Recent case law has evidenced doctrinal ambiguity concerning whether State immunity precludes domestic courts’ jurisdiction when rights and interests of third-party States may be affected. This article posits that such confusion arises from a failure to recognize State immunity as a rule predicated on the sovereign status of the defendant. Through an analysis of State practice, the article contends that the concept of indirect impleading incorporated in the United Nations Convention on State Immunity does not challenge the status-based nature of this rule. Construing State immunity as a subject-matter rule erroneously conflates it with distinct doctrines, such as Monetary Gold and the act of State doctrine.

Damages — Compensatory damages — Damages awarded to victims of State-sponsored terrorism — Availability of foreign State-owned property for attachment in aid of execution of judgment for damages — Assets of central bank — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Section 1610 — Exceptions to immunity of State-owned property from attachment in aid of execution — Section 1611 — Assets of central bank immune from attachment in aid of execution — Terrorism Risk Insurance Act 2002 — Section 201(a) — Assets of terrorist party to be made available in aid of execution or attachment — Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act 2012 — Blocked assets of Government of Iran to be made available to the plaintiffs — Whether Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act 2012 violating United States Constitution

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, 1955 — Effect in municipal law — Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act 2012 — Whether United States statute violating 1955 Treaty

State immunity — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Terrorism exception to State immunity — Whether foreign State-owned property immune from attachment in aid of execution of judgment for damages — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Terrorism Risk Insurance Act 2002 — Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act 2012 — Whether United States municipal law removing immunity of Iranian State property constitutional

Terrorism — State-sponsored terrorism — Damages — Ability of victims of State-sponsored terrorism to receive compensatory damages — State immunity — Ability of victims of State-sponsored terrorism to turn over State-owned property in aid of execution of judgment for compensatory damages

Treaties — Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, 1955 — Effect in municipal law — Relationship between treaty and municipal law — Alleged conflict between treaty and municipal statute — Whether United States statute violating 1955 Treaty — The law of the United States

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Employment at United States air base in United Kingdom — Claim for unfair dismissal and unequal pay — State Immunity Act 1978 — Common law — Determination of sovereign functions — Environmental engineer — Whether environmental engineer performing sovereign functions — The law of England

Expropriation — Domestic takings rule — Expropriation of nationals’ property — Whether international law of expropriation prohibiting taking of nationals’ property — Human rights — State immunity — Relationship between expropriation, human rights and State immunity

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Presumption that foreign State entitled to immunity unless one of exceptions to immunity applicable — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Restrictive theory of sovereign immunity — Expropriation exception — Section 1605(a)(3) — Interpretation — Meaning of “in violation of international law” — Whether meaning limited to international law of expropriation — Whether international law prohibiting domestic takings — Whether meaning including violation of human rights law — Whether meaning including genocide — The law of the United States

Arbitration — Arbitral Tribunal of International Chamber of Commerce — Arbitral award — Damages — Failure to pay amount awarded — Enforcement proceedings — United Kingdom — Arbitration Act 1996 — Service of proceedings commenced in accordance with Arbitration Act 1996 — Whether service of proceedings must comply with State Immunity Act 1978 — Difficulty effecting service on defendant State

Comity — Comity of nations as an interpretative principle — Subjecting State to jurisdiction of the courts of another State — Procedure for service — State Immunity Act 1978 — Obligations of States in the marketplace — Commercial legal obligations of States

Human rights — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 6 — Access to jurisdiction of the courts — Relationship between Article 6 and State immunity — Whether requirement for service through diplomatic channels impeding Article 6 rights

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Customary international law — United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 2004 — State Immunity Act 1978 — Treaty provisions as an aid to interpretation of domestic law — Whether international custom existing at the time of passage of domestic law

State immunity — State Immunity Act 1978 — Service — Procedure for service — Whether Section 12(1) applicable — Whether arbitration claim form or enforcement order a document required to be served — Whether court having discretion to dispense with service on defendant State — Exceptional circumstances preventing service through diplomatic channels — The law of England

