Title: Jurisdictional Immunity of States Abstract The major purpose of this diploma thesis is to clarify the situation of jurisdictional immunity and immunity from enforcement measures of states. This thesis is composed of two main parts. In the first part the institute of jurisdictional immunity of states is explained. The first part is divided into several chapters which are dedicated to the specific aspects of jurisdictional immunity. The first chapter deals with the theoretical terms which are closely related the topic such as sovereignty of state and jurisdiction. It was also necessary to explain the difference between the state acts iure imperii and iure gestionis. The following chapter is dedicated to the explanation of the historical evolution of this institute documented by the most significant decisions of national courts which have strongly influenced forming of the state immunities. The legal sources are described in the following chapter, a special attention is paid to the international treaties, national legal acts and also to the situation in the Czech Republic. The last chapter of the first part deals with the exceptions from jurisdictional immunity. The second part of the thesis is focused on the topic of state immunity from enforcement measures. This institute is a secondary immunity of...

L’alinéa 1er de l’article 2 de l’AUA consacre l’aptitude des personnes morales de droit public à compromettre. À ce titre, elles peuvent être parties à l’arbitrage au même titre que les personnes privées. Aussi, l’alinéa 2 du même article exclut le recours au droit interne pour contester la validité de la convention d’arbitrage ou la capacité de compromettre. À partir d’une analyse téléologique de cet alinéa, il apparaît que le législateur OHADA exclut de l’arbitrage impliquant les personnes publiques l’exercice des prérogatives étatiques. Mais il apparaît que les personnes publiques continuent d’exercer de jure ou de facto certaines prérogatives dérogeant au Droit commun de l’arbitrage. Cela amène à penser que le législateur n’a pas réussi à concilier l’arbitrage avec les prérogatives exorbitantes des parties publiques. Il se pose alors la question de la conciliation de l’arbitrage avec le statut exorbitant des personnes publiques. Il résulte de l’analyse que les privilèges des personnes publiques sont manifestement irréconciliables avec les exigences de l’arbitrage. Les contradictions sont générées par l’insuffisance du cadre juridique avec des effets mettant à mal l’arbitrage. Mais il est possible de les concilier par une réduction encadrée des privilèges exorbitants des parties publiques. Il est question de l’aménagement d’un régime spécifique à l’arbitrage impliquant les personnes publiques fondé sur l’équilibre des pouvoirs des parties à l’arbitrage. À cette fin, il faut réorienter le fondement de l’arbitrage vers les valeurs du procès équitable. De fait, les personnes publiques peuvent contractuellement renoncer à leurs privilèges ou affecter un bien en garantie à l’exécution de la sentence arbitrale. / Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the AAU enshrines the capacity of legal persons governed by public law to compromise. As such, they may be parties to arbitration on the same basis as private persons. Paragraph 2 of the same article thus excludes recourse to domestic law to challenge the validity of the arbitration agreement or the capacity to compromise. On the basis of a teleological analysis of this paragraph, it appears that the OHBLA legislator excludes from the arbitration involving public entities the exercise of State prerogatives. Two arguments support this interpretation. On the one hand, the objectives of legal and judicial security are incompatible with any derogation from the requirements of arbitration. On the other hand, the prerogatives of national public authorities are defined by national laws. By prohibiting recourse to domestic law, the legislature implicitly prohibits the opposition of derogatory privileges to the common law of arbitration.But it appears that public persons continue to exercise de jure or de facto certain prerogatives derogating from common arbitration. This suggests that the legislature has failed to reconcile arbitration with the exorbitant prerogatives of the public parties. The question then arises of the conciliation of arbitration with the status of parties to exorbitants under common law.It follows from the analysis that the legislature has ensured access to arbitration to public entities. But his indifference to the privileges they enjoyed made the system of public participation in arbitration an unfinished business. This regime is manifestly characterized by various contradictions. These are generated by the inadequate legal framework of subjective arbitrability of public persons. Thus, the effects of these contradictions make it possible to measure the extent of the inadequacy of privileges to the standards of arbitration. But it is possible to reconcile the requirements of arbitration with the specifics of public parts. The balance between the two institutions will have to be realized by a framed reduction of the exorbitant privileges of the public parts. To this end, the basis of arbitration must be revised: moving from the autonomy of the will to the values of a fair trial. Consequently, the privatization of these prerogatives can be envisaged by different contractual mechanisms.