IEL – International Law - Jurisdiction and Immunities, week 3
What is jurisdiction?
- As a legal concept, jurisdiction stands for the authority of an institution to create, apply,
and enforce the law.
- In international law, jurisdiction means the power of a State to exert its sovereign power
and influence and create an impact on individuals, property, etc.
- The question of jurisdiction rotates around what can States, as sovereign powers, do. What
powers do states have and what are the limits of those powers.
For example…
- The Netherlands has sovereign powers to grant foreigners the right to reside on its territory.
The Netherlands granted us a right to be here. Regardless of someone being from Europe,
that right was granted because the NL joined the Schengen agreements. No need to apply
for a visa. If someone is not from Europe, then they apply for a student visa and the NL
approves the request and then someone has the visa as a legal right to be to the NL. –
Sovereign powers to grant a right.
- The Netherlands also has sovereign powers to deny, revoke, or permanently reject such a
right. – The visa can be denied. Or even revoked if someone commits a crime.
- Individuals residing in the Netherlands can be brought to Dutch courts.
- Dutch authorities can enforce judgments of Dutch courts regarding such individuals.
- Jurisdiction is the power states have regarding certain acts, situations and persons.
States have jurisdiction to (3 types of jurisdictions)
- prescribe - States have the powers to make laws creating rights, obligations,
prohibitions, punishments.
o States have powers to legislate, so they can create rights and obligations. Doesn’t
matter if we are state nationals. We have certain rights and obligations under Dutch
law, even though we are not Dutch nationals.
o Example: obligated to have a health insurance, to pay taxes.
o Power to prescribe certain conduct – to create some rights, obligations, prohibitions
and punishments in the national legislations.
- adjudicate - States’ courts have powers to receive, treat, and determine cases that are
referred to them.
o Not enough – you also need to be capable of adjudicating that conduct.
o It is tricky.
o Common when it comes to immunity because the question of immunity rotates
around immunity of courts.
o Court of one state cannot adjudicate cases that involve another state.
o Power to hear and settle disputes.
- enforce - States have the powers to (physically) ensure compliance with their laws or
judgments of their courts
o To apply the law.
o Ability to enforce the law.
o Police having ability to arrest.
o State organs maintaining order.
o Power to ensure compliance with legal commands.
- Sometimes you don’t need adjudication. Sometimes enforcement goes directly from
prescription. Example: Police has that authority, jurisdiction, power acting on behalf of the
state, to enforce prohibitions that exist under Dutch law for example.
,PCIJ, Case of S.S. ‘Lotus’ (1927)
- Most important case adopted by international law.
- French ship ‘Lotus’ collides with another ship in 1926 in the high seas, off the Turkish
coast.
- Eight Turkish nationals die.
- Turkey initiates an investigation regarding the incident.
- Was the crew of the ship that were to blame or was it the crew of another ship?
- France claims that Turkey lacks jurisdiction (doesn’t have the authority to adjudicate the
situation) and thus violates international law by initiating the investigation.
- This case despite having sources of international law (week 2), also is a case about
jurisdiction.
- Jurisdictional dispute: whether Turkey can have the authority to open such an investigation.
- ICJ took the side of Turkey. By doing that, it mentioned this basic restriction on
jurisdiction: “the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is
that […] it may not exersice its power in any form in the territory of another State.” –
fundamental idea on jurisdiction in international law.
- Conclusion: Jurisdiction to prescribe, adjudicate, enforce is not bound by the jurisdiction
of another state.
The basic idea of jurisdiction
- Example: We have the personal liberty to do whatever we want as long as it doesn’t infringe
the liberty of other people. This is how it also works with jurisdiction of states.
- States are free to act they see fit, unless there is a legal restriction of their conduct which
they have accepted beforehand.
- There is this presumption of liberty. States can do whatever they want to, as long as they
don’t violate some restrictions. If there is another obligation or prohibition, then acting that
way would be a violation of international law à internationally wrongful act.
- States are thus free to adopt whatever laws, adjudicate them in their courts, and enforce
them in whatever way they want, as long as they don’t do so in violation of sovereign rights
of another State. – it follows from the principle of sovereign equality. States are equal and
that means that states cannot have a jurisdiction over another state.
- The basic idea behind jurisdiction is the principle of sovereign equality.
