Artículos de revistas sobre el tema "Diplomatic and consular service, russian – history – sources"

The authors analyze the activities of Iran's consular services in the Caucasus, their role in Russian-Caucasian diplomatic relations, in particular, in the processes of Iranian labor migrants’ adaptation to host societies. The authors aim to expand historical knowledge of Iranians’ staying in the Caucasus, to restore a complete picture of the history of migration processes in the region. There are revealed the features of Iranian-Caucasian diplomatic relations in the pre-Soviet period, the situation of migrants and their legal support, the activities of the consulates in preserving the Iranian cultural identity, internal and external problems in Iran’s consular services. There have been introduced into scientific use the documents of political and consular missions of Iran in the Caucasus for 1905-1911 stored in the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, materials of Iranian periodicals of the period under consideration, as well as the personal files of the vice-consuls stored in the Persian Table Foundation (f. 144) of the Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire. They made it possible to determine the significant contribution of consular services to the development of diplomatic relations between the two countries. The conclusion is made about the greatest success of these relations in the Terek region, which is due to the favorable conditions of its developing economy for labor migrants and such subjective factors as the personal qualities of a number of vice-consuls, the level of their interaction with the Russian authorities. The activities of the vice-consuls successfully combined the promotion of the incorporation of migrants into the Russian economy and culture with the creation of conditions for the preservation of Iranian cultural identity.

In their article, author considers previously little-studied aspects of the activities of Russian diplomatic missions in China in the late XIX - early XX century in order to explore the features of the daily life of the consular offices of the Russian Empire in China. The study is based on the copies of the answers of the Russian consular office employees in Manchuria to the questionnaire compiled by a special Commission for the Reorganization of the Foreign Service under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1907. These documents are stored in the Foreign Policy Archive of the Russian Empire of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, and have been introduced used publicly for scientific use for the first time here. From the available material, it is apparent that in addition to the difficult living conditions in unusual climate, Foreign Ministry officials in China faced a large number of domestic difficulties, a lack of working materials, and funding. Disagreements over the delimitation of consular districts and the powers of diplomats led to inconsistency in the activities of Russian consuls in China. Nevertheless, despite the difficulties, under any circumstances Russian diplomats remained committed to their duty and did their best in the interests of their state, at the same time striving to establish friendly and equal relations with their Chinese counter-parts.

In the publication, based on the analysis of documentary sources published and stored mainly in the archival collections of Moscow (Russian State Archive of Ancient Documents) and St. Petersburg (NLR), the author raises the question of updating scientific research on the history of domestic diplomacy and the diplomatic service of the Grand Duchy of Moscow of the 15th century.

In the publication, the author presents an analysis of the domestic and foreign historiography of the topic from the 18th century - the period of awakening interest in the formation of Russian statehood in Russian science - to the present, which is generalizing. It is a logical continuation of the author's publication “The formation of the diplomatic service of the Grand Duchy of Moscow in the XV century: to characterize the sources of a scientific problem” (Voprosy Istorii. 2024. No. 1).

The article is devoted to the activities of the Russian Imperial Consulate in Yingkou (Niuzhuang) in the period from 1899 to 1909. Promoting Russian interests in South Manchuria, Russia paid great attention to the acquisition of real estate in this open Chinese port on the banks of the Liaohe River. At the initial stage, one of the main issues of the foreign mission was to assist in the acquisition of land for the construction of the Russian concession, as well as in the construction of the Yingkou station of the Yingkou — Dashiqiao branch of the CER. During the period of the Provisional Russian Administration, the building of the Russian Imperial Consulate, a doctor’s house and a bacteriological station were built here, the construction of the Mayor’s House began, and at the same time land plots were acquired for various household needs. The successful expansion of Russia in this region was disrupted by the Russian-Japanese War (1904–1905) and its results. Starting from the end of July 1904 to the end of November 1905, only one Russian citizen lived in Yingkou. The Russian Imperial Consulate which was reopened in December 1905 actively dealt with the issues of returning consular real estates and private property of its citizens. The Japanese military authorities, who were in charge of Yingkou until November 23, 1906, interfered in every possible way with this process. After the return of the city to the Chinese authorities, the Russian buildings were occupied by Chinese officials. However, thanks to the professional and well-coordinated actions of Russian diplomats in China and Japan, in particular the employees of the consulate in Yingkou A. T. Belchenko, V. K. Nikitin, Ambassador to Japan Y. (G.) P. Bakhmetev, delegate to China D. D. Pokotilov, the Russian consular property in Yingkou was returned to its rightful owners. Of course, the main role in this complex matter was played by Consul A. T. Belchenko, who, after solving the tasks assigned to him in Yingkou, was transferred to the consulate in Fuzhou. The choice of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was determined by the high assessment of his diplomatic service.

