Talk:Legation

Untitled
Although most legations became embassies in the 15 years or so after the second world war, and becoming almost extinct by the late 1960s, reflecting a view that all nations were equal rather than there being great powers who exchanged embassies with each other and lesser powers who only warranted a lower level of diplomatic exchange, the use of legations, or diplomatic relations at level of Minister rather than Ambassador, was still in use into the 1990s.

Some nations such as the Scandinavian countries maintained legations in South Africa during the apartheid era, having never upgraded them to embassies as they did with other nations, to reflect their attitude to the South African government policy, while nonetheless still maintaining a diplomatic presence there.

During an interim period between the independence to the former Micronesian trust territories and the formal end of the UN trusteeships, countries such as Australia which wished to establish diplomatic relations with the new island states did so at minister level pending the official ending of the trusteeship by the UN after which time they were elevated to ambassadorial level.

The history of the decline of the use of legations is a worthy obscure topic waiting for someone to research.

Envoy?
Wassa diff with plain ole "mission"? There are still plenty of countries which maintain non-embassy presences in other countries. The US representative in TAIWAN, say.

Has something materially changed here or just the terminology? Instead of "envoy" and "mission", can I speak of the American "legate" and "legation" to/in Taiwan? 67.150.82.193 (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Benny Hill
Movie "Who done it?" features the "Uralian Legation", complete with sign!

A factoid which has yet to make it to google, apparently. But the clip is on YouTube. 67.150.82.193 (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)