Diplomatic relations — Diplomatic immunity — Diplomatic mission — Legal personality of diplomatic mission — Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 — Recognition of diplomatic mission — One voice doctrine — Evidence of recognition of diplomatic mission — Section 4 certificate — Express recognition — Implied recognition — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 — Article 24 — Article 27 — Disclosure — Disclosure of documents of diplomatic mission

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Relationship with diplomatic immunity — Documents — Orders for disclosure

Human rights — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 6 — Right to fair trial — Disclosure — Diplomatic immunity — Whether preventing disclosure on basis of diplomatic immunity violating Article 6

Recognition — Recognition of diplomatic missions — Evidence of recognition by government — Express recognition — Implied recognition — Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 — The law of England

State immunity — Enforcement proceedings — Attachment of credits owed by third parties — Power of attorney — Formal requirements of powers of attorney made abroad — Translation of powers of attorney — Admissibility of appeal to Supreme Court of Cassation — Vagueness of application for appeal — Whether appellant’s arguments having to be raised before different court — Legal basis for enforcement proceedings — Whether judge presiding over enforcement proceedings having to verify existence of legal basis — Whether verification extending to questions as to scope of legal basis — Whether legal basis crystallizing at the time when judgment of which enforcement was sought becoming final — Whether subsequent changes immaterial in enforcement proceedings and having to be raised by challenging judgment on the merits — Whether questions as to jurisdiction of Italian courts irrelevant in enforcement proceedings — Whether judgment of International Court of Justice of 3 February 2012 directly binding on Italian courts

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Decisions of international courts — International Court of Justice’s (“ICJ”) judgment of 3 February 2012 — Whether directly binding on Italian courts — Italian Parliament’s Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 giving effect to ICJ’s judgment — Declaration of unconstitutionality of Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 — Whether necessary to follow law as ascertained by Constitutional Court — The law of Italy

State immunity — Immunity from civil jurisdiction — Immunity in relation to acts amounting to war crimes or crimes against humanity — Jurisprudence of Supreme Court of Cassation on jurisdictional immunity — Whether immunity lifted where foreign State’s acts war crimes or crimes against humanity — Judgment of International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) of 3 February 2012 — Whether Italy internationally responsible for not recognizing Germany’s immunity under customary international law — Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 — Change in jurisprudence of Supreme Court of Cassation on jurisdictional immunity — Constitutional Court’s judgment no 238 of 22 October 2014 — Whether Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 unconstitutional — Whether Italian courts denying jurisdictional immunity where foreign States perpetrating war crimes or crimes against humanity — Supreme Court of Cassation reverting to earlier jurisprudence — Whether Court of Appeal of Florence taking change in jurisprudence into account — Whether Court of Appeal’s judgment quashed — Whether case to be remitted to Court of First Instance

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Decisions of international courts — International Court of Justice’s judgment of 3 February 2012 — Whether Italy internationally responsible for not recognizing Germany’s immunity under customary international law — Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 — Change in jurisprudence of Supreme Court of Cassation on jurisdictional immunity — Constitutional Court’s judgment no 238 of 22 October 2014 — Whether Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 unconstitutional — Whether Italian courts denying jurisdictional immunity where foreign States perpetrating war crimes or crimes against humanity — Supreme Court of Cassation reverting to earlier jurisprudence — Whether Court of Appeal of Florence taking change in jurisprudence into account — Whether Court of Appeal’s judgment quashed — Whether case to be remitted to Court of First Instance

International criminal law — War crimes and crimes against humanity — State immunity — Immunity from civil jurisdiction — Immunity in relation to acts amounting to war crimes or crimes against humanity — Judgment of International Court of Justice of 3 February 2012 — Jurisprudence of Italian courts — The law of Italy

State immunity — Enforcement of foreign judgments — Creation of judicial mortgage (ipoteca giudiziale) in enforcement proceedings — Mandatory stay of proceedings — Judgment of International Court of Justice of 3 February 2012 — Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 — Constitutional Court’s judgment no 238 of 22 October 2014 — Whether German-owned State property immune from execution — Villa Vigoni — Whether Germany waiving right to enjoy immunity from execution in respect of Villa Vigoni — Relevance of use made of Villa Vigoni by Germany — Evidence concerning use made of Villa Vigoni by Germany — Whether Supreme Court of Cassation able to make decision on point of fact concerning use made of Villa Vigoni by Germany — Whether Court of Appeal’s decision to be quashed — Whether Court of Appeal’s decision inconsistent with reasoning of appealed judgment — Possibility of enforcement proceedings against property other than Villa Vigoni not used for public purposes — The law of Italy