This article concerns the initial period of the phenomena of Dubrovnik Republic, who kept its independence during centuries in the alien ethnic and confessional surroundings. This item seldom appeared in the sphere of attention of the specialists upon the European urban studies. The historian V. V. Makushev (1837—1883), being at the diplomatic service in Dubrovnik, studied the resources and published the scientific results in his articles and monographs. He created his author classification of the sources of the urban problems, evaluated their informational capability, proved the historical value of the imaginative literature. This approach is actual for the analysis of the medieval history of the Mediterranean and other European cities.

General of the Infantry Count G.M. Sprengtporten (1740-1819) is one of the less known historical figures of the last quarter of the 18th and of the early 19th century. As a Swedish citizen, he hatched plans to turn Finland into an independent state. In the mid-1780s he saw in Catherine II a potential ally who could implement his ideas. After accepting the invitation to enter Russian service, Sprengtporten did not blend either in the Highest Court or in the Russian army. Not having shown any significant military feats during the wars of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, he distinguished himself in the diplomatic and lawmaking field. An important event was his mission to Europe (1800-1801), which resulted in the return of more than six thousand Russian prisoners to Russia. The draft Regulations on the Establishment of the Main Administration in New Finland, developed by Sprengtporten with some changes made by Emperor Aleksander I, became the cornerstone of Finnish autonomy within the Russian Empire over the next century. Occupying for a short time the post of Governor General, he became a link between Finland and Russia. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the comprehensive presentation of the Russian service of G.M. Sprengtporten. The article is written on the basis of published sources and unpublished documents from some central archives, which are introduced into scientific circulation for the first time.

The article explores the activities of the Russian agent in Istanbul, doctor Georgy Polikalа. It analyzes the medic’s contacts with the Russian diplomatic representative P. A. Tolstoy, who gave secret instructions to Policala. Since 1711, he has been officially registered for service in Russia as a life physician of Tsarina Ekaterina Alekseevna. The doctor enjoyed special favor of both Peter I and his second wife. The facts of the participation of Polycalа in the treatment of other members of the royal family, such as Princess Charlotte Christina Sofia, the wife of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich, are also noted. The surviving sources make it possible to partly reconstruct Polycalа’s mission in Istanbul in 1721, when, in addition to the official instructions of Peter I, related to the presentation of the tsar’s letter to the sultan, he was also engaged in preparing the escape of A. Cantemir, who was in Turkish captivity. The authors also consider Polikala’s connections with the family of the Moldavian ruler, in particular, examining a plot common in historiography about the participation of the medic in the termination of Maria Cantemir’s pregnancy by order of Ekaterina Alekseevna. The documents available to historians do not allow confirming this fact. There was also an attempt to engage Polycalа in January 1725 to the treatment of Peter I. The last fact of the physician’s biography confirmed by archival sources is filing a request for resignation in May of the same year.

The article focuses on the most successful period in the history of Soviet intelligence in the United States, namely the 1930s and 1940s. The reasons for this success are analysed, first and foremost being the worldwide enthusiasm for the ideas of communism and the achievements of the USSR in building a new socialist society, to which the propaganda of the Stalinist regime had contributed in no small measure. The author examines the activities of the Soviet secret services, which established an extensive covert network in the United States during those years. Members of the underground were collecting information, primarily in the field of the latest military technologies, including the secrets of the production of the atomic bomb. While the history of intelligence professionals has been sufficiently studied, the work of their American voluntary agents is less known. There were many communists and sympathisers among them; a significant proportion were Russian immigrants. The aim of the article is to explore their views, behavioural motives, and subsequent fate. The study draws on records from American and Russian archives opened to researchers in the 1990s: previously classified Soviet diplomatic correspondence, which, after being decrypted by the Venona project, was recognised as a communication channel between intelligence in the United States and the centre in Moscow; it was supplemented by the so-called “Vassiliev Notebooks”, containing documents from the archives of the Foreign Intelligence Service (formerly the First Directorate of the KGB) as well as records from the Comintern archive at the Russian Centre for the Preservation and Study of Documents of Contemporary History (RTsKhIDNI). New sources offer a more comprehensive picture of the scale and methods of Soviet intelligence work, the activities of American agents, and allow to answer a number of questions that have caused controversy among historians, including the guilt of the Rosenbergs in the theft of nuclear secrets and whether Alger Hiss, a high-ranking US State Department official, was a Soviet intelligence agent.