- Therefore, the principles of jurisdiction and ideas of jurisdiction are part of the law of co-
existence. It exists to ensure there are no frictions between other states. E.g., The NL can
do whatever it wants in the NL, but the NL cannot do anything in Belgium, unless Belgium
agrees.
Principles of jurisdiction (upon states claim they have jurisdiction)
- Territorial jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction on the basis of nationality (2 types)
o Active nationality principle
o Passive nationality principle
- Protective jurisdiction (kind of new)
- Universal jurisdiction (controversial)
Territorial jurisdiction
- Most basic because a state has territorial entities, so jurisdiction is primarily territorial.
- A State has jurisdiction over all and any acts committed or occurred on its territory and
over everyone located on its territory. Example of NL as mentioned before: can adopt
, whatever laws, adjudicate them, enforce them on its territory, over anyone on its territory.
Does not matter if we are or not Dutch nationals.
- A State can prescribe whatever laws it pleases (granted it does not violate international
law).
- There are restrictions. Restrictions on what laws can states adopt, primarily in the area of
international human rights law. Because states have accepted certain obligations upon
themselves and their human rights, it would violate their international human obligations if
they adopted laws infringeable of those rights. E.g., The NL is a party to ECHR, which
means that those rights guaranteed by the convention are protected. The NL cannot make
laws that would infringe those laws. It would be illegal under international law.
- These limits are not as thick as they seem. As long as HR are not violated, states can do
whatever they want. They can raise taxes, criminalize conduct etc.
- “Territory” means land + territorial sea + airspace above + vessels and aircrafts registered
in the State: If a ship is registered in the NL, when it is in the high seas, the Dutch law
would apply there. Same for aircrafts. – not just land but also water boundaries and
airspace.
Objective and subjective territoriality
- “Objective territoriality” focuses on the effects of an act: a State has jurisdiction over it if
it is completed on its territory, even if parts of an act happened elsewhere.
- Example: There are Belgium nationals who smuggled drugs in the NL. They prepared them,
had their base in Antwerp, packed them, delivered them to the NL. The NL could then
invoke objective territoriality to have jurisdiction over this act, upon these individuals.
Even if the origin of the act is in another country.
- That is because the completion of the act happened in Dutch territory.
- “Subjective territoriality” focuses on the origin of an act: a State has jurisdiction over acts
completed abroad if they are initiated or planned on its territory.
- Example: In the same scenario, Belgium would have jurisdiction because it originated
there, even if it was completed in the NL.
Active nationality principle
- A State has jurisdiction over its nationals regardless of where they are located.
- Who counts as a national is up for States to decide. Term by domestic legislation. It can
vary.
- People with dual nationality fall under the jurisdiction of both States.
- Sometimes, jurisdiction is only limited to active nationality principle. Example:
International Criminal Law: Rome Statute in International Criminal Court (ICC). It also
has the nationality principle but only the active one. It doesn’t recognize the passive one.
This means that, the NL is a party of the Rome Statute, so it does recognize the jurisdiction
of ICC, so if a perpetrator is a Dutch national, then the ICC can exercise its jurisdiction.
But not if it’s just a Dutch victim. Only the nationality of the perpetrator matters There’s
limitation in here.
Passive nationality principle
- It refers to individuals when they do something, commit certain acts, fail to commit certain
acts required by law, don’t perform obligations.
- A national is a victim of an act of someone else.
- A State may assert jurisdiction over acts committed abroad if the victims of that act are its
nationals.
- Especially common in relation to international terrorism.
,- E.g., the Netherlands could claim jurisdiction over the destruction of Malaysian flight
MH17 destroyed by Russian nationals in Ukraine’s territory because most of the victims
were Dutch nationals.
- Lotus case: France could claim jurisdiction because it was a French ship but so could
Turkey on the basis of passive nationally principle.
- There’s no hierarchy of the principles of jurisdiction here. Several states may claim
jurisdiction on the same thig.
- This principle requires a higher bar, a stronger link between an act and state claiming the
jurisdiction.
Protective principle
- The bar is even higher.
- A State may extend its jurisdiction over matters with harmful effects regardless of where
the act occurs or who commits it.
- It requires a genuine threat to a vital State interest. – important!
- For instance, money falsification, counterfeiting money, drugs smuggling, human
trafficking, falsification of documents etc.
- Example: US has its own currency: US dollar. Now, you make fake US dollars in Bulgaria.