State immunity — Restrictive doctrine of State immunity — Whether acts of this case private legal acts — Whether acts of this case sovereign — Assessment — Customary international law — International conventions — Legislative trends in various countries — Case law — International Court of Justice — Italian courts — Whether exceptions to State immunity — Whether this case exceptional — Sovereign acts — Peremptory norms — Crimes against humanity — Whether reasonable for Korean court to have jurisdiction over Japan — Whether State immunity applicable

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Customary international law — State immunity — Applicability — Treaties — Korean written laws — Relevance — Customary international law — International conventions — Legislative trends in various countries — Case law — International Court of Justice — Italian courts — Whether exceptions to State immunity — Whether this case exceptional — Sovereign acts — Peremptory norms — Crimes against humanity — Interpretation of law — Whether conclusions unreasonable or unjust — Korean Constitution — Whether highest norm in legal order — Rights of victims — Damage to individuals — Reparations for individuals — Failure of lawsuits in other countries — Respect for sovereign States — Whether exception to State immunity where State violating peremptory norm — Whether State immunity applicable — Whether Korean court having jurisdiction

Jurisdiction — Crimes against humanity — Use of “comfort women” in Korea — Whether Korean court having jurisdiction — Whether State immunity applicable — Whether Korean court having international jurisdiction over this case — Whether exception to State immunity where State violating peremptory norm — Whether State immunity applicable — International jurisdiction — Relevant legal principles — Assessment — Article 2(1) of Private International Act — Whether Korean court having jurisdiction over litigation relating to extraterritorial cases when venue Korea

International criminal law — Crimes against humanity — Whether acts of this case constituting crime against humanity — Whether exception to State immunity where State violating peremptory norm — Whether State immunity applicable — Whether Korean court having jurisdiction

War and armed conflict — Treatment of civilians — Annexation of territory — Imperial Japan occupying Korean Peninsula — Annexation Treaty, 1910 — Asia-Pacific War — Military strategy of Imperial Japan — Wartime “comfort stations” — Wartime “comfort women” — Imperial Japan mobilizing “comfort women” from Korean Peninsula — Plaintiffs subjected to violence and sexual assaults by Japanese soldiers — Plaintiffs suffering physical and psychological damage — Plaintiffs seeking compensation from Japan — Reparations for individuals — Whether State immunity applicable — Whether Korean court having jurisdiction

Damages — Compensation — Post-war — Wartime “comfort stations” — Imperial Japan mobilizing “comfort women” from Korean Peninsula — Military strategy of Imperial Japan — Plaintiffs claiming reparations for physical and psychological damage — Whether acts of this case constituting crime against humanity — Responsibility for indemnification for damages — Applicable law — Assessment of illegality of acts of this case — Scope of responsibility for indemnification for damages — Reparations for individuals — Plaintiffs seeking reparations from Japan as successor to Imperial Japan — Whether Japan obligated to pay reparations to plaintiffs

Treaties — Application — Scope — Claims Agreement, 1965 — 2015 Agreement — Effect on plaintiffs’ right to claim reparations for damage — Whether Agreements extinguishing plaintiffs’ right to claim — The law of the Republic of Korea

State immunity — Immunity from prosecution — Criminal proceedings — Instrumentalities of foreign States — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 (“FSIA”) — Whether District Court having jurisdiction to prosecute instrumentalities of foreign States — 18 USC Section 3231 — Scope — Whether terms of Section 3231 encompassing alleged criminal offences — Doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity — FSIA — Relevance — Whether FSIA addressing civil suits only — Whether FSIA providing instrumentalities of foreign States with absolute immunity from criminal prosecution in United States courts

Treaties — Interpretation — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Whether addressing civil suits exclusively — Whether providing foreign States and their instrumentalities with immunity from criminal proceedings — The law of the United States

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — State Immunity Act 1978 — Section 5 — Claim for personal injury and damage to property — Whether Section 5 limited to acts undertaken jure gestionis — Whether Section 5 including acts undertaken jure imperii — Whether Section 5 limited to cases where all acts or omissions completed within United Kingdom — Whether Section 5 applying to composite acts — Whether electronic device manipulated within United Kingdom by electronic device abroad an act undertaken within the United Kingdom — Evidential requirements of Section 5 — The law of England