Arbitration — Jurisdiction — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, Annex VII — Constitution of Annex VII tribunal — Conditions for jurisdiction of tribunal — Exception for disputes concerning military activities — Confrontation between warships — Subsequent arrest and detention of warships and crews — Whether military activities or law enforcement — Point at which military activity becoming law enforcement — Provisional measures order by International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea — Whether Annex VII tribunal possessing jurisdiction over claim that respondent did not comply with provisional measures — Whether tribunal possessing jurisdiction over claim for non-aggravation of dispute — Requirement of exchange of views prior to initiation of arbitration proceedings

International tribunals — Provisional measures — Jurisdiction of International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to order provisional measures in dispute submitted to arbitration — Whether dependent on existence of jurisdiction over dispute — Non-aggravation order

Sea — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Interpretation and application — Warships — Whether Convention incorporating customary international law on immunity of warships — Arrest of warships of one State for entering waters claimed as territorial sea of another State — Whether arrest occurring in the territorial sea — Settlement of disputes — Annex VII tribunal — Straits — Kerch Strait — Passage through Strait obstructed

State immunity — Warships — Immunity of warships from arrest — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Customary international law

War and armed conflict — Naval confrontation between warships of two States — Arrest of warships and crews — Whether military activity or law enforcement — Prisoners of war — Whether arrested crews prisoners of war

Arbitration — Contract of insurance — Arbitration clause — Whether arbitration clause in contract of insurance binds third party State seeking compensation for loss and damage

Comity — Respect for courts and tribunals of other jurisdictions — Contract of insurance — Exclusive jurisdiction clause — Arbitration clause — Third party State seeking to enforce contract of insurance — Requirement of comity

Human rights — Right to fair trial — Right of access to court — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 6 — State immunity — State Immunity Act 1978 — Section 13 — Immunity from injunction — Whether State immunity from injunction engages Article 6 rights — Whether State immunity from injunctive relief pursues legitimate objective — Whether State immunity from injunctive relief provided for in customary international law — Whether proportionate — Human Rights Act 1998, Section 3 — Whether Section 13 of the State Immunity Act 1978 capable of being read down

State immunity — State Immunity Act 1978 — Section 1 — Section 3 — Section 9 — Section 13 — Adjudicative immunity — Jure imperii — Jure gestionis — Whether initiating proceedings against insurers regarding sunken naval vessel a sovereign or commercial act — Enforcement immunity — State immunity from injunctive relief — Whether State immunity from injunctive relief engages human rights — The law of England

State immunity — Employment — Foreign military base — Claimant employed on United States’ military base in United Kingdom — Claim for wrongful dismissal and discrimination — State Immunity Act 1978 — Service — Procedure for service — Whether Section 16(2) of State Immunity Act applicable — Meaning of “proceedings” — Whether Section 12 applicable — Whether service must be effected through diplomatic channels — The law of England

This article tackles the question of the legality of section 5B of the Civil Wrongs (Liability of the State) Law, which precludes the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip, members of terrorist organisations and their agents from obtaining compensation for injuries suffered as a result of the negligent conduct of Israeli security forces. The question is examined through the lens of Israel's tort law, comparative law, the law of occupation, and international human rights law.

A special focus is given to the amendments made in the said section and its interpretation by Israeli courts, while addressing the state's tort liability towards nationals of enemy states and members of terrorist organisations. In order to emphasise the legal difficulties arising from the Law and the need for its re-examination, the 2018 protests near the Israel-Gaza border are used as a case study. The article concludes by offering to revoke the legal identification as enemy state nationals of Gaza's residents for the purposes of applying state liability in tort. In addition, it recommends the adoption of an individual examination mechanism in relation to members of terrorist organisations. These suggestions are expected to better fulfil the purposes underlying the state's tort liability exemptions, while increasing Israel's compliance with its legal obligations.

The interaction between immunities and jurisdiction is complex. One lacuna is whether the international legal principle of state immunity is a rule or principle in its own right or an exception to a pre-existing jurisdiction. In the context of international arbitration disputes, this distinction is significant. States have been relying on immunity to exclude the jurisdiction of national courts to support the international arbitral process. This Article argues there is now a growing set of common and consistent practice according to which state immunity operates as a rule or principle lex specialis to a more general set of rules or principles governing the enforcement jurisdiction of national courts.