Regardless of where you make the money, US has jurisdiction over you – it’s so harmful,
it threatens a vital interest of state of US. Therefore, USA can claim jurisdiction over the
act of falsification of US dollars if it happens in Bulgaria. Wherever and whoever are the
citizens does not matter because it’s the protective principle. Has to do with the nature of
the act.
Universal jurisdiction – Tricky.
- Again, has to do with the nature of the act.
- Some offences are so serious that any State may claim jurisdiction over them no matter
where they have been committed, by whom, and who have been the victims.
- Classic example: piracy (17th – 18th century). States had this idea: Whoever catches a
pirate can do whatever they want. Does not matter who is the pirate, who are the victims
of piracy. Any state can arrest, detain, destroy the ships of pirates etc., It made practical
sense because how else would you fight a pirate if they don’t fall into the territorial
jurisdiction of any particular state?
- Today: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes. – so severe that every state
has a right to prosecute specific crimes – very serious, but also very tricky. à Jus
cogens violations.
- Softer form of universal jurisdiction: aut dedere aut judicare. – If there is a perpetrator
who is accused of crimes against humanity, a state on whose territory that person is
located must either prosecute that person or if its uncapable of doing that, should do
everything on its powers to transfer that person to another territorial jurisdiction where
that person can be prosecuted.
- Arrest Warrant case (see state immunity on high-ranking officials).
Sometimes, states have jurisdiction to prescribe and adjudicate. No jurisdiction to enforce.
Happens often.
For instance: 2 Russian special agents went to the UK and tried to kill the former Russian spy
with poisoning. Then they went back to Russia.
- Jurisdiction to prescribe and adjudicate?
o UK: UK has jurisdiction on the basis of territoriality because the crime
happened in UK’s territory. Territoriality principle: UK territory, objective
, territoriality. Doesn’t matter if it was planned in Russia (the poison). It is UK’s
territory and its citizen who is the victim.
o Russia: Also has jurisdiction: Russian nationals.Nationality principle:
perpetrators are Russian nationals / citizens. They did something bad, not only
on UK law but also on Russian law because this is an attempted murder. Illegal
as well, even if the act was committed elsewhere. Can also apply subjective
territoriality for Russa.
- Jurisdiction to enforce?
o The UK courts were investigating the case and came up with the verdict, but
could they enforce it?
o Normally UK would arrest the perpetrators and put them to jail BUT they are
NOT in the UK anymore. They went back to Russia.
o No jurisdiction to enforce for the UK.
o The UK police cannot go to Russia to arrest the perpetrators there and enforce
the sentence. Why? – LOTUS principle: States cannot exercise their jurisdiction
on the territory of another state.
All of this jurisdiction is pure international customary law. No treaties for that, it’s all state
practice and opinion juris. Principles of jurisdiction, its different types etc., – all of it is custom.
What are immunities?
- Immunities are exceptions from jurisdiction.
- In certain cases, a State is barred from exercising its jurisdiction over foreign acts or
individuals – even when committed on its own territory.
- Even if jurisdiction is present, immunities mean that a State is procedurally precluded
from exercising it in specific instances.
- State is prohibited from exercising its sovereign rights.
Immunities for adjudication and enforcement
- Art. 5 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property:
“A State enjoys immunity, in respect of itself and its property, from the jurisdiction of
the courts of another State subject to the provisions of the present Convention.” – basic
principle of immunity. It’s not just the LOTUS principle, it is the general principle of
state immunity. States are immune from other courts.
o Example: Court in the NL cannot adjudicate Belgium. Cannot be held
responsible for anything, cannot open investigations etc., States are equal so
they cannot have jurisdiction in respect of each-other. They can have
jurisdiction in respect of nationals, individuals as we saw but not in respect of
each-other.
- This convention is not yet enforced, because it hasn’t been ratified from the sufficient
number of states (27/30). However, it is regarded as codified customary international
law.
- ≠ types of immunities such as: immunity for adjudication.
- But even when immunity from adjudication is waived or rejected, there is still an
immunity from enforcement.
- States, as a rule, enjoy double immunity: first from another State’s courts, and second,
should the first one fails, from enforcement of those courts’ decisions. For a state to
exercise its jurisdiction over another state, the other state must first consent to it, and
the courts must approve and enforce that consent à something that rarely happens.
