A presente tese tem por escopo verificar o surgimento de uma nova exceção à imunidade de jurisdição dos Estados no caso de violação dos direitos humanos.Para chegar a essa conclusão, faz-se a análise e revisão críticas dos principais casos da jurisprudência estrangeira e nacional, de teorias, da Convenção da Basiléia sobre Imunidade de Jurisdição, da Convenção da ONU sobre Imunidade de Jurisdição, das leis internas sobre imunidade de jurisdição dos Estados Unidos, Reino Unido, Austrália e da Argentina.O tema é dividido em quatro partes: na primeira parte, trata-se de noções sobre jurisdição e imunidade de jurisdição. Na segunda, sobre a evolução da imunidade de jurisdição dos Estados. Na terceira, sobre as exceções clássicas à imunidade de jurisdição e, na última, sobre a nova exceção à imunidade de jurisdição no caso de violação dos direitos humanos. / The scope of this thesis is to analyze the emergence of a new exception to the rule of state immunity in the case of human rights violations. To reach this conclusion a survey of the main cases law and theories is done. In addition, the European Convention on State Immunity, the UN Convention on State Immunity, the sovereign immunity acts of the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Argentina are comparatively examined. This thesis is divided into four parts: in the first part, it deals with notions of jurisdiction and jurisdictional immunity. In the second part, with the evolution of states immunity. In the third part, with the classical exceptions to jurisdictional immunity and in the last with the new exception to the state immunity in the case of human rights violations.

This research examines and critically analyses to what extent the host states might use their sovereignty in a manner that may be counterproductive to the interests of foreign investors on their territory; and the role played by international investment law in its regulation. Further, it considers the extent to which investor-state arbitration, under both the inter-state bilateral investment treaty (BIT), and investment contract, can be used to rebalance the uneven investment relationship arising from the adverse effect of host state sovereignty. The importance of the investor-state arbitration is based on the fact that such a process will be of no value if its award is not enforceable against sovereigns. It is therefore argued that arbitration enforcement against states must be augmented by further safeguards mechanisms. Challenges are faced by international investment law to minimise the possible adverse effect of host state’s sovereignty, in order to require states to respect investment agreements. Responsibility will be asserted by a wronged foreign investor if the state breaches customary international law when it hosts the foreign investment and if there is a violation of the specific investment agreement. Such challenges expose the limitations on how states can use their sovereign powers (whether legal, economic or political), against foreign investors and question the clarity of such boundaries. An unsuccessful litigant state will often seek to resist award enforcement, claiming sovereign immunity against its execution. International investment law and applicable national and regional bodies must find a balance between the interests of the foreign investor and the host state. This research concludes that the adjudication system used in England provides a framework in which a foreign investor can seek recognition of its claim and thus enforce a foreign arbitral award against recalcitrant states, but improvements could still be made as explained in thesis.

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...

State immunity has undergone major changes over time and is still a highly controversial and hotly debated topic. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between human rights and the norms governing state immunity. Located in different geological strata of international law, the clashes between the law of state immunity and human rights drew attention to the struggle among competing conceptions of international law. On one hand, being commonly linked to the principle of sovereign equality and to the need for stability in international relations, state immunity operates when a domestic court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the subject matter of a dispute because one of the parties is a foreign state. On the other, human rights have a different logic and require change and the realization of justice. The development of the body of human rights law allowed to call into question the grant of state immunity in cases in which human rights norms were violated. Legal questions arising from the relationship between state immunity and human rights have been put before domestic and international courts. Having examined the various judgments dealing with these issues, this study contends that the answers to the technical and dogmatic questions originating from the encounter between state immunity and human rights reproduce theoretical conflicts which happen - to use Koskenniemi\'s expression - at a \'higher level of abstraction\'. The ICJ\'s judgment in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State may have crystallized a consensus according to which state immunity trumps the individual\'s right to reparation for serious violations of human rights. This consensus, however, is contingent and can be questioned through the language of international law. / A imunidade estatal passou por grandes mudanças através dos tempos e ainda é um tema controverso e bastante debatido. A proposta deste estudo foi investigar a relação entre os direitos humanos e as normas que governam a imunidade estatal. Estando em camadas geológicas diferentes do direito internacional, os choques entre o direito da imunidade estatal e os direitos humanos chamaram atenção para a disputa entre concepções conflitantes de direito internacional. De um lado, sendo comumente relacionada ao princípio da igualdade soberana e à necessidade de estabilidade nas relações internacionais, a imunidade estatal opera quando uma corte não pode exercer jurisdição sobre o objeto de uma disputa em razão de uma das partes ser um estado estrangeiro. De outro, os direitos humanos têm uma lógica diferente e requerem mudança e a realização da justiça. O desenvolvimento do corpo dos direitos humanos permitiu questionar a concessão de imunidade estatal em casos em que normas de direitos humanos foram violadas. Questões jurídicas originadas do relacionamento entre imunidade estatal e direitos humanos foram levadas a várias cortes domésticas e internacionais. Tendo sido realizado o exame dos vários casos lidando com esse assunto, este estudo argumenta que as respostas para as questões técnicas e dogmáticas originadas do encontro entre imunidade de jurisdição e direitos humanos reproduzem conflitos teóricos que ocorrem - na expressão de Koskenniemi - em um \'nível mais elevado de abstração\'. O julgamento da Corte Internacional de Justiça em Imunidades de Jurisdição do Estado pode ter cristalizado um consenso segundo o qual as normas que se relacionam com a imunidade estatal prevalecem sobre o direito individual de reparação por sérias violações de direitos humanos. Tal consenso, no entanto, é contingente e pode ser questionado por meio da linguagem do direito internacional.

