Proceedings of the International scientific and practical conference ―Paris Science and Education Forum‖ (March 2-4, 2026) / Publisher website: www.naukainfo.com. – Paris, France, 2026. - 293 p.

86 A comparative legal method is applied to identify differences in security implementation across selected models of host State legal systems, including continental European, common law, and mixed or transitional systems. The systemic-structural approach is used to conceptualize the institution of the duty commandant as a component of a broader diplomatic security mechanism. Additionally, elements of institutional analysis are employed to assess how domestic policing structures of host States influence the operational practice of diplomatic protection. Results and Discussion. 1. Universal Legal Standard and Variable Implementation. The inviolability of diplomatic premises constitutes a uniform international standard. Nevertheless, the practical realization of this obligation differs substantially across jurisdictions. These differences stem from the internal organization of policing systems, regulatory approaches to public assemblies, standards governing use of force, and procedural requirements for documenting criminal or administrative offenses. In practice, the duty commandant operates within a legal space shaped by both international norms and host State regulations. While the host State bears the primary responsibility for external protection, internal preventive measures remain within the competence of the diplomatic mission. The effectiveness of this dual structure depends on the degree of coordination and legal clarity between both sides. 2. Continental European Model. In countries with centralized law enforcement systems and well-developed administrative procedures—typical of many continental European jurisdictions—security mechanisms surrounding diplomatic premises are usually regulated by detailed procedural frameworks. Police authorities often maintain designated protocols for responding to incidents involving diplomatic facilities. Within such systems, the duty commandant‘s role primarily consists of internal perimeter control, access management, and prompt communication with police services. Cooperation is usually institutionalized, with clearly defined reporting mechanisms and structured response times.