Introduction, research questions, thesis and methodology
The International Court of Justice’s judgment of 3 February 2012 in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State concerns an apparent contradiction: exceptionally serious wrongdoing can remain beyond a foreign civil court’s jurisdiction. Germany did not dispute the illegality of the wartime atrocities underlying the Italian proceedings. The controversy concerned which courts could determine compensation claims against a foreign sovereign. Distinguishing those questions is essential to assessing the judgment without mistaking immunity for approval of the conduct.1
The literature divides over whether separating procedure from substance preserves legal coherence or prevents peremptory norms from operating effectively. Talmon defends the distinction; Orakhelashvili challenges its functional and ideological foundations.2 This paper addresses a narrower analytical gap: how that disagreement should inform assessment of the law identified in 2012, separately from subsequent constitutional resistance and remedial legislation. Parts II–V reconstruct the dispute and the Court’s reasoning; Parts VI–VIII assess its legacy and related cases; recommendations precede the final conclusion.
A. Research questions
1. Did the ICJ correctly identify the customary law of State immunity for acts of armed forces in armed conflict (acta jure imperii) as at 2012, including whether serious violations or jus cogens breaches create an exception?
2. Is the Court’s separation of procedural immunity rules from substantive jus cogens norms legally sound?
3. Was the Court right to reject the “last resort” argument and to identify further inter-State negotiation as a possible route to reparation?
4. What has been the legacy of the judgment (including the Italian Constitutional Court’s response, Germany’s 2022 application against Italy, and its effect on the jus cogens reasoning in Furundžija), and what limits, notably the remedy gap, remain?
B. Thesis
The ICJ correctly stated the applicable law: the peremptory character of a prohibition did not itself confer foreign civil jurisdiction or remove an established immunity. Its distinction is defensible because the legality of conduct and the authority to adjudicate it perform different legal functions. The thesis supports Germany’s jurisdictional position without treating historical reparation arrangements as necessarily sufficient. Any continuing compensation obligation requires separate examination; it cannot simply be transformed into an exception unsupported by the relevant practice.
C. Methodology
The method is doctrinal and comparative. Primary materials comprise the ICJ judgment and procedural orders, judicial opinions, the Italian constitutional decisions, European and British case law, the 2004 Convention and Italian legislation. The contrasting published positions of Talmon and Orakhelashvili frame the conceptual dispute. The analysis separates judicial holdings from submissions, dissents and proposals. Current institutional developments are checked against the ICJ docket and the United Nations Treaty Collection as at 8 October 2026; subsequent developments are not projected backwards into the customary law applicable in 2012.
Facts and procedural history
A. Wartime events and domestic litigation
After Italy’s surrender to the Allies in September 1943, German forces occupied substantial Italian territory. Atrocities included civilian massacres, deportation and forced labour. Italian military personnel were also detained and exploited as labourers. Post-war arrangements included the 1947 Peace Treaty, two bilateral agreements in 1961 and German compensation legislation. These arrangements explain the dispute’s background; the ICJ’s immunity ruling did not finally determine whether every relevant compensation claim had been extinguished.3
Luigi Ferrini, deported to Germany and compelled to work in a munitions factory, commenced proceedings in Italy in 1998. On 11 March 2004, the Court of Cassation held that an international crime could prevent reliance on immunity. That approach enabled further claims against Germany.4 In Greece, relatives of victims of the Distomo massacre obtained damages, upheld by the Areios Pagos in 2000. Enforcement in Greece required ministerial authorisation, which was withheld. In Margellos in 2002, the Special Supreme Court subsequently upheld Germany’s immunity.5
