Abstract
This article examined the complexities of diplomatic and consular law in conflict zones, focusing on the legal, operational, and geopolitical challenges that hindered effective diplomatic engagement. Set against the backdrop of escalating armed conflicts, hybrid warfare, and the growing presence of non-state actors, the work assessed the extent to which traditional frameworks such as the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations remained effective in contemporary conflict situations. The research employed a doctrinal methodology, relying on primary legal sources, including treaties, case law, and state practice, complemented by secondary materials such as academic writings, UN reports, and institutional guidelines. Case studies drawn from Iraq, Afghanistan, South Sudan, and similar conflict theatres revealed persistent violations of diplomatic and consular norms. These included targeted kidnappings of officials, denial of consular access, and the weaponisation of diplomatic premises. Findings demonstrated that while the Vienna Conventions provided a foundational framework, their state-centric orientation proved inadequate in conflicts dominated by non-state actors. The work further revealed that international organizations, particularly the UN and ICC, responded reactively rather than proactively, leaving gaps in the protection of diplomats and consular officials. The article recommended revising the Vienna Conventions to explicitly criminalize attacks on diplomats in conflict zones and impose binding state accountability. It further proposed the establishment of a UN task force for diplomatic access and crisis negotiation, the development of bilateral “safe passage” agreements, and the inclusion of non-state actors in provisional legal dialogues. Overall, the article contributed to advancing the discourse on diplomatic and consular protection in conflict environments.
Keywords: Diplomatic Immunity; Conflict Zones and Vienna Conventions