PRACTICE OF LIMITATION OF STATE IMMUNITY BY COUNTERMEASURES UNDER MODERN INTERNATIONAL LAW

Abstract

Introduction. The article considers an issue if a court of an injured state could deny immunity to a state committed an internationally wrongful act and if that denial could represent a legally acceptable countermeasure. Authors consider an issue if a limitation to the state immunity can be a subject to countermeasure and if this type of countermeasure complies with the conditions of legality.Materials and methods. In the course of incubation of research, we use writings of foreign and Russian authors, United Nations International Law Commission materials, practice of states and practice of international and national courts. Methodological foundation of research is composed by general scientific and specific scientific methods of obtaining knowledge (dialectical method, analysis method, synthesis method, deduction method, induction method and rather-legal method).Research results. Based on the results of the research conducted authors suggest a mechanism of denial of immunity to a state by a court of an injured state which represents a countermeasure. Authors conclude that if the conditions of legality of countermeasures were met, a denial of immunity to a defendant state by a court of an injured state, which represents a countermeasure, would comply with international law.Discussion and conclusions. The article draws attention to special aspects of denying of immunity to a state by a court of an injured state, which represents a countermeasure, in case of lodging personal criminal injury claim. Authors conclude that limitation to the state immunity by national courts, which represents a countermeasure, isn’t prohibited by rules of international law.

Keywords

• state immunity
• limitation of the state immunity
• countermeasures
• universal jurisdiction
• responsibility of states
• internationally wrongful act
• erga omnes