The aim of this study is to clarify the origin and ambassadorial activities of the little-known Tomsk equestrian Cossack Emelyan Vershinin, who made long trips to the rulers of the eastern states and Siberian nomadic formations. The study is based on published materials on the history of Russian-Mongolian and Russian-Chinese relations and on archival sources (tribute books) from the Siberian Prikaz of the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts. In the early days of Siberian exploration it was important to establish ambassadorial and trade relations with neighbouring eastern countries. One of the active participants of Russian missions to “unpeaceful lands” and eastern countries was the Tomsk Cossack Yemelyan Vershinin, who came from a hereditary military environment. The purpose of his journeys was to bring the warlike nomads into Russian citizenship and to settle disputes with the rulers of independent states. Vershinin made his first trip to the Mongol ruler Altyn Khan in 1634 as part of the diplomatic mission of the boyar’s son S. Grechaninov. In the autumn of 1638 he was sent to the “Kyrgyz land” to the Yenisei princes Ishey and Koyan to persuade the nomadic owners to “obey” and take sherti (oath of allegiance to the Russian sovereign). In 1640 Vershinin headed a diplomatic mission to the first Kalmyk khan Daichin (Taichi-Taishi), son of the famous Oirat taisha Urlyuk, who roamed the upper reaches of the Irtysh and the Yaik. Demonstrating his independence from the Russian tsar, Daichin kept the Tomsk envoys in his dominion for three years. Having found themselves in “captivity”, the Russian ambassadors were forced to travel with Daichin’s caravan to Trukhmenkala (a city in Turkmenistan), then visited the Bukhara cities of Samarqand and Tashkent, and the Chinese border town Xining. While in Xinin, Vershinin met with Chinese officials and received a letter to the Russian authorities, which due to the lack of interpreters in the Siberian Prikaz was not read. Upon his return to Tomsk, Vershinin presented a report on the results of his stay in the Oirats’ land, Central Asia and China. Vershinin’s further service was marked by a trip to the Teleut prince K. Abakov with a statement of peace initiatives coming from the Russian authorities. The study concludes that the establishment of political and commercial relations with “foreign” rulers at an early stage of Siberian development allowed the Russian authorities to avoid major military conflicts, typical of Western states in the era of colonial conquests, and to form policies contributing to strengthening Russia’s influence on its eastern borders and transforming it into a powerful Eurasian state.

Research objectives: To provide a comprehensive overview of Muscovite interaction with Tatars during Ivan IV’s reign, both with each successor state of the Jochid ulus and with Tatars who moved to Muscovy and entered Ivan IV’s service. Research materials: This study is based upon Russian sources from the reign of Ivan IV concerning the Tatars, including narratives such as chronicles and documentary evidence such as diplomatic reports. Results and novelty of the research: Muscovite policy toward the Tatars did not derive from a single dominating motive, neither hostility, such as religious animosity toward Muslims or the drive for imperial territorial expansion, nor the desire to cooperate with Tatars for the sake of commerce or the need for steppe military allies. Ivan adapted his policies to individual circumstances, vassal puppet rulers or outright conquest as needed. Tatars from the vassal khanate of Kasimov helped Ivan conquer Kazan’ and Astrakhan’ and fight Crimea. Nogai merchants sold the Muscovite army horses. Muscovites possessed intimate knowledge of foreign Tatars, but also lived in close proximity to “native” Tatars who lived on Muscovite soil or traveled to Moscow as envoys or merchants. However expertise on the Tatars, borrowing Tatar institutions, enrolling Tatar servitors, and conquering successor states of the Golden Horde did not make Muscovy a successor state of the Golden Horde. Nevertheless the Tatars were a fact of life in Ivan IV’s Muscovy, as both allies and enemies.

