Abstract
The concept of state immunity is a fundamental component of international law. It is a legal notion that protects states against foreign court jurisdiction and other legal processes. The objective of this paper is to examine the idea of state immunity within the context of international law. Before discussing the state immunity, the paper will throw some light on diplomatic immunity so that both will not be confused. It is imperative to state that State immunity is founded on the premise that states are equal and independent entities, and that other states must respect their sovereignty. State immunity is intended to protect nations from external interference in their internal affairs while still preserving their capacity to act successfully on the international scene. Immunity assures that states can perform operations without fear of legal consequences from foreign governments or people. State immunity, however, is subject to a number of exceptions and limits that have emerged through time as a result of state practice, customary international law, and international treaties. These restrictions ensure that nations cannot claim immunity in actions involving commercial operations that violate international law and human rights violations. While state immunity shields states from legal punishment, it poses questions about responsibility and recompense for victims of official misconduct. The international legal system remains at odds with how to strike a balance between extending immunity to states and achieving justice for victims. The article relied on doctrinal research method, and the analysis is based primarily on legal documents of relevant national, foreign, regional, and universal Acts and Conventions, as well as the contributions and opinions of various scholars relevant to the topic State Immunity under International Law through textbooks, journals, articles, and online resources which served as secondary sources of information. Furthermore, in recent years, the notion of sovereign immunity has been the subject of debate and reconsideration. Developments in international human rights legislation have called into uncertainty nations’ immunity, particularly in circumstances of grave human rights violations. The concept of “no impunity” and the pursuit of justice for victims of serious international crimes have called into question traditional notions of sovereign immunity. In conclusion examination of the concept of state immunity in international law illustrates its importance in preserving state sovereignty while taking into consideration exceptions and restrictions to enable accountability and access to justice. Maintaining peace, stability, and fairness in the international community requires striking a balance between these goals. As international law evolves, the notion of sovereign immunity will surely be a source of continued debate and revision. The paper recommends that sovereign privileges be waived for stakeholders who abuse their sovereign powers, and that acts of torture and war crimes, including violations against humanity, should constitute universal exceptions to state immunity.