Introduction
Worldwide and historically, we look at âconsulsâ (at this point, this is a generic term without the specifics of differing ranks and nomenclatures for these foreign officials) as a permanent institution dedicated to international relations of a very specific nature bound by well-established rules and patterns of behavior. Although global âinstitutionsâ are quite visible through iconic physical structures like the UN building in NYC, the âconsular institutionâ as an intangible concept that has no edifice still materializes in the myriad of consular buildings (or clearly marked divisions thereof) seen around the world: the consulates. To understand how the physical and the abstract meld together as an institution with relevance to all of us in todayâs world, we must have a basic understanding of the historical consul. But, as one credible source claimed, this noble goal is hampered by the fact that these records are closely connected to the roots of diplomacy so that consuls are either considered the precursors to that form of international relations, or they evolved side by side with the diplomatic institution.
History
As any study of times gone by is often replete with information that baffles and confounds, consular history is particularly so, as I just mentioned, because itâs enmeshed with the records on diplomacy. It wasnât until nations around the world decided their official representation abroad should be organized as two distinct tracksâone for diplomats, one for consulsâthat domestic records began reflecting this duality. In 1868, France, the undisputed leader in diplomatic affairs, began requiring an entrance exam for anyone aspiring to be a consul, thereby creating a merit-based system of selection thatâs the standard in most countries today. Itâd take the United States till 1924 to adopt the same model, often serving as a current example for emerging new states, like the recently independent Eastern European countries that lack the traditions of an already-existing system of diplomatic and consular relations.
Historians usually like to go back to somewhere in the millennia leading up to the beginning of the Common Era (more exactly in the years 5000 to 3500 BCE) to begin their search for the point when men acting like consuls can claim their place in history. Although warring tribes in China and Mesopotamia were already then sending messengers of a diplomatic nature between each other to negotiate for peace, they didnât yet hold the diplomatic title of âambassadors.â Nor does the term consul appear in the annals of that ancient period. As I choose among the amusing details of history (not to say, âfun factsâ) Iâm quite aware of having been taken to task in one of my previous writings for not pinning the birth date of the consular institution to Greek colonists a thousand years BCE. The fact is that existing literature canât agree on that either. Some writers cautiously approach the dilemma by using a word like âprecursorsâ (of the consular institution), but for purposes of this text, weâll cross over the threshold to the Common Era (the âADâ centuries). Here, we find people who acted consul-like, without the title but performing tasks we now consider âconsular.â The obvious question then becomes what status, if any, a backward-looking title might confer on a person.
While not attempting an answer, I acknowledge instead that those âconsulsâ of old continue to confuse us, the modern people, with the endless variations of their historical role. For this book, I prefer to side with scholars who tie the consular roots to whatâs often referred to as the âRoman period,â which covers the epoch of the Roman Kingdom, Republic, and Empire, and runs roughly from 509 BCE to 1453 AD (âMiddle Agesâ) when the extensive empire dissolved. One writer has used the activities from that period to categorize the âconsulsâ (with and without the title) as follows: consuls of traders; of the sea; as tribunals; and at sea. This brief example already draws attention to the importance of exact language since âofâ (the sea) and âatâ (sea) show two different historical functions, the former relating mainly to maritime conflicts and the latter to the role of a consul when traveling with caravans of ships. As Chapter 2 will show us, history still hasnât put to rest other linguistic dilemmas relative to the modern consul.
Although the nature of consular officials during the âRoman periodâ canât be captured in a simple way, and since their duties varied with the geography of the Roman Kingdom, Republic, or Empire, itâs known that the Republic was ruled by two consuls who shared the power. Mainly, they were magistrates who presided over administrative, legislative, and judicial matters. When, in 1060, the city-state of Venice began sending consuls to major trade hubs abroad they were also given the authority as judges over fellow Venetians residing outside the Roman territory. As weâll see in Chapter 5, a modified form of that concept of extra-territoriality is still with us today as consuls are entitled to limited privileges and immunities in the foreign country where they are posted. In 1299, after the rise of the Ottoman Empire, consuls were also asked by their home government (todayâs consular parlance, âsending stateâ) to report on trade negotiations with the Sultan and the overall conditions in his vast land (which we mostly know as Turkey today). By 1453, when the Ottomans had conquered Constantinople from the eastern part of the Roman Empire, trade routes expanded in other directions than the east. With that, the role of the Roman representatives changed.
With the coup dâĂ©tat of Napoleon in 1799, the history of the consular institution took yet another turn. The âconsulateâ appeared as a form of government where the supreme executive power was held by three men with the title of consul. In a referendum three years later, the transformational French statesman was made âFirst Consul for Life,â a position he only held for two years till he crowned himself Emperor of France, the nation he ruled till he was exiled in 1814. Although not necessarily copying the Napoleonic model, other countries also concentrated the highest governmental power in one or more persons with the consular title. Paraguay (an independent nation from 1811) is but one example of this arrangement as it was periodically governed by three âConsuls of the Republicâ till the mid-nineteenth century.