The Distomo claimants sought recognition and enforcement in Italy. On 7 June 2007, they registered a legal charge over Villa Vigoni, German State property near Lake Como used for bilateral cultural cooperation. The litigation therefore implicated adjudicative immunity, recognition of foreign judgments and immunity from execution. These were related but legally distinct questions.6
B. Proceedings before the ICJ
Germany instituted proceedings on 23 December 2008, relying on the European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes. Italy counterclaimed for reparation owed to Italian victims. By its Order of 6 July 2010, the ICJ held the counterclaim inadmissible because it fell outside the Convention’s temporal jurisdiction. This was a jurisdictional ruling, not a rejection on the merits of victims’ compensation claims.7
By the Order of 4 July 2011, Greece was permitted to intervene as a non-party concerning its courts’ decisions in the Distomo proceedings. Intervention did not make Greece a respondent or authorise a general adjudication of its international responsibility.8 The resulting judgment, delivered on 3 February 2012, assessed Italy’s conduct in exercising jurisdiction. Consequently, the governing immunity law was that applicable during the Italian proceedings, rather than the law of immunity prevailing when the wartime acts occurred.9
Issues before the Court
Germany’s first complaint concerned Italy’s exercise of civil jurisdiction over claims arising from wartime violations. Italy advanced a territorial tort argument: injury inflicted within the forum should fall outside immunity. Its further argument combined the gravity of the crimes, the peremptory status of the prohibitions and the absence of alternative redress. The Court therefore had to distinguish a claimed existing customary exception from an argument for developing one.10
The second issue concerned the legal charge over Villa Vigoni. Even a court competent to determine a claim does not necessarily possess authority to execute against foreign State property. The use of the asset, the owner’s consent and any allocation to satisfy claims required independent consideration.11
The third issue concerned Italian declarations that the Greek judgments were enforceable. Recognition proceedings could themselves engage Germany’s immunity before Italian courts. Greece’s intervention did not convert the case into an appeal from its courts’ judgments. The relevant question remained whether Italy had respected its own international obligations.12
Finally, the ICJ had to identify the consequences of any breach, including whether offending domestic decisions must cease to have effect and whether assurances against repetition were justified.13 These issues defined the judgment’s reach. The Court was neither trying individual perpetrators nor deciding the entire law of war reparations. The paper accordingly evaluates the immunity finding without attributing to it a ruling that Germany had no surviving responsibility. That discipline matters because a limited jurisdictional conclusion can otherwise be mistaken for a comprehensive vindication of the defendant State.
Applicable law
A. Custom, sovereign acts and the territorial tort argument
Customary international law governed the dispute. The ICJ examined national legislation, judicial decisions, immunity claims and official statements for evidence of both practice and acceptance as law. Sovereign equality supported immunity, while territorial sovereignty supported the forum’s ordinary jurisdiction. The task was to identify the accommodation reflected in existing law.14
Restrictive immunity distinguishes sovereign conduct, acta jure imperii, from private or commercial conduct, acta jure gestionis. Germany’s wartime conduct fell within the former category notwithstanding its criminality. The classification identifies the exercise of public power; it does not certify lawful behaviour. Treating every unlawful sovereign act as private would largely collapse the distinction.15
The territorial tort exception required more precision than its wording initially suggested. The Court confined its inquiry to armed forces and cooperating State organs acting during armed conflict. It did not decide that every sovereign tort committed locally attracts immunity. This limited formulation is essential when evaluating both the majority and Judge ad hoc Gaja’s objections.16 The inquiry consequently asks whether practice supports this particular exception, rather than whether restrictive immunity has displaced absolute immunity in unrelated categories such as commercial transactions.
