairs. The codification from the Congress of Vienna did
not put to rest the problems of precedence until the 1818 Congress of Aix-la-Chappelle which
stipulated that heads of missions in each class will take precedence based on the length of
time they have served as ambassadors in one country (Harris and Levy (ed.), 1975: 768).
Under the auspices of the U.N. in 1961, nations came together and signed the
Convention on Diplomatic Relations at Vienna. This convention provided the most explicit
internationally recognised and accepted body of rules for regulating inter-state relations. The
convention upholds both the 1815 ranking of the Vienna Congress and the 1818 order of
precedence of Aix-la-Chappelle as found in its Article 14 and 16.
PRINCIPLES OR ORDER OF PRECEDENCE
Having given the history of protocol cum precedence succinctly, it then becomes
important to highlight the order of precedence as found among diplomats for a better
understanding of the subject matter.
A diplomat is thus concerned with four orders of precedence;
a) Precedence between heads of diplomatic missions
b) Individual precedence within a mission
c) Individual precedence inter se of Diplomats at formal or Diplomatic functions
d) Precedence of heads of missions within the national order of precedence.
A. PRECEDENCE BETWEEN HEADS OF DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS
This is based on the class into which a head of mission falls;Ambassador,High
Commissioner or Apostolic Nuncio, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary or
Inter-Nuncio, and Charge d’Affaires en titre(titular or en pied).
Within each of these classes, seniority is based on the date on which the head of
mission assumed his duties. This is either the date on which he presented his credentials to
the head of state, as it is done in Nigeria for example, or the date on which he notified his
arrival to the minister of foreign affairs a copy of his credentials e.g. the U.K.
It is important to note that if two heads of mission present their credentials on the
same day ,precedence therefore may be determined either by the place in the alphabet of the
first letter of the state (in French)of the representative concerned ,or more commonly, by the
relative times of the day they officially commenced their functions(Feltham,1998:27).
In certain states the ambassador representative of the Holy See takes precedence over
all the other heads of missions in the same category.
B. INDIVIDUAL PRECEDENCE WITHIN A MISSION
The individual precedence of members of the political staff below the head of mission
are Minister Plenipotentiary, Minister Counselor, Counselor, First Secretary, Second
Secretary, Third Secretary and Attache.
The place of service of specialist attaches like military detectives is usually
determined by individual missions. Sometimes they come before the First Secretary but
rarely above the diplomat next senior to the head of mission. The precise order of precedence
however is normally found in the diplomatic list which every state receiving diplomatic
representative produces. It is the responsibility of the head of the mission therefore, to notify
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the precedence of the member of her mission (Feltham,
1998: 28).
C. INDIVIDUAL PRECEDENCE INTER SE OF DIPLOMATS AT FORMAL OR
DIPLOMATIC FUNCTIONS
Precedence here is based on rank which is as follows: Apostolic Nuncio(in those
countries where he is Dean or Doyen ex officio),Ambassador/High Commissioner, Envoy
Extraordinary/Minister Plenipotentiary, Charge d’ Affaires (en titre), Charge d’ Affaires (ad
interim),Minister Counselor, Counselor, First Secretary ,Second Secretary and Third
Secretary. Here service and specialist attaches are usually placed immediately after
Counselors, but practice varies.
D. PRECEDENCE OF HEADS OF MISSION WITHIN THE NATIONAL ORDER
OF PRECEDENCE
Here heads of missions are placed according to traditional precedence and customs,
but usually after members of the cabinet and the Presidents of the legislative assemblies. In
the U.K., heads of missions of ambassadorial rank are placed after the very high dignitaries
who rank immediately after the sovereign and close members of the royal family in the
national order of precedence (Feltham,1998: 29).
In republics like Brazil and the United States for example, ambassadors mostly take
third place and foreign ambassadors in both countries come immediately after the Vice
President of the Republic (Do Nascimento e Silva, 1972:169). In Nigeria for example, the
heads of missions are placed 17th, a Foreign Charge d’Affaires and acting High
Commissioners are placed 30th (Gasiokwu and Dakas, 2006: 210).
THE RELEVANCE OF PRECEDENCE TO DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS
From the foregoing, it is an indubitable fact to say that protocol or precedence
practice is an aggregate of variables that make for the pleasant atmosphere in which
diplomatic discourse takes place. This obviously implies that precedence enhances diplomacy
based on the very fact that when there is a pleasant political weather, then diplomats are in a
better state of mind to transact business.
The earliest diplomatic representatives of state did not find it easy out of diplomatic
soldering because in many spheres of their lives they became people of two worlds: the world
of their own indigenous cultures and the world of widespread internationally accepted
diplomatic cultures (Majen,1983:19).
CONCLUSION
In summary, it is obvious that precedence or the use of protocol is a sine qua non for
diplomatic practice as evidenced in the relationship of states with one another. Recourse to
the periods before the 1815 and 1818 congresses reminds one of the attendant problems that
plagued the practice of diplomacy due to lack of protocol and precedence. Many nation states
faced different problems relating to the issue of precedence either in their individual state
function or in an international one; Nigeria too, as a state under international law, has never
been an exception when it comes to the issue of organizing her protocol. The dilemma was in
identifying those elements of protocol that it could live with but without necessarily altering
its own way. Thus, the first step out of this dilemma was to establish or create a national list
of precedence for the purpose of official ceremonies and outing which is appended in a
document known presently as the ‘National Order of Precedence in Government Notice
405’(Gasiokwu and Dakas,2006:205).
Given the problems of precedence in the past(the mighty trying to suppress the weak),
the order of precedence as it has evolved on the international plane is a plus to protocol
practice because precedence is not based on prestige or power of home governments of
diplomats but solely on the length of time such diplomats have served and on the date or time
of the day they assumed their duties according to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations of 1961 Article16(1) which states that “Heads of mission shall take precedence in
their respective classes in the order of the date and time of taking up their
functions….”(Vienna Convention……1961:Article 16).
This makes it an equitable procedure ensuring that each person receives the position
and respect to which his office entitles him and which are recognised by other political and
administrative authorities, and by the society at large. Thus, rules of precedence are not to be
departed from because a deliberate departure from them will be that of injustice and distrust,
as in the case of the French and Spanish ambassadors in 1616.











REFERENCES
1. Anderson T. and McGovern U.(ed.),Chamber Encyclopaedia, London: International
Learning
System.
2. Booth G.(ed.)(1979), Satow’s Guide to Diplomatic Practice, London: Longman Group
Ltd.
3. Diplomatic Dictionary, Principle of Public International Law, Vol.11 (1971),Moscow:
Progress Publishers.
4. Do Nascimento e Silva G.E.(1972),Diplomacy in International Law, A.W. Sijthoff-
Leiden.
5. Encyclopaedia Americana (1988), New York: Grotier Inc.
6. Feltham R.G.(1998),Diplomatic Handbook 7th Edition,New York:Longman Ltd.
7. Garner B.A.(ed.)(1995),Black Law Dictionary 7th Edition, St. Paul Minn U.S.A: West
Group.
8. Gasiokwu M.O.U and Dakas C.J.(2006),Diplomatic and Consular Law, Selected Essays
with Basic Documents, Enugu: Chenglo Ltd.
9. Grant J. and Parry (ed.)(1986),The Dictionary of International Law, Moscow: Progress
Publishers.
10. Harris W.H. and Levy J.S.(ed.)(1975),The New Columbia Encyclopaedia, New York:
Columbia
University Press.
11. Hornby A.S. and Cowie A.P.(ed.)(1987),Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of
Current English
4th Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
12. http//www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htp accessed on 15/2/2009.
13. Majen M. (1983),The Diplomats: The Real People Behind the Events in an Unreal World,
New
York: Doubleday and Co. Inc.
14. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961.
15. Wood J.R. and Serres J. (1970), Diplomatic Ceremonial and Protocol, London
:Macmillan and Co.
Ltd.