Does a Sovereign State Immunity Say More than We Think? ITLOS’s Decision in ARA LIBERTAD Case
Nation’s immunity from the jurisdiction of other nations’ Courts has been recognized and codified by many nations under the term of ‘Sovereign States Immunity’. But, States still have to emphasize on the scope of this immunity in order to prevent conflicts of States’ sovereignty from enjoyment of other States immunity on their territory. Thus, many nations have provided for a ‘restrictive immunity’ in their domestic law. Following the path of these nations, the 2004 UNCSI has also provided for a ‘restrictive immunity’. However, the 1982 UNCLOS has addressed the issue of Sovereign State Immunity too. Surprisingly or interestingly, the interpretation of UNCLOS Article 32 by ITLOS in Libertad Case demonstrates that unlike to many pretentions or understandings, UNCLOS provides Sovereign States for an ‘absolute immunity’ for warships. This paper will try to find out some justifications for ITLOS’s position before coming to the conclusion that rather than a creative role, ITLOS played its role of interpretation. Keywords: Sovereign State Immunity; Warship; Restrictive immunity; Absolute immunity; ITLOS.
Sovereign Immunity: Rule, Comity or Something Else?
Sovereign immunity is best understood not as a specific rule of customary international law, but as a legally binding principle. If not bound by detailed treaty obligations, states are free to frame and define the scope and limits of sovereign immunity within their legal orders as long as they observe the boundaries set by other principles of international law. Viewing sovereign immunity as a principle provides for a much better explanation of the still diverse state practice than the currently prevailing concept that conceives immunity as a rule of customary international law and its denial as an exception to that rule. The distinction between principle and rule also has far-reaching practical implications. Instead of asking whether state practice allows for a certain exception, the focus must be on the limits that international law prescribes. States therefore enjoy much greater liberty to define the limits and scope of sovereign immunity, even though this liberty is restricted.
The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on: Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm Programme. CEPS Paperbacks. June 2010
This book celebrates the tenth anniversary of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) by bringing together the views of key practitioners and policy-makers who have played an outstanding role in thinking about and shaping EU policies on freedom, security and justice. 
 
Ten years ago, the member states transferred competences to the EU for law and policy-making in the fields of immigration, asylum and border controls, and began the transfer process for criminal justice and policing. This decade of European cooperation on AFSJ policies has experienced very dynamic convergence, the enactment of a large body of European law and the setting-up of numerous EU agencies working in these domains. Such dynamism in policy-making has not been without challenges and vulnerabilities, however. As this collective volume shows, the main dilemmas that lie ahead relate to an effective (while more plural) institutional framework under the Treaty of Lisbon, stronger judicial scrutiny through a greater role for national courts and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, better mechanisms for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of EU AFSJ law and a more solid fundamental rights strategy. The contributions in this volume address the progress achieved so far in these policy areas, identify the challenges for future European cooperation in the AFSJ and put forward possible paths for making more progress in the next generation of the EU’s AFSJ.