| Abstract [eng] |
The master’s thesis analyses state jurisdictional immunity and its exceptions, as enshrined in the 2004 United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property. First part reviews the shift in state immunity doctrines from absolute to restrictive and reasons behind it. Second part examines specific features of the implementation of state jurisdictional immunity, its status within state immunity and operating mechanism. Third part presents main exceptions – commercial transactions, employment contracts, and torts – and analyses the challenges and changes encountered today. Fourth part presents the grounds for applying the remaining exceptions. Fifth part reviews the results of the analysis, presents key insights, offers an assessment of the future of jurisdictional immunity. Results of the analysis show that, although the doctrine of restrictive immunity prevails in state immunity law, differing assessments of the limits of protection of state jurisdictional immunity persist within the international community today. National sources of law establish inconsistent criteria for applying exceptions to jurisdictional immunity, notably regarding exceptions concerning commercial transactions and torts. Differing understanding is confirmed by the varying national practices of states, which sometimes deviate from long-established practice. Not all provisions of the Convention have clear guidelines for application or mechanisms for implementation, and some provisions are no longer applicable today due to contemporary challenges. Yet, a consensus is discernible in state practice, contrary to that established by the ICJ, not to apply jurisdictional immunity when states commit violations of human rights or jus cogens norms, and, to ensure state accountability, differently interpret the territorial requirement of the exception for torts committed through IT. |
