Document Type : Article


1 Assistant Prof., Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 MA. in International Law, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

3 Ph.D. Student in International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran


The reason which consular protection (CP) institution was established based on, supporting people to discover their violated rights. In traditional international law, prevailing view was that CP is the exclusive authority of states and individuals has no rights to resort to it. Now this question may raise that if a person’s rights and legal interests has violated illegally in a foreign state and above mentioned person couldn’t reach to its legal rights with exhausting to local remedies, does his governments is obliged to exercise CP to its nationals or could to refuse this request due to its authority? In other words, the question is that CP is part of exclusive authority of states or is part of individual international human rights which states have to exercise it due to national request? Conclusion of this paper shows that today, in the light of changes and developments in international human rights, CP is part of individual international human rights and states have to exercise it due to national request, at least in theory.


1. فارسی
1. الهویی نظری، حمید (1389)، رویکرد انسانی در آرای دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری، تهران: دادگستر، چ اول.
2. بیگ‌زاده، ابراهیم (1385)، «حمایت کنسولی از اتباع»، فصلنامۀ سیاست خارجی، سال بیستم، ش 4.
3. جلالی، محمود (1382)، «نقش دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در توسعۀ حقوق بشر»، نشریۀ اندیشه‌های حقوقی، سال اول، ش 3.
2. انگلیسی
A) Book
4. Akeherst, M., (1998), a modern introduction to international law, 6th edition, London, Unwin Hyman.
5. Cangado Trindade, A.A. , (2005), "International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium-General Course on Public International Law", 317 Recueil des Cours de I'Acadmie de Droit International de La Haye.
6. Cohen-Jonathan, (2000), "Cour Europienne des Droits de l'Homme et droit international giniral.
7. Meyer, NH, (2001), the world court in action: judging among nations, lanban, rowman and littlefield.
B) Articles
8. Fitzpatrick, J. , (2002), “Consular Rights and the Death Penalty after LaGrand”, in American Society of International Law, Proceedings of the 96th Annual Meeting.
9. Mennecke, M., (2001), “toward the humanization of the Vienna convention of consular rights- the lagrand case before the international court of justice”, 44 german yearbook of international law.
10. Miller, Nathan, (2002), “an international jurisprudence? The operation of “precedent” across international tribunal”, LJIL.
C) Document
11. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961
12. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963
13. Advisory opinion of Inter-American human rights court, No.16, 1999
14. SRE/Mexico, Notice Circular, 14.10.1999, 1-6.
15. SRE/Mexican Embassy in Washington D.C., Note of 17.07.2002, 3.
16. MRE/Venezuela, circular letter n. DGSRC-a-18, of 04.07.1986
17. Brazil/National Police, report no. 436-DIRSEG-JESE-DEX-IE, of 31 December 2001
18. MRE/EI Salvador, Annex to doc. DUAJ/AEJ/1840-01
19. MRE/EI Salvador, doc. DGSE/SAC/1042/98
D) Judgement
20. Vienna cinvention on consular relations (Paraguay V. USA), 1998, Declaration of judge Koroma
21. Vienna cinvention on consular relations (Paraguay V. USA), Provisional mesures order of 9 April 1998
22. Vienna cinvention on consular relations (Paraguay V. USA), 1998, order of 10 november 1998
23. Lagrand cade (Germany V. USA), ICJ reports, 1999, order of 3 march 1999
24. Lagrand cade (Germany V. USA), ICJ reports, 2001
25. Avena and other Mexican nationals case (mexico V. USA), ICJ reports 2004
26. Avena and other Mexican nationals case, separate opinion of judge Tomka
27. Ahmadou Sadio Diallo case, Judgement of 30 November 2010, Joint Declaration of Judges Al-khasawneh, Simma, Bennouna, Cancado Terindad and Yusuf
28. Barcelona Traction Case, (Belgium V. Spain) ICJ Reports, 1970
29. Concurring Opinion of Judge A.A. Canado Trindade. For the pleadings and oral arguments before the Court, cf. IACtHR, OC-16/99, of 01.10.1999, Series B, No. 16, 2000
30. the pleadings of the co-agent and counsel for Germany (B. Simma), in: IJ, public sitting of 13.11.2000, doc. 2000/26, 60/62; and doc. 2000/27, 9-11, 32 and 36.
31. ICJ, Memorial of the Federal Republic of Germany (LaGrand case), vol. 1, 16.09.1999
32. ICJ, Counter-Memorial Submitted by the United States of America (LaGrand case), 27.03.2000
33. Organisation of American States , resolutions AG/RES. 1717(XXX-0/00), of 5 June 2000 (fifth considerandum)
34. Organisation of American States, AG/RES. 1775(XXXI-0/01), of 5 June 2001 (sixth considerandum)