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — State Immunity Act 1978 — Section 5 — Claim for personal injury and damage to property — Whether Section 5 limited to cases where all acts or omissions completed within United Kingdom — Whether Section 5 applying to composite acts — Whether electronic device manipulated within United Kingdom by electronic device abroad an act undertaken within the United Kingdom — Evidential requirements of Section 5 — Psychiatric injury as personal injury — The law of England

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Whether Italian courts having to declare that they lacked jurisdiction where cases brought against States for conduct amounting to crimes under international law — Relevance of judgment of 3 February 2012 of International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) — Change in earlier line of jurisprudence requiring courts to lift immunity when conduct of impleaded foreign States amounting to crimes under international law — Relevance of Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 — Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 giving effect to ICJ’s judgment of 3 February 2012 — Conformity of Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 with Italian Constitution — Constitutionality of Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 — Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 giving effect to Article 94(1) of United Nations Charter, 1945 — Law No 5 of 14 January 2013 in turn giving effect to Article 11 of Italian Constitution — Whether Italian courts lacking jurisdiction

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Decisions of international courts — Judgment of International Court of Justice regarding Italian court decisions denying immunity — Legislation to implement judgment — Whether constitutional — The law of Italy

Recent case law has evidenced doctrinal ambiguity concerning whether State immunity precludes domestic courts’ jurisdiction when rights and interests of third-party States may be affected. This article posits that such confusion arises from a failure to recognize State immunity as a rule predicated on the sovereign status of the defendant. Through an analysis of State practice, the article contends that the concept of indirect impleading incorporated in the United Nations Convention on State Immunity does not challenge the status-based nature of this rule. Construing State immunity as a subject-matter rule erroneously conflates it with distinct doctrines, such as Monetary Gold and the act of State doctrine.

Damages — Compensatory damages — Damages awarded to victims of State-sponsored terrorism — Availability of foreign State-owned property for attachment in aid of execution of judgment for damages — Assets of central bank — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Section 1610 — Exceptions to immunity of State-owned property from attachment in aid of execution — Section 1611 — Assets of central bank immune from attachment in aid of execution — Terrorism Risk Insurance Act 2002 — Section 201(a) — Assets of terrorist party to be made available in aid of execution or attachment — Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act 2012 — Blocked assets of Government of Iran to be made available to the plaintiffs — Whether Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act 2012 violating United States Constitution

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, 1955 — Effect in municipal law — Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act 2012 — Whether United States statute violating 1955 Treaty

State immunity — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Terrorism exception to State immunity — Whether foreign State-owned property immune from attachment in aid of execution of judgment for damages — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Terrorism Risk Insurance Act 2002 — Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act 2012 — Whether United States municipal law removing immunity of Iranian State property constitutional

Terrorism — State-sponsored terrorism — Damages — Ability of victims of State-sponsored terrorism to receive compensatory damages — State immunity — Ability of victims of State-sponsored terrorism to turn over State-owned property in aid of execution of judgment for compensatory damages

Treaties — Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, 1955 — Effect in municipal law — Relationship between treaty and municipal law — Alleged conflict between treaty and municipal statute — Whether United States statute violating 1955 Treaty — The law of the United States

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Employment at United States air base in United Kingdom — Claim for unfair dismissal and unequal pay — State Immunity Act 1978 — Common law — Determination of sovereign functions — Environmental engineer — Whether environmental engineer performing sovereign functions — The law of England

Expropriation — Domestic takings rule — Expropriation of nationals’ property — Whether international law of expropriation prohibiting taking of nationals’ property — Human rights — State immunity — Relationship between expropriation, human rights and State immunity

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Presumption that foreign State entitled to immunity unless one of exceptions to immunity applicable — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 — Restrictive theory of sovereign immunity — Expropriation exception — Section 1605(a)(3) — Interpretation — Meaning of “in violation of international law” — Whether meaning limited to international law of expropriation — Whether international law prohibiting domestic takings — Whether meaning including violation of human rights law — Whether meaning including genocide — The law of the United States

Arbitration — Arbitral Tribunal of International Chamber of Commerce — Arbitral award — Damages — Failure to pay amount awarded — Enforcement proceedings — United Kingdom — Arbitration Act 1996 — Service of proceedings commenced in accordance with Arbitration Act 1996 — Whether service of proceedings must comply with State Immunity Act 1978 — Difficulty effecting service on defendant State

Comity — Comity of nations as an interpretative principle — Subjecting State to jurisdiction of the courts of another State — Procedure for service — State Immunity Act 1978 — Obligations of States in the marketplace — Commercial legal obligations of States