States hold on to their immunities.
What is jurisdiction?
- As a legal concept, jurisdiction stands for the authority of an institution to create, apply,
and enforce the law.
- In international law, jurisdiction means the power of a State to exert its sovereign power
and influence and create an impact on individuals, property, etc.
- The question of jurisdiction rotates around what can States, as sovereign powers, do. What
powers do states have and what are the limits of those powers.
For example…
- The Netherlands has sovereign powers to grant foreigners the right to reside on its territory.
The Netherlands granted us a right to be here. Regardless of someone being from Europe,
that right was granted because the NL joined the Schengen agreements. No need to apply
for a visa. If someone is not from Europe, then they apply for a student visa and the NL
approves the request and then someone has the visa as a legal right to be to the NL. –
Sovereign powers to grant a right.
- The Netherlands also has sovereign powers to deny, revoke, or permanently reject such a
right. – The visa can be denied. Or even revoked if someone commits a crime.
- Individuals residing in the Netherlands can be brought to Dutch courts.
- Dutch authorities can enforce judgments of Dutch courts regarding such individuals.
- Jurisdiction is the power states have regarding certain acts, situations and persons.
States have jurisdiction to (3 types of jurisdictions)
- prescribe - States have the powers to make laws creating rights, obligations,
prohibitions, punishments.
o States have powers to legislate, so they can create rights and obligations. Doesn’t
matter if we are state nationals. We have certain rights and obligations under Dutch
law, even though we are not Dutch nationals.
o Example: obligated to have a health insurance, to pay taxes.
o Power to prescribe certain conduct – to create some rights, obligations, prohibitions
and punishments in the national legislations.
- adjudicate - States’ courts have powers to receive, treat, and determine cases that are
referred to them.
o Not enough – you also need to be capable of adjudicating that conduct.
o It is tricky.
o Common when it comes to immunity because the question of immunity rotates
around immunity of courts.
o Court of one state cannot adjudicate cases that involve another state.
o Power to hear and settle disputes.
- enforce - States have the powers to (physically) ensure compliance with their laws or
judgments of their courts
o To apply the law.
o Ability to enforce the law.
o Police having ability to arrest.
o State organs maintaining order.
o Power to ensure compliance with legal commands.
- Sometimes you don’t need adjudication. Sometimes enforcement goes directly from
prescription. Example: Police has that authority, jurisdiction, power acting on behalf of the
state, to enforce prohibitions that exist under Dutch law for example.
,PCIJ, Case of S.S. ‘Lotus’ (1927)
- Most important case adopted by international law.
- French ship ‘Lotus’ collides with another ship in 1926 in the high seas, off the Turkish
coast.
- Eight Turkish nationals die.
- Turkey initiates an investigation regarding the incident.
- Was the crew of the ship that were to blame or was it the crew of another ship?
- France claims that Turkey lacks jurisdiction (doesn’t have the authority to adjudicate the
situation) and thus violates international law by initiating the investigation.
- This case despite having sources of international law (week 2), also is a case about
jurisdiction.
- Jurisdictional dispute: whether Turkey can have the authority to open such an investigation.
- ICJ took the side of Turkey. By doing that, it mentioned this basic restriction on
jurisdiction: “the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is
that […] it may not exersice its power in any form in the territory of another State.” –
fundamental idea on jurisdiction in international law.
- Conclusion: Jurisdiction to prescribe, adjudicate, enforce is not bound by the jurisdiction
of another state.
The basic idea of jurisdiction
- Example: We have the personal liberty to do whatever we want as long as it doesn’t infringe
the liberty of other people. This is how it also works with jurisdiction of states.
- States are free to act they see fit, unless there is a legal restriction of their conduct which
they have accepted beforehand.
- There is this presumption of liberty. States can do whatever they want to, as long as they
don’t violate some restrictions. If there is another obligation or prohibition, then acting that
way would be a violation of international law à internationally wrongful act.
- States are thus free to adopt whatever laws, adjudicate them in their courts, and enforce
them in whatever way they want, as long as they don’t do so in violation of sovereign rights
of another State. – it follows from the principle of sovereign equality. States are equal and
that means that states cannot have a jurisdiction over another state.
- The basic idea behind jurisdiction is the principle of sovereign equality.