With the tremendous growth in the industrial and maritime trades, consular officials everywhere began regaining their original importance as trade facilitators and protectors of their fellow citizens. In fact, Chapter 3 will show how those two areas of activities define how we generally understand the consular institution today, although the originally illustrious status of these âconsul-typeâ men had started to fade at a much earlier time in history. For instance, beginning with the late ninth century, their role had become more honorific, such as overseeing the opening of chariot races;âhere we can already see a similarity with the prominence consuls enjoy in many social circles today. Meanwhile, and just like now, ambassadors were serving as the direct personal representatives of their own sovereign to a foreign head of state dealing with top-level policy matters while consuls continued to maintain their original functions. As if to aggrandize them, French statesman Chateaubriand (before his death in 1848) stated that the time of the ambassadors had passed and that of consuls had arrived. Still, itâd take more than a century for most of the world to formally clarify and adopt separate rules for the two branches of a nationâs foreign representation;âthe consular and the diplomatic service. No longer would consuls be confused with ambassadors, except by some who still today lack the knowledge and perhaps the understanding of the differences in function and protected status.
As I mentioned earlier, only certain dates have been included to give some context to the history of the consular institution. Or, better yet, the genesis of a consular system that operated long before the modern formalization of it in 1963. That was the year when the delegates from ninety-five nations convened in Vienna, Austria to adopt a multilateral treaty on consular relations (the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations; henceforth referred to as VCCR). Clearly choosing to stay away from any controversy involving the exact birth of the consular institution, the participants adopted a formal Preamble to this document where they recognized these interactions âbetween peoplesâ had been in existence âsince ancient times.â The problem is, of course, that the concept of âancientâ is much too subjective to pinpoint an indisputable date, even within a century. The dilemma also takes us back to the unresolved philosophical question if a historical person without the actual consular title can be considered a consul in todayâs meaning of the word, when thereâs evidence of him having performed some functions that only retroactively resemble those of a modern consul.
Like other academics, I believe that merely holding a title in days gone by doesnât necessarily a historical consul make. If his duties were such that they simply arenât compatible with the way in which modern consuls function, we can either look at them as an unconventional and amusing part of history or we can say that because thereâs no justification for the functions he was expected to perform, the title-holderâregardless of what history calls himâdoesnât warrant any further scrutiny in this book. Take for example, two tidbits of history for which itâs impossible to find a parallel to the role of the consuls of today even as they strive, in the words of the Vienna delegates, to foster friendship and peace between nations, âirrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems.â That would have been a tall order for a horse and a four-year old child! In records of the past, these anecdotes have the Roman Emperor Caligula (37â41AD) deciding to make his beloved stallion a consul, and the pope having named a young boy consul to Rome in 853. History doesnât disclose how these two consular selectionsâone equine, the other infantileâmight have worked out for the horse or the child. Or, for the Romans.
As entertaining as these tales may be, they also point us to the early reason for why a consular position was so highly valued, although it waxed and waned through the centuries. Often protégés or relatives of the emperor, Roman consuls were sometimes self-appointed or heirs to the title, and they also controlled some parts of the church. Soldiers had to swear an oath of allegiance to a consul, who, because he led legions into combat, often died on the battle field himself, leading to vacant consular positions that, because they had to be filled, led to all kinds of politicking and calls for favors.
Beyond what Iâve already mentioned, thereâs no reason in a book of this nature to present further arguments for or against an exact point for the birth of the consular institution as we understand it today. Still, with my brief historical timeline in the background, one question of practical consequence remains: when might the modern consular title as we apply it today have been used for the first time? The usual assumption is that this doesnât take place until the fourteenth century, although at least one researcher pinpoints it to 1117 AD. Others are more general with their statement that âtwelfth centuryâ is sufficient. The word itself, consul, comes from a Latin transitive verb that translates into âconsultâ or âtake counsel [from],â which is somewhat ironic considering how one early Greek historian wrote about consul-like representatives in the two centuries leading up to the beginning of the Common Era, that they were as powerful as kings. Surely, royalty from that periodâin this case, with the consular analogyâdidnât need to âtake counsel fromâ anyone.
Widespread, But Not Universal, Rules
Even though some common rules had evolved over the years, itâd take centuries for universally accepted standards to define the role of consular officials who represented their country in another nation. A 1769 commercial agreement between France and Spain is often held up as the first modern attempt at legislating consular matters, but this was a bilateral rather than a multilateral arrangement. Much more than a century passed before the time was ripe for a regional definition of the status and nature of consuls. This occurred during the Sixth International Conference of American States in Havana in 1928, when the main item on the agenda was the generic âconsular agent.â Still, it would take another thirty-five years (till Vienna, in 1963) before a much larger number of nations revisited the consular institution as a whole.
The difficulty of the task facing the delegates to the Vienna conference is apparent in the written record of the proceedings, which was preceded by a lengthy pre-convention process. To some it may seem ...