The rules on state immunity fall within the field of international law and are based on the protection of sovereign states and their property from judicial and enforcement proceedings initiated by the authorities of other states. The traditional doctrine of absolute state immunity is gradually being replaced by the restrictive doctrine, according to which states do not enjoy immunity for acts undertaken in the capacity of a commercial actor (iure gestionis), likewise, state property intended for commercial use does not enjoy absolute protection from confiscation. This development is the result of states increasingly acting as commercial entities and the need to protect private parties who enter into contractual relations with them. On the other hand, sovereign acts of states (iure imperii), with certain exceptions, remain protected by immunity.
Sovereign acts include, for example acts of the armed forces, within which violations of international law, such as international human rights law, often occur. Through the application of rules on immunity, victims in such cases are denied the right of access to a court as well as the right to compensation for the damage suffered.
The loss of immunity in judicial proceedings, on the basis of consent or one of the recognized exceptions, does not mean that the state or its property automatically also loses the protection of immunity in enforcement proceedings. In addition, certain categories of property enjoy absolute protection from enforcement, regardless of their intended purpose of use. Creditors may therefore only seize property used for commercial purposes, although, in practice, proving the purpose for which the property is used is highly demanding. The reason for the additional protection of state property against confiscation lies in the fact that enforcement constitute a interference with a state's freedom to manage its own affairs. In practice, this framework often prevents creditors from obtaining effective judicial protection in proceedings against states.
The rules on state immunity are generally limited to judicial proceedings and the enforcement proceedings arising therefrom; however, it remains questionable whether states may also invoke immunity in the context of administrative measures, such as restrictive measures (sanctions). Scholars are divided on this issue, and this master's thesis concludes that, for the time being, state immunity is limited solely to judicial proceedings and the enforcement proceedings deriving thereform.
|