B. The 2004 Convention
The United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, adopted on 2 December 2004, provides a useful framework: Article 5 states the general immunity rule, Article 10 addresses commercial transactions, Article 12 territorial injury, and Article 19 post-judgment measures of constraint.17 As at 8 October 2026, the depositary records twenty-five parties and twenty-eight signatories; thirty instruments are required for entry into force. Italy acceded in 2013. The Convention therefore has not entered into force, and particular provisions cannot automatically be treated as universally binding treaty law.18
Although Article 12 contains no express military exclusion, the ICJ examined the drafting history and declarations addressing military activities. Those materials did not establish an armed-conflict exception to customary immunity. The Convention supplied evidence to evaluate, rather than a substitute for analysing custom.19
C. Peremptory norms and criminal jurisdiction
Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines peremptory norms through acceptance and recognition by the international community of States as a whole and the exclusion of derogation; modification requires a later norm of the same character.20 In Furundžija, paragraphs 153–157 explain the torture prohibition’s superior status, the invalidity of authorising measures and the consequences for individual criminal responsibility.21
These consequences do not answer every jurisdictional question. Arrest Warrant distinguished the procedural immunity of an incumbent foreign minister from substantive criminal responsibility. Its setting differs from civil State immunity, but its reasoning demonstrates why identifying an international crime cannot alone settle which tribunal may adjudicate it. Institutional competence still needs an independent legal basis.22
Judgment analysis
A. Findings and operative orders
The ICJ found, by twelve votes to three, that Italy breached Germany’s immunity by allowing the relevant civil claims. Judges Cançado Trindade and Yusuf and Judge ad hoc Gaja dissented on that finding. The findings concerning Villa Vigoni and the recognition of Greek judgments, and the requirement that offending Italian decisions cease to have effect, were each adopted by fourteen votes to one. Germany’s other submissions were unanimously rejected.23
The refusal to order additional assurances of non-repetition reflected the absence of circumstances warranting them, not approval of Italy’s conduct. Italy retained a choice of implementation methods, but the result required by the judgment was binding between the parties.24
B. Identifying the customary rule
The majority’s strongest ground was evidential. Domestic decisions and legislation largely supported immunity for sovereign wartime acts. Italy’s contrary decisions and the initial Distomo ruling did not establish a generally accepted exception, particularly given the subsequent Greek position. The ICJ also distinguished proceedings against States from criminal proceedings against individuals.25
Its argument from the preliminary nature of immunity reinforced that conclusion. If gravity depended on proving the merits, immunity from proceedings would be lost through the inquiry needed to establish it. If allegation alone sufficed, pleading could defeat immunity.26 This is persuasive as a warning against an undefined exception, though not a logical demonstration that States could never adopt a carefully specified exception. Germany’s defence ultimately depends on the practice identified, not on treating procedural design as impossible.
C. Procedure, substance and the dissent
Paragraph 93 of the judgment assumes the peremptory character of the relevant wartime prohibitions and finds no conflict with immunity. A prohibition regulates conduct; immunity determines whether a foreign domestic forum may adjudicate it. Respecting immunity does not authorise the atrocity, validate its consequences or extinguish any duty of reparation. The Court consequently refused to infer jurisdiction simply from normative superiority.27
Judge Cançado Trindade’s strongest response was functional: procedure exists to realise justice, and withholding a forum can deprive substantive rights of effect. He rejected a rigid separation that conceals the actual obstruction of reparation.28 That criticism identifies consequences the majority’s classification cannot itself resolve. It does not, however, establish that the substantive prohibition incorporates a further peremptory obligation requiring every foreign civil court to hear the claim. Such an obligation must be demonstrated, rather than assumed from the importance of the underlying right.
Judges Koroma and Keith supplied separate opinions supporting the judgment’s jurisdictional and systemic foundations.29 Judge Bennouna concurred in the result but rejected the majority’s reasoning. He considered that immunity could be reconsidered if Germany closed every route to settlement; in his assessment, those exceptional circumstances had not arisen.30 Judge Yusuf favoured greater attention to exceptional circumstances and remedies; Judge ad hoc Gaja questioned the majority’s treatment of the territorial tort exception.31 Their positions were therefore distinct, not a single dissenting theory.
D. Last resort, execution and recognition
The majority rejected the proposition that immunity depended on another effective remedy because the relevant practice supplied no such condition. It also questioned how domestic judges could determine that negotiations had finally failed. Paragraph 104 identified further inter-State negotiation as a possible route; it did not impose an enforceable timetable or guarantee compensation.32
Villa Vigoni attracted immunity from enforcement because it served governmental, non-commercial purposes and Germany had neither consented to the charge nor earmarked the property for claims. The Court deliberately avoided declaring every detail of Article 19 of the Convention to be customary.33 Recognition of Greek judgments separately required Italy to respect Germany’s adjudicative immunity. The ICJ did not rule that Greece itself had breached international law.34
The Court also declined to decide whether individuals possessed a direct compensation entitlement or whether earlier settlements had extinguished it. Combining Italy’s rejected arguments did not create an exception either: immunity was not a discretionary balance recalculated for each claimant.35 These limits constrain claims about the judgment’s broader reach.