Research objectives: To trace the fate of the sixteenth-century aristocrats from the Mansur kin of the Crimean Manghits, namely the brothers Baki, Khoja-Akhmed, Ak-Bibi, and Divei. To identify their role in political events in Eastern Europe and to establish the circumstances of the capture, stay in captivity, and the death of Divei – the most famous of these brothers. Research materials: Chronicles, Razriad books, diplomatic documents, folklore, and secondary materials of historical research. Results and novelty of the research: The author traced the fate of the brothers from the noble Maghit kin of Mansur, namely Baki, Khoja-Akhmed, Ak-Bibi and Divei, three of whom became Qarachi-beks in Crimea. They participated in the political life of Crimea, the Nogai Horde, Astrakhan, Azov, the Russian state, Hungary, and Iran. Prince Divei was a typical steppe bagatur, a seeker of fame and fortune, as well as an active enemy of the Russian State. He repeatedly raided the Russian lands and displayed outstanding abilities as a commander. He was aggressive, brave, determined, and cruel. In 1572, he commanded the Crimean troops in the Battle of Molodino and was captured by the Russians. The capture of their commander was one of the reasons for the defeat of the Crimeans. This event once more saved the Russian state from external dependence. Devlet-Girei Khan made considerable efforts to free the Qarachi-bek during the battle, but these were in vain. Attempts to redeem or exchange the prisoner were likewise in vain. Ivan the Terrible was aware of the threat posed by this figure and did not want to free his noble prisoner. In 1576, the death of Prince Divei was announced in Moscow. Historiography calls into question his death in 1575. There is an opinion that Divei was baptized and entered the service of Ivan the Ter­rible under the name of Daniil-murza. In this article, the author contends that those historians who compared Divei with Daniil-murza approached the issue superficially, not considering all the sources, and therefore came to the wrong conclusions. These began to be repeated in subsequent publications. Prince Divei and Daniil-murza were different persons. Divei did not agree to accept Orthodoxy and was executed. The elimination of the famous military leader from its political life contributed to a decrease in the aggression of the Crimean Khanate towards Russia as well as the destabilization of the political situation in Crimea.

The article shows the results of studying the composition and activities of hereditary servicemen in the Samara fortress at the end of the Time of Troubles. The analysis was based on methods of modern “new social history” and “new biographic history”. These methods were applied within the selected chronological and local frameworks of the southeastern borders of Russia at the beginning of the 17th century without ego-sources, and the necessary biographical information has been extracted from office documents and acts. Hereditary servicemen were transferred to Samara mainly from the towns and uezds of the Upper Volga. They had to participate in the struggle against internal enemies — supporters of impostors, in repelling attacks by nomads and Cossacks, in ensuring diplomatic contacts and customs service, in establishing ties with the capital, other towns and regions. They made a contribution into construction new fortresses on the Volga, because Samara remained the only Russian fortress between Kazan and Astrakhan during the Time of Troubles. The privileged status of hereditary servicemen in the Samara was due to the performance of responsible military and administrative duties, relatively high salaries, since the majority of them owned only small estates if at all, did not have serfs or owned a tiny number of them. Experienced soldiers and managers sent to serve in Samara contributed to the strengthening of the authorities in the border town and the further colonization of the outlying lands in the southeast of European Russia.

The article examines the views on the history, archaeology, and historical geography of the Crimean Peninsula of Claude-Charles de Peyssonnel, a famous French diplomat, traveller, and writer of the second half of the eighteenth century. The Russian and Ukrainian scholarships use the treatises by the former consul to research the Crimean Khanate, the peoples of the Northern Caucasus, and even the Zaporozhian Cossacks, while de Peyssonnel’s historical studies are left aside from the analysis. It has been stated that the Frenchman’s works present one of the first attempts in the Modern Pe- riod to investigate the antiquities of the Crimean Peninsula. De Peyssonnel showed his knowledge of ancient and mediaeval written sources, contemporary cartography and scholarship, as well as the knowledge he got during his diplomatic service at the court of the Crimean Khan. He was particularly interested in the ancient topography of the Crimean Peninsula. Despite his vast knowledge, erudition, and practical wit, the Frenchman’s reflections may not always be called “academic” in the modern sense, for the basic methods and principles of current historical and linguistic research were not yet discovered in his age. Nevertheless, the Frenchman mapped many cities, towns, and settlements, which names he learned from ancient and mediaeval writers. De Peysson- nel’s memoires influenced the next generation of travellers and “armchair” researchers, whose works appeared after the annexation of the Crimea by Russia in 1783, particular- ly influential encyclopaedic travelogues published by Matthew Guthrie, Ebenezer Hen- derson, and Frédéric Dubois de Montpereux in the first half of the nineteenth century.