- Therefore, the principles of jurisdiction and ideas of jurisdiction are part of the law of co-
existence. It exists to ensure there are no frictions between other states. E.g., The NL can
do whatever it wants in the NL, but the NL cannot do anything in Belgium, unless Belgium
agrees.
Principles of jurisdiction (upon states claim they have jurisdiction)
- Territorial jurisdiction
- Jurisdiction on the basis of nationality (2 types)
o Active nationality principle
o Passive nationality principle
- Protective jurisdiction (kind of new)
- Universal jurisdiction (controversial)
Territorial jurisdiction
- Most basic because a state has territorial entities, so jurisdiction is primarily territorial.
- A State has jurisdiction over all and any acts committed or occurred on its territory and
over everyone located on its territory. Example of NL as mentioned before: can adopt
, whatever laws, adjudicate them, enforce them on its territory, over anyone on its territory.
Does not matter if we are or not Dutch nationals.
- A State can prescribe whatever laws it pleases (granted it does not violate international
law).
- There are restrictions. Restrictions on what laws can states adopt, primarily in the area of
international human rights law. Because states have accepted certain obligations upon
themselves and their human rights, it would violate their international human obligations if
they adopted laws infringeable of those rights. E.g., The NL is a party to ECHR, which
means that those rights guaranteed by the convention are protected. The NL cannot make
laws that would infringe those laws. It would be illegal under international law.
- These limits are not as thick as they seem. As long as HR are not violated, states can do
whatever they want. They can raise taxes, criminalize conduct etc.
- “Territory” means land + territorial sea + airspace above + vessels and aircrafts registered
in the State: If a ship is registered in the NL, when it is in the high seas, the Dutch law
would apply there. Same for aircrafts. – not just land but also water boundaries and
airspace.
Objective and subjective territoriality
- “Objective territoriality” focuses on the effects of an act: a State has jurisdiction over it if
it is completed on its territory, even if parts of an act happened elsewhere.
- Example: There are Belgium nationals who smuggled drugs in the NL. They prepared them,
had their base in Antwerp, packed them, delivered them to the NL. The NL could then
invoke objective territoriality to have jurisdiction over this act, upon these individuals.
Even if the origin of the act is in another country.
- That is because the completion of the act happened in Dutch territory.
- “Subjective territoriality” focuses on the origin of an act: a State has jurisdiction over acts
completed abroad if they are initiated or planned on its territory.
- Example: In the same scenario, Belgium would have jurisdiction because it originated
there, even if it was completed in the NL.
Active nationality principle
- A State has jurisdiction over its nationals regardless of where they are located.
- Who counts as a national is up for States to decide. Term by domestic legislation. It can
vary.
- People with dual nationality fall under the jurisdiction of both States.
- Sometimes, jurisdiction is only limited to active nationality principle. Example:
International Criminal Law: Rome Statute in International Criminal Court (ICC). It also
has the nationality principle but only the active one. It doesn’t recognize the passive one.
This means that, the NL is a party of the Rome Statute, so it does recognize the jurisdiction
of ICC, so if a perpetrator is a Dutch national, then the ICC can exercise its jurisdiction.
But not if it’s just a Dutch victim. Only the nationality of the perpetrator matters There’s
limitation in here.
Passive nationality principle
- It refers to individuals when they do something, commit certain acts, fail to commit certain
acts required by law, don’t perform obligations.
- A national is a victim of an act of someone else.
- A State may assert jurisdiction over acts committed abroad if the victims of that act are its
nationals.
- Especially common in relation to international terrorism.
,- E.g., the Netherlands could claim jurisdiction over the destruction of Malaysian flight
MH17 destroyed by Russian nationals in Ukraine’s territory because most of the victims
were Dutch nationals.
- Lotus case: France could claim jurisdiction because it was a French ship but so could
Turkey on the basis of passive nationally principle.
- There’s no hierarchy of the principles of jurisdiction here. Several states may claim
jurisdiction on the same thig.
- This principle requires a higher bar, a stronger link between an act and state claiming the
jurisdiction.
Protective principle
- The bar is even higher.
- A State may extend its jurisdiction over matters with harmful effects regardless of where
the act occurs or who commits it.
- It requires a genuine threat to a vital State interest. – important!
- For instance, money falsification, counterfeiting money, drugs smuggling, human
trafficking, falsification of documents etc.
- Example: US has its own currency: US dollar. Now, you make fake US dollars in Bulgaria.