Together, these conclusions support Germany on carefully delimited grounds. Neither the existence of serious crimes nor the availability of a domestic judgment supplies the missing authority to adjudicate or execute. Keeping those stages distinct also prevents a claimant from bypassing an immunity through proceedings in another jurisdiction.
Significance and legacy
A. Constitutional resistance and legislative accommodation
Italy initially legislated for compliance through Article 3 of Law No. 5 of 2013. Constitutional Court Judgment 238/2014 then held that the immunity rule, as interpreted by the ICJ, could not enter the Italian legal order insofar as it conflicted with the fundamental rights protected by Articles 2 and 24 of the Constitution. It also invalidated the relevant implementing provisions to the stated extent.36
This was constitutional resistance to domestic reception, not an appellate reversal of the ICJ. Its strongest argument concerns the constitutional necessity of access to a judge. The answer from Germany’s perspective is that domestic constitutional validity and international compliance are distinct: a State’s internal law cannot determine whether its conduct breaches an international obligation. Judicial conduct remains attributable to the State.37
Article 43 of Decree-Law No. 36 of 30 April 2022, converted by Law No. 79 of 29 June 2022, established an Italian compensation fund for qualifying victims and channelled satisfaction away from execution against Germany.38 Judgment 159/2023 upheld the challenged termination of enforcement proceedings in light of the alternative protection provided by that fund. This accommodation concerns compensation and enforcement; it should not be described as a general reversal of Judgment 238/2014.39 Its significance is institutional: legislation can arrange satisfaction without requiring foreign assets to answer domestic judgments. Whether eligible individuals actually receive timely payment remains a separate question from the legal validity of the mechanism.
B. Germany’s new application and the limits of continuity
Germany instituted fresh ICJ proceedings on 29 April 2022 alleging continuing immunity violations. It later withdrew its request for provisional measures following Italy’s legislative response; that withdrawal did not discontinue the principal case.40 By its Order of 17 December 2024, the Court suspended proceedings pending notification from either party. The docket checked on 8 October 2026 lists that suspension as the latest procedural development, not a merits judgment or final settlement.41
C. The continuing relevance of Furundžija
The 2012 judgment does not overrule Furundžija. It limits an inference drawn from normative hierarchy: the superior status of the torture prohibition does not automatically defeat civil State immunity. In Al-Adsani, the European Court of Human Rights accepted the prohibition’s peremptory character while upholding immunity; in Jones, Lord Hoffmann explained that Furundžija’s discussion of civil redress presupposed a competent forum.42
The decisions can therefore coexist at the level of their holdings. Individual criminal responsibility and the invalidity of measures authorising torture remain separate from the jurisdictional conditions for suing a State. Any broader reading requires an additional legal argument that Furundžija itself did not decide.
Critical evaluation and limits of the judgment
The judgment’s principal strength is its refusal to derive a jurisdictional exception from moral gravity alone. Immunity would offer little stability if each national court could replace the customary rule with its own assessment of the importance of a claim. Talmon’s defence appropriately directs attention to the different work performed by substantive and procedural rules.43 A persuasive defence nevertheless rests on their actual scope, not on a universal claim that anything labelled procedural is insulated from peremptory law.
The strongest limited concession concerns victims excluded from effective compensation. The ICJ itself regretted Germany’s exclusion of many military internees on the basis of a prisoner-of-war status that the Nazi authorities had denied them in practice. Immunity preserved a legal boundary without ensuring a remedy across it. Negotiation was therefore a legally available response, but its practical adequacy depended on subsequent political action.44
That shortcoming supports better settlement mechanisms rather than retroactively proving an exception in 2012. It also requires caution about the present. The Convention has not entered into force, and the Netherlands’ 2025 accession declaration leaves room for restricting immunity in cases of war crimes or crimes of aggression, as recognised by the international community and in accordance with international law.45 Such a statement warrants attention as evidence of a State’s position, but does not alone demonstrate a new general custom. The proper distinction is between identifying the law governing the original dispute and evaluating later proposals or emerging practice. Germany’s successful jurisdictional argument should be defended at the former level without assuming that international law must remain permanently unchanged at the latter.