The paper reveals the history of the main body of the Russian Church governance in the 16th century — the Church Council. The author makes an attempt to reconstruct the chronology of its meetings. It is essential to answer the question if the Council was the real body of the church governance or not. In the historiography sometimes it is regarded as not important body because of the few Council’ decrees have remained (the decrees of 1503, 1566, 1572, 1580 etc.). The author of the paper has broadened the historical sources’ base for the study of this church-administrative phenomenon. The research is based on the decrees, the chronicles, the acts, the records of income and expenses, the books of donations, the diplomatic documents, appointment lists, the colophons and the records on the church art’s artefacts, the data of epigraphy, documents on the appointment and resignation of Russian bishops and others. The main concern of the Council was the appointment of new bishops. That’s why the main attention of the article is paid to time when the bishops were appointed, when they left their dioceses or died. The result of the research is represented in the list of 84 cases of the Council’s work which took place or probably took place in the 16th century. It was established that it usually took place in late autumn — at the beginning of winter and finished its work at the end of winter — in the first half of spring. The continuance of meetings lasted from several weeks to several months. It was connected, on the one hand, with establishing of sleigh-road, on the other hand, with the desire of bishops to take part in Easter service in their dioceses (from the 22th of March till the 25th of April). It was found out that the chronology of the Council’s work influenced the political events (forgiveness of boyars, the coronation of Ivan IV, negotiations with the foreign ambassadors, the departure of the sovereign for Aleksandrovskaya sloboda in 1564 etc.). Because all the Councils without exception took place in Moscow the author presupposes that the division of the country into oprichnina and zemshchina didn’t influence the functioning of Council and the tzar was sure of the church elite’s loyalty even in the period of intensive repressions.