Regardless of where you make the money, US has jurisdiction over you – it’s so harmful,
it threatens a vital interest of state of US. Therefore, USA can claim jurisdiction over the
act of falsification of US dollars if it happens in Bulgaria. Wherever and whoever are the
citizens does not matter because it’s the protective principle. Has to do with the nature of
the act.
Universal jurisdiction – Tricky.
- Again, has to do with the nature of the act.
- Some offences are so serious that any State may claim jurisdiction over them no matter
where they have been committed, by whom, and who have been the victims.
- Classic example: piracy (17th – 18th century). States had this idea: Whoever catches a
pirate can do whatever they want. Does not matter who is the pirate, who are the victims
of piracy. Any state can arrest, detain, destroy the ships of pirates etc., It made practical
sense because how else would you fight a pirate if they don’t fall into the territorial
jurisdiction of any particular state?
- Today: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes. – so severe that every state
has a right to prosecute specific crimes – very serious, but also very tricky. à Jus
cogens violations.
- Softer form of universal jurisdiction: aut dedere aut judicare. – If there is a perpetrator
who is accused of crimes against humanity, a state on whose territory that person is
located must either prosecute that person or if its uncapable of doing that, should do
everything on its powers to transfer that person to another territorial jurisdiction where
that person can be prosecuted.
- Arrest Warrant case (see state immunity on high-ranking officials).
Sometimes, states have jurisdiction to prescribe and adjudicate. No jurisdiction to enforce.
Happens often.
For instance: 2 Russian special agents went to the UK and tried to kill the former Russian spy
with poisoning. Then they went back to Russia.
- Jurisdiction to prescribe and adjudicate?
o UK: UK has jurisdiction on the basis of territoriality because the crime
happened in UK’s territory. Territoriality principle: UK territory, objective
, territoriality. Doesn’t matter if it was planned in Russia (the poison). It is UK’s
territory and its citizen who is the victim.
o Russia: Also has jurisdiction: Russian nationals.Nationality principle:
perpetrators are Russian nationals / citizens. They did something bad, not only
on UK law but also on Russian law because this is an attempted murder. Illegal
as well, even if the act was committed elsewhere. Can also apply subjective
territoriality for Russa.
- Jurisdiction to enforce?
o The UK courts were investigating the case and came up with the verdict, but
could they enforce it?
o Normally UK would arrest the perpetrators and put them to jail BUT they are
NOT in the UK anymore. They went back to Russia.
o No jurisdiction to enforce for the UK.
o The UK police cannot go to Russia to arrest the perpetrators there and enforce
the sentence. Why? – LOTUS principle: States cannot exercise their jurisdiction
on the territory of another state.
All of this jurisdiction is pure international customary law. No treaties for that, it’s all state
practice and opinion juris. Principles of jurisdiction, its different types etc., – all of it is custom.
What are immunities?
- Immunities are exceptions from jurisdiction.
- In certain cases, a State is barred from exercising its jurisdiction over foreign acts or
individuals – even when committed on its own territory.
- Even if jurisdiction is present, immunities mean that a State is procedurally precluded
from exercising it in specific instances.
- State is prohibited from exercising its sovereign rights.
Immunities for adjudication and enforcement
- Art. 5 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property:
“A State enjoys immunity, in respect of itself and its property, from the jurisdiction of
the courts of another State subject to the provisions of the present Convention.” – basic
principle of immunity. It’s not just the LOTUS principle, it is the general principle of
state immunity. States are immune from other courts.
o Example: Court in the NL cannot adjudicate Belgium. Cannot be held
responsible for anything, cannot open investigations etc., States are equal so
they cannot have jurisdiction in respect of each-other. They can have
jurisdiction in respect of nationals, individuals as we saw but not in respect of
each-other.
- This convention is not yet enforced, because it hasn’t been ratified from the sufficient
number of states (27/30). However, it is regarded as codified customary international
law.
- ≠ types of immunities such as: immunity for adjudication.
- But even when immunity from adjudication is waived or rejected, there is still an
immunity from enforcement.
- States, as a rule, enjoy double immunity: first from another State’s courts, and second,
should the first one fails, from enforcement of those courts’ decisions. For a state to
exercise its jurisdiction over another state, the other state must first consent to it, and
the courts must approve and enforce that consent à something that rarely happens.
States hold on to their immunities.