Related case law
Table 1 places the principal authorities in their respective procedural settings. The comparison guards against treating all references to jus cogens as answers to the same question. Furundžija concerns criminal responsibility and the consequences of the torture prohibition; Arrest Warrant concerns a serving minister’s personal immunity. Neither is a direct decision on compensation proceedings against a foreign State.46
Ferrini and Distomo supply the strongest domestic challenges, while Margellos demonstrates that national practice must be read as a whole. Their significance is not determined by counting judgments without examining institutional authority and subsequent treatment.47 Al-Adsani, Kalogeropoulou and Jones address civil immunity more directly, but their different territorial and enforcement settings remain important.48
The Italian constitutional decisions and the renewed ICJ proceedings add a further distinction between international obligation, domestic constitutional reception and the practical payment of compensation. A later constitutional obstacle does not itself amend the earlier international judgment. Conversely, suspending international proceedings does not establish that all victims have obtained payment. Table 1 therefore records the new case as pending with proceedings suspended, and records the compensation legislation as a remedial development. These classifications help preserve the judgment’s doctrinal significance without overstating its finality or its practical reach.
| Case | Forum | Year | Holding on immunity and jus cogens | Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ferrini | Italian Court of Cassation | 2004 | International crimes displaced immunity in the Italian proceedings. | Principal Italian challenge.49 |
| Al-Adsani | ECtHR, Grand Chamber | 2001 | Torture’s peremptory status did not remove civil State immunity. | Supports Germany’s distinction.50 |
| Kalogeropoulou | ECtHR | 2002 | No established human-rights exception required enforcement against Germany. | Enforcement and access to court.51 |
| Jones | UK House of Lords | 2006 | Torture allegations did not defeat the immunity claimed in civil proceedings. | Explains the limits of Furundžija.52 |
| Arrest Warrant | ICJ | 2002 | An incumbent foreign minister retained immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction. | Different defendant and jurisdiction.53 |
| Prefecture of Voiotia (Distomo) | Greek Areios Pagos | 2000 | Rejected immunity in the Distomo damages proceedings. | Contrary Greek practice.54 |
| Margellos | Greek Special Supreme Court | 2002 | Upheld immunity for sovereign wartime conduct. | Qualifies the Distomo precedent.55 |
| Judgment 238/2014 | Italian Constitutional Court | 2014 | Fundamental rights restricted domestic reception of the immunity rule. | Constitutional resistance.56 |
| Judgment 159/2023 | Italian Constitutional Court | 2023 | Upheld termination of enforcement in light of the compensation fund. | Legislative accommodation.57 |
| Germany v. Italy, new application | ICJ, General List No. 183 | 2022 | No merits holding; suspended on 17 December 2024, as at 8 October 2026. | Continuing implementation dispute.58 |
Table 1: Related case law
Recommendations
Germany and Italy should pursue a documented settlement process for outstanding claims, with agreed eligibility rules, transparent decisions and independent review. Italy should maintain accessible procedures and sufficient resources for the compensation mechanism, while clearly separating payment rights from execution against protected foreign assets. Both States should publish progress information that permits assessment of actual redress. At the multilateral level, States could use the General Assembly’s Sixth Committee to clarify the relationship between immunity and remedies and consider agreed treaty provisions. Any new exception should define its scope and safeguards expressly, rather than depend on inconsistent national balancing of individual cases.
Conclusion
The ICJ correctly identified the customary rule governing Germany’s immunity in the Italian proceedings. Its separation of adjudicative competence from substantive illegality is doctrinally defensible, and Italy’s territorial, hierarchical and last-resort arguments did not establish an applicable exception. Subsequent constitutional resistance exposes a conflict over implementation, rather than disproving the original international holding. The judgment also leaves compensation questions unresolved and cannot be treated as a complete response to victims. Its enduring lesson is that the authority to adjudicate must be established independently, while States remain responsible for addressing outstanding claims through lawful and effective arrangements for reparation.
