that is those cases in which jurisdiction cannot be exercised as

it normally would because of special factors. In other words, the concern

is with immunity from jurisdiction and those instances where there exist
express exceptions to the usual application of a states legal powers.
The concept of jurisdiction revolves around the principles of state
sovereignty, equality and non-interference.
Immunity from jurisdiction, whether as regards the state itself or as
regards its diplomatic representatives, is grounded in this requirement.
Although constituting a derogation from the host states jurisdiction, in
that, for example, theUKcannot exercise jurisdiction over foreign ambassadors
within its territory, it is to be construed nevertheless as an essential
part of the recognition of the sovereignty of foreign states, as well as an
aspect of the legal equality of all states

Sovereign immunity1
Sovereignty until comparatively recently was regarded as appertaining to
a particular individual in a state and not as an abstract manifestation
of the existence and power of the state.2 The sovereign was a definable
person, to whom allegiance was due. As an integral part of this mystique,
the sovereign could not be made subject to the judicial processes
of his country. Accordingly, it was only fitting that he could not be sued
in foreign courts. The idea of the personal sovereign would undoubtedly
have been undermined had courts been able to exercise jurisdiction over
foreign sovereigns. This personalisation was gradually replaced by the abstract
concept of state sovereignty, but the basic mystique remained. In
addition, the independence and equality of states made it philosophically
as well as practically difficult to permit municipal courts of one country
to manifest their power over foreign sovereign states, without their
consent.3 Until recently, the international law relating to sovereign (or
state) immunity relied virtually exclusively upon domestic case-law and
latterly legislation, although the European Convention on State Immunity,
1972 was a notable exception. However, in 2004 the UN adopted the
Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property
Lord Millett in Holland v. Lampen-Wolfe put the point as follows:
State immunity . . . is a creature of customary international law and derives
from the equality of sovereign states. It is not a self-imposed restriction
on the jurisdiction of its courts which the United Kingdom has chosen to
adopt. It is a limitation imposed from without upon the sovereignty of the
United Kingdom itself.8

Sovereign immunity is closely related to two other legal doctrines, nonjusticiability

and act of state. Reference has been made earlier to the interaction
between the various principles,9 but it is worth noting here that the
concepts of non-justiciability and act of state posit an area of international
activity of states that is simply beyond the competence of the domestic
tribunal in its assertion of jurisdiction, for example, that the courts would
not adjudicate upon the transactions of foreign sovereign states.