Human rights — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 6 — Access to jurisdiction of the courts — Relationship between Article 6 and State immunity — Whether requirement for service through diplomatic channels impeding Article 6 rights

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Customary international law — United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 2004 — State Immunity Act 1978 — Treaty provisions as an aid to interpretation of domestic law — Whether international custom existing at the time of passage of domestic law

State immunity — State Immunity Act 1978 — Service — Procedure for service — Whether Section 12(1) applicable — Whether arbitration claim form or enforcement order a document required to be served — Whether court having discretion to dispense with service on defendant State — Exceptional circumstances preventing service through diplomatic channels — The law of England

Arbitration — Jurisdiction — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, Annex VII — Constitution of Annex VII tribunal — Conditions for jurisdiction of tribunal — Exception for disputes concerning military activities — Confrontation between warships — Subsequent arrest and detention of warships and crews — Whether military activities or law enforcement — Point at which military activity becoming law enforcement — Provisional measures order by International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea — Whether Annex VII tribunal possessing jurisdiction over claim that respondent did not comply with provisional measures — Whether tribunal possessing jurisdiction over claim for non-aggravation of dispute — Requirement of exchange of views prior to initiation of arbitration proceedings

International tribunals — Provisional measures — Jurisdiction of International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to order provisional measures in dispute submitted to arbitration — Whether dependent on existence of jurisdiction over dispute — Non-aggravation order

Sea — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Interpretation and application — Warships — Whether Convention incorporating customary international law on immunity of warships — Arrest of warships of one State for entering waters claimed as territorial sea of another State — Whether arrest occurring in the territorial sea — Settlement of disputes — Annex VII tribunal — Straits — Kerch Strait — Passage through Strait obstructed

State immunity — Warships — Immunity of warships from arrest — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 — Customary international law

War and armed conflict — Naval confrontation between warships of two States — Arrest of warships and crews — Whether military activity or law enforcement — Prisoners of war — Whether arrested crews prisoners of war

Arbitration — Contract of insurance — Arbitration clause — Whether arbitration clause in contract of insurance binds third party State seeking compensation for loss and damage

Comity — Respect for courts and tribunals of other jurisdictions — Contract of insurance — Exclusive jurisdiction clause — Arbitration clause — Third party State seeking to enforce contract of insurance — Requirement of comity

Human rights — Right to fair trial — Right of access to court — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 6 — State immunity — State Immunity Act 1978 — Section 13 — Immunity from injunction — Whether State immunity from injunction engages Article 6 rights — Whether State immunity from injunctive relief pursues legitimate objective — Whether State immunity from injunctive relief provided for in customary international law — Whether proportionate — Human Rights Act 1998, Section 3 — Whether Section 13 of the State Immunity Act 1978 capable of being read down

State immunity — State Immunity Act 1978 — Section 1 — Section 3 — Section 9 — Section 13 — Adjudicative immunity — Jure imperii — Jure gestionis — Whether initiating proceedings against insurers regarding sunken naval vessel a sovereign or commercial act — Enforcement immunity — State immunity from injunctive relief — Whether State immunity from injunctive relief engages human rights — The law of England

State immunity — Employment — Foreign military base — Claimant employed on United States’ military base in United Kingdom — Claim for wrongful dismissal and discrimination — State Immunity Act 1978 — Service — Procedure for service — Whether Section 16(2) of State Immunity Act applicable — Meaning of “proceedings” — Whether Section 12 applicable — Whether service must be effected through diplomatic channels — The law of England

This article tackles the question of the legality of section 5B of the Civil Wrongs (Liability of the State) Law, which precludes the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip, members of terrorist organisations and their agents from obtaining compensation for injuries suffered as a result of the negligent conduct of Israeli security forces. The question is examined through the lens of Israel's tort law, comparative law, the law of occupation, and international human rights law.

A special focus is given to the amendments made in the said section and its interpretation by Israeli courts, while addressing the state's tort liability towards nationals of enemy states and members of terrorist organisations. In order to emphasise the legal difficulties arising from the Law and the need for its re-examination, the 2018 protests near the Israel-Gaza border are used as a case study. The article concludes by offering to revoke the legal identification as enemy state nationals of Gaza's residents for the purposes of applying state liability in tort. In addition, it recommends the adoption of an individual examination mechanism in relation to members of terrorist organisations. These suggestions are expected to better fulfil the purposes underlying the state's tort liability exemptions, while increasing Israel's compliance with its legal obligations.