*****
Footnotes
1. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Ger. v. It.: Greece intervening), Judgment, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 52–61 (Feb. 3), https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
2. Compare Stefan Talmon, Jus Cogens After Germany v. Italy: Substantive and Procedural Rules Distinguished, 25 Leiden J. Int’l L. 979, 979 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156512000532 (abstract), with Alexander Orakhelashvili, The Classification of International Legal Rules: A Reply to Stefan Talmon, 26 Leiden J. Int’l L. 89, 89 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156512000660, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/abs/classification-of-international-legal-rules-a-reply-to-stefan-talmon/BA9A6AC2DB7844E06FE861758B1DB9EC (abstract).
3. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 20–26, 108, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
4. Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany, Corte di cassazione [Cass.] [Court of Cassation], Mar. 11, 2004, No. 5044/2004, 128 I.L.R. 658, ¶¶ 1, 9.1–9.2, 12 (It.), https://documents.law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/ferrini_v._germany_-_italy_-_2004.pdf (English translation); see also Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶ 27, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
5. Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany, Areios Pagos [A.P.] [Supreme Court], May 4, 2000, No. 11/2000, 129 I.L.R. 513, 519–21 (Greece), https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/19062.pdf#page=93; Margellos v. Federal Republic of Germany, Anotato Eidiko Dikastirio [A.E.D.] [Special Supreme Court], Sept. 17, 2002, No. 6/2002, 129 I.L.R. 525, ¶ 14 (Greece), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332466450_Germany_v_Margellos_and_18_other_natural_and_legal_persons_intervening_Petition_for_Cassation_Special_Supreme_Court (partial English translation). For the subsequent enforcement history and the relationship between the decisions, see Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 30, 36, 76, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
6. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 33–35, 119, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
7. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Ger. v. It.), Counter-Claim, Order, 2010 I.C.J. 310, ¶¶ 26–33 (July 6), https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20100706-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf; Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 1, 37–51, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
8. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Ger. v. It.), Application for Permission to Intervene, Order, 2011 I.C.J. 494, ¶¶ 25–26, 32–34 (July 4), https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20110704-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf.
9. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶ 58, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
10. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 62, 80, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
11. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 109–18, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
12. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 121–30, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
13. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 134–39, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
14. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 54–57, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf; Statute of the International Court of Justice art. 38(1)(b), https://www.icj-cij.org/statute.
15. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 59–61, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
16. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 64–65, 77–78, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
17. United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property arts. 5, 10, 12, 19, Dec. 2, 2004, G.A. Res. 59/38, annex, https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/4_1_2004.pdf [hereinafter State Immunity Convention].
18. Status of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, U.N. Treaty Collection, https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=III-13&chapter=3&clang=_en (last visited Oct. 8, 2026) [hereinafter UNTC Status]; State Immunity Convention art. 30, https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/4_1_2004.pdf.
19. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 67–69, 77–79, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
20. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 53, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf (entered into force Jan. 27, 1980).
21. Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, ¶¶ 153–57 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Dec. 10, 1998), https://www.icty.org/x/cases/furundzija/tjug/en/fur-tj981210e.pdf.
22. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Belg.), Judgment, 2002 I.C.J. 3, ¶¶ 58–61 (Feb. 14), https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/121/121-20020214-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
23. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶ 139, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
24. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 137–39, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf; Statute of the International Court of Justice art. 59, https://www.icj-cij.org/statute.
25. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 70–79, 83–91, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
26. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶ 82, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
27. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 92–97, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
28. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Ger. v. It.: Greece intervening), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade, 2012 I.C.J. 179, ¶¶ 291–96 (Feb. 3), https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-04-EN.pdf.
29. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Ger. v. It.: Greece intervening), Separate Opinion of Judge Koroma, 2012 I.C.J. 157, ¶¶ 1–4 (