The legal doctrine on basis of which the state or a sovereign of a particular state are “immune” from any civil or criminal legal action is called as Sovereign Immunity. This concept has been prevalent since ancient times with phrases like ‘ the king can do no wrong’ and have continued presently through sovereign immunity in the form that a government can do no wrong. This principle exempts a particular state from taking responsibility and the aggrieved party is generally not provided with justice.  This concept has been interpreted differently across the globe. Usually this principle depends upon the relation between the nation, existing treaties for the same, the laws of the nation, international standing of the issue etc. This paper attempts to understand this principle by comparing its existence in three different countries. The concept has evolved differently in all the countries due to various factors like international standing, relation with other countries, type of government, policies of the state to name a few. This principle has many advantages and disadvantages which will be examined based on the attitude of these three countries with respect to sovereign immunity.

 Download Full Paper