The emergence of diplomatic protocol service within the structure of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) of Estonia (1918–40) is a subject that has hitherto not been researched. This is illustrated by the fact that even the complete list of chiefs of protocol (chef du protocole) of the MFA of Estonia has been missing until now. The strengthening of Estonia’s statehood by its international recognition, the accreditation of foreign envoys, and the first state visits brought about the need for a thorough understanding of all nuances of diplomatic protocol and ceremonial. Nevertheless, the office of a separate chief of protocol was created in the structure of the MFA of Estonia only according to the new Foreign Service Act, decreed by the Head of State Konstantin Päts on 13 March 1936; i.e. more than 18 years after the declaration of Estonia’s independence. Prior to 1936, the functions of protocol officers were usually fulfilled by the head of the MFA’s administrative or political department. This article focuses on three core issues: 1) who were the chiefs of protocol? 2) their functions and how diplomatic protocol was regulated in the MFA; 3) the reason why a separate office of the chief of protocol was not created earlier than 1936. The key source for this research is the MFA collection in the Estonian National Archives (RA, ERA.957). There are no clear sources regarding the functions of the chief of protocol before 1922. The field was most probably shaped and shared by several officials, including the head of the political department Hermann Karl Hellat (1872–1953) and William Tomingas (1895–1972), the junior private secretary of Foreign Minister Jaan Tõnisson (1868–1941?). Everything connected to international practices was probably influenced by the most experienced diplomats of the young state, namely the members of Estonia’s foreign delegation, which had already been created in 1917. Another major influence was Foreign Minister Jaan Poska (1866–1920), who as a former mayor of Tallinn, the former governor of the autonomous Governorate of Estonia, and the head of Estonia’s delegation at the peace talks with Soviet Russia, had extensive experience in protocol-related matters. Hans Johannes (Johan) Ernst Markus (1884–1969) can be deemed the first chief of protocol to be mentioned in the hitherto known sources of the MFA. According to an MFA report to the Estonian government from July of 1922, Markus was the head of the MFA’s Western political department and performed the duties of ‘master of ceremonies’ as well. In January of 1923, Markus was appointed head of the MFA’s administrative department. He remained in this office until April of 1927, coordinating the state visits of the President of Latvia Jānis Čakste (February of 1924), the Secretary General of the League of Nations Eric Drummond (February of 1924), and the President of Finland Lauri Kristian Relander (May of 1925), as well as the state visits of Estonia’s Head of State, the presentation of credentials, and day-to-day work regarding diplomatic privileges and immunities. Since the chief of protocol was responsible for organising ceremonies connected to the Head of State (Riigivanem), Markus could be considered not only as a coordinator of the MFA’s protocol matters, but as the chief of state protocol. Markus certainly did not work alone. He could rely on the administrative department and basically the whole MFA in fulfilling his functions, while also counting on the support of the aide-de-camp to the Head of State. Nevertheless, it was Markus who laid the ’cornerstone’ for the best practices that could be systematised and used by his successors. In April of 1927, the functions of the chief of protocol were taken over by Johan Leppik (1894–1965), the former Envoy to Poland and Romania, and Chargé d’Affaires in Czechoslovakia. In August of 1927, Leppik was appointed head of the MFA’s political department. According to the MFA’s working arrangement, Leppik retained the functions of chef du protocole in his new office starting from January of 1928. Since the grand, first-ever state visit of a monarch to Estonia, by King Gustaf V of Sweden in June of 1929, and the visit of the President of Poland Ignacy Mościcki in August of 1930 (which were preceded by the state visits of Estonia’s Head of State to those countries) required extensive preparations, Leppik could rely on the work of his subordinate, the head of the political bureau and deputy chief of protocol Elmar-Johann Kirotar (1899–1985). In June of 1931, Leppik was succeeded by the director of the bureau of law Artur Haman (Tuldava) (1897–1942) in his office as chief of protocol. Haman (Tuldava) put great effort into systematising existing practices related to protocol (incl. Presentation of credentials, and receptions) into a comprehensive compendium, which has been preserved to this day. The efficient work of Kirotar and Tuldava was probably noted by Estonia’s leadership, since once the separaate office of the chief of protocol had been created within the structure of the MFA, the position was filled first by Kirotar (1936–9) and then by Tuldava (1939–40). The quest for stability was most probably connected to the strong presidential power that shaped Estonia’s political life in the latter half of the 1930s. The personal influence of the head of state became more important in filling high-ranking positions in the state structure. According to the Foreign Service Act adopted by Parliament (Riigikogu) on 30 May 1930, departmental directors were appointed by the Foreign Minister. The Foreign Service Act decreed by the Head of State on 13 March 1936 changed this procedure. According to the latter, departmental directors (incl. the chief of protocol) were appointed and dismissed by the Head of State (upon taking into consideration proposals from the Foreign Minister). There is no clear answer to the question of why there was no separate office of the chief of protocol in the 1920s, since these functions needed to be fulfilled anyway. This was most probably connected to budgetary restrictions i.e. the need to avoid all kinds of ’unnecessary’ expenses. In the 1930s, the director of the administrative department Jaan Mölder (1880–1942, in office 1935–6) and the head of the consular bureau August Koern (1900–89, in office 1936) also briefly fulfilled the functions of the chief of protocol. The latter was especially involved in systematising the rules and regulations of diplomatic practices. Like his predecessors and successors, he sent numerous inquiries to Estonia’s representations abroad to collect information on matters connected to privileges and immunities, decorations, preseance, organisation of state funerals, etc. According to sources at the Estonian National Archives, Estonia’s MFA collected information on international diplomatic practice everywhere that it was represented by its missions abroad. Already during the first years of Estonia’s independence, the MFA possessed the popular Guide to Diplomatic Practice by Sir Ernest Mason Satow (first issued in 1917) and several protocol-related compendiums from Finland, the United States of America, Great Britain, etc. It can be concluded that without a rich heritage of diplomatic practice of its own, Estonia was quickly able to successfully adapt to the international environment in matters of diplomatic protocol.