State immunity has undergone major changes over time and is still a highly controversial and hotly debated topic. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between human rights and the norms governing state immunity. Located in different geological strata of international law, the clashes between the law of state immunity and human rights drew attention to the struggle among competing conceptions of international law. On one hand, being commonly linked to the principle of sovereign equality and to the need for stability in international relations, state immunity operates when a domestic court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the subject matter of a dispute because one of the parties is a foreign state. On the other, human rights have a different logic and require change and the realization of justice. The development of the body of human rights law allowed to call into question the grant of state immunity in cases in which human rights norms were violated. Legal questions arising from the relationship between state immunity and human rights have been put before domestic and international courts. Having examined the various judgments dealing with these issues, this study contends that the answers to the technical and dogmatic questions originating from the encounter between state immunity and human rights reproduce theoretical conflicts which happen - to use Koskenniemi\'s expression - at a \'higher level of abstraction\'. The ICJ\'s judgment in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State may have crystallized a consensus according to which state immunity trumps the individual\'s right to reparation for serious violations of human rights. This consensus, however, is contingent and can be questioned through the language of international law. / A imunidade estatal passou por grandes mudanças através dos tempos e ainda é um tema controverso e bastante debatido. A proposta deste estudo foi investigar a relação entre os direitos humanos e as normas que governam a imunidade estatal. Estando em camadas geológicas diferentes do direito internacional, os choques entre o direito da imunidade estatal e os direitos humanos chamaram atenção para a disputa entre concepções conflitantes de direito internacional. De um lado, sendo comumente relacionada ao princípio da igualdade soberana e à necessidade de estabilidade nas relações internacionais, a imunidade estatal opera quando uma corte não pode exercer jurisdição sobre o objeto de uma disputa em razão de uma das partes ser um estado estrangeiro. De outro, os direitos humanos têm uma lógica diferente e requerem mudança e a realização da justiça. O desenvolvimento do corpo dos direitos humanos permitiu questionar a concessão de imunidade estatal em casos em que normas de direitos humanos foram violadas. Questões jurídicas originadas do relacionamento entre imunidade estatal e direitos humanos foram levadas a várias cortes domésticas e internacionais. Tendo sido realizado o exame dos vários casos lidando com esse assunto, este estudo argumenta que as respostas para as questões técnicas e dogmáticas originadas do encontro entre imunidade de jurisdição e direitos humanos reproduzem conflitos teóricos que ocorrem - na expressão de Koskenniemi - em um \'nível mais elevado de abstração\'. O julgamento da Corte Internacional de Justiça em Imunidades de Jurisdição do Estado pode ter cristalizado um consenso segundo o qual as normas que se relacionam com a imunidade estatal prevalecem sobre o direito individual de reparação por sérias violações de direitos humanos. Tal consenso, no entanto, é contingente e pode ser questionado por meio da linguagem do direito internacional.

1/3 ABSTRACT STATE IMMUNITY AT THE DAWN OF THE 21ST CENTURY: TWILIGHT OR RENAISSANCE? JAROSLAV KUDRNA, ESQ., LL.M. State immunity is a foundation of public international law. Sovereign immunity is based on the fundamental principle of international law, namely the equality of states - par in parem non habet imperium. State immunity is thus a manifestation of state sovereignty and states demonstrate respect for the sovereignty of other states by according immunity to foreign states appearing before their courts. The principle of state immunity is a dynamic area of public international law. State practice is continually evolving through national laws and court rulings. The aim of this thesis is to describe the current development of state immunity and to identify possible future trends. Another objective is to draw from current developments and offer practical recommendations on state immunity for both investors and states. The 20th century can be described as a twilight of state immunity: an absolute theory of state immunity shifted towards a restrictive one. That century witnessed the decline and fragmentation of state immunity. In contrast, if the UN Convention on jurisdictional immunities of states and their property enters into force and is ratified by a large number of states, state immunity might...