<P> The doctrine and rules of state immunity concern the protection which a state is given from being sued in the courts of other states . The rules relate to legal proceedings in the courts of another state, not in a state's own courts . The rules developed at a time when it was thought to be an infringement of a state's sovereignty to bring proceedings against it or its officials in a foreign country . </P> <P> There is now a trend in various states towards substantial exceptions to the rule of immunity; in particular, a state can be sued when the dispute arises from a commercial transaction entered into by a state or some other non-sovereign activity of a state . The United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, which is not yet in force, formulates the rules and the exceptions to them . It does not cover criminal proceedings, and it does not allow civil actions for human rights abuses against state agents where the abuse has occurred in another country . </P> <P> According to some commentators, it is not obvious why states should have immunity in cases relating to serious human rights abuses . The argument is made that fundamental human rights such as the right to life and the prohibition against torture should take precedence over rules of state immunity . The argument goes that these rights have a higher ranking and importance (in technical terms, they constitute norms of jus cogens) than a rule of state immunity, and that the recent focus on ending impunity for serious human rights abuses should ensure that the law develops to allow states to be sued . </P> <P> The argument on the other side is that immunity should be ended, but other ways exist to accomplish this . Ending immunity should not be at the expense of proper conduct of relations between states; one country's perception of abuse may not be another's; civil actions for a state agent's atrocities should be brought in the courts of that state, not in a foreign court; prosecution of crime lies in the hands of the state, whereas civil proceedings are brought by individuals for their own ends; civil actions brought by disgruntled individuals in one country against another state can have grave political and economic repercussions for both states; and civil proceedings can raise difficult issues of enforcement and extraterritorial jurisdiction . The arguments on both sides reflect different perceptions of how to strike a balance between protection of state interests and protection of the human rights of individuals . </P>

The united nations convention on jurisdictional immunities of states and their property