The decisive issue in this case is whether the building at 42 avenue Foch acquired the status of “premises of the mission” within the meaning of Article 1 (i) of the Convention. If it acquired that status before the action taken by France, there is a breach of the building’s inviolability under Article 22 of the Convention. Here the majority has wrongly conflated a requirement for the receiving State’s consent with the power of the receiving State to object. An intended use of premises for the purposes of the mission will suffice for those premises to be entitled to diplomatic protection when it is followed by actual use. Interpreting the Convention should be done in a way that is consistent with its object and purpose of promoting the achievement of friendly relations among nations on a basis that respects the principle of the sovereign equality of States and promotes the maintenance of international peace and security because it balances the interests of the sending and the receiving States.

Song Chunxiao. Comments on paragraph 67 of the judgement of ICJ in the case of immunities and criminal proceedings ——in the view of interpretation of the convention. Academic Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences (2022) Vol. 5, Issue 6: 24-29. https://doi.org/10.25236/AJHSS.2022.050604.

[1] International Law Reports (ILR), 2008, Vol. 30, pp. 253.

[2] E. Denza, Diplomatic Law: Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Oxford University Press, 4th edition, 2016, p. 147.

[3] Counter-Memorial of France, 2008, p. 33, paras. 2.21-2.24