Territory — Non-self-governing territory — Western Sahara — Article 73 of United Nations Charter — Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara — Whether Morocco exercising sovereignty over the territory — International Court of Justice Western Sahara Advisory Opinion — Whether cargo on board MV NM Cherry Blossom belonging to people of Western Sahara

Territory — Right to self-determination — Sovereignty of Western Sahara over natural resources — Exploitation of natural resources in non-self-governing territory — Whether natural resources from Western Sahara can be exploited and sold by Moroccan entities — United Nations framework for the lawful exploitation of the natural resources of a non-self-governing territory — Exploitation of natural resources needing to have the consent of, or benefit, the people of a non-self-governing territory — Whether natural resources mined with consent of people of Western Sahara — Whether exploitation to benefit of people of Western Sahara

State immunity — Whether Morocco’s legal interests affected — Act of State doctrine — Relationship between act of State doctrine and international law — Nature and ambit of act of State doctrine in South African law — Whether claim justiciable in South African courts

Relationship of international law and municipal law — State immunity — Act of State doctrine — Whether any public international law principle preventing South African court from adjudicating matter — Whether adjudication by South African court could affect Morocco’s legal rights — The law of South Africa

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Employment — Termination of employment in United States Consulate — Complaint alleging unfair dismissal — Canada Labour Code, Section 240 — Canada State Immunity Act 1985, Section 9(2) — Service of process on foreign States — Whether adjudicator having jurisdiction over United States — Whether waiver of immunity — Canada State Immunity Act 1985, Section 5 — Whether commercial activity exception applicable — Whether employment of personnel in United States Consulate commercial activity — Whether employment integral to operations — Whether nature of duties relevant — Whether immune from review by domestic courts

Consular relations — Employment of local staff at consulate — Whether subject to the jurisdiction of the local courts — Employment disputes — State immunity –– The law of Canada

State immunity — Enforcement — Property — Bank accounts of a diplomatic mission of a foreign State — Embassy of Indian Republic — Distinction between immunity of a foreign State from jurisdiction and immunity from enforcement — Whether bank accounts exempt from enforcement jurisdiction of Czech Republic

Diplomatic relations — Immunity — Property — Bank accounts of a diplomatic mission of a foreign State — Indian Republic Embassy in Prague — Whether bank accounts exempt from enforcement jurisdiction of Czech Republic — Czech Act on Private International Law — United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 2004, Articles 19(c) and 21(1)(a) — Whether bank accounts used exclusively in performance of function of diplomatic mission — Whether bank accounts could be attached in an execution — Whether decision of lower courts correct — The law of the Czech Republic

State immunity — Functional immunity — Foreign State officials — Immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction — Whether functional immunity applying to subordinate State officials — Customary international law

International criminal law — War crimes — Torture — Humiliating and degrading treatment — Gravity threshold — Universal jurisdiction — Afghanistan — Taliban — Afghan military

Jurisdiction — Universal jurisdiction — War crimes — Functional immunity — Foreign State officials — Immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction — Whether functional immunity applying to subordinate State officials for war crimes committed abroad — Whether precluding criminal prosecution by domestic court

Relationship of international law and municipal law — General rules of international law — State immunity — War crimes committed by foreign State subordinate official in exercise of official functions to detriment of foreign national — Functional immunity — Whether precluding criminal prosecution by domestic court

War and armed conflict — Non-international armed conflict — Afghan military in conflict with non-State armed groups, including Taliban — Law of armed conflict — The law of Germany

State immunity — Jurisdiction — Property — Functional nature of immunity — Acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis — Immunity confined to acta jure imperii — Failure of lower courts to take this limitation into account — Premises of a diplomatic mission — Korean Embassy in Prague — Whether Republic of Korea immune from proceedings in Czech courts

Diplomatic relations — Immunity — Property — Korean Embassy in Prague — Whether Republic of Korea immune from proceedings in Czech courts — Whether Korean Embassy unjustly enriched — Whether immovable property used for purposes of State’s diplomatic mission — Inviolability of premises of diplomatic mission and performance of mission’s functions — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Article 22 — United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 2004, Article 13 — Whether first instance decision correct — The law of the Czech Republic