Models of State Immunity

The broadest possible scope of immunities is granted by the 'absolute model of state immunity' for the operations made by the country. By the virtue of this principle, a foreign court can never make a state answerable for its actions. It has been established that foreign courts are never allowed, in any condition, to assert jurisdiction over any other country. The authors of one of the most influential writings on the law of state immunity, Fox and Webb, consider this ideology to be developed upon the basis of a 'Westphalian' interpretation of a country's supremacy. Therefore, an interpretation of such a nature focuses significantly upon a country's interior and exterior competence along with the supreme power of that country. Therefore, it's not appropriate for a foreign country to be subject to jurisdiction being imposed by a domestic court. The inception of this model for the state immunity began during the "The Parlement Belge" case in 1880 in 'the court of Appeal'. It is worth mentioning here that during 'Porto Alexandre' the CoA following the decision of 'The Parlement Belge' went to put away the 'writ in rem' on the grounds that the concerned private trading ship was a foreign country owned vessel occupied by the government of Portugal.

The other models for state immunity are of different nature as we see the 'Restrictive Model' emphasizes upon the actions of the state rather than just the sovereign state or actor which is given special importance in the 'Absolute Model'. If we get into detailed analysis of this model i.e. the restrictive model, we realize that this model leads to a theoretical difference that exists among the governmental and private character also known as 'jure imperii and jure gestionis' respectively. In this regard, it should be noted that if the act we are concerned with is of an entirely 'private or commercial nature' it won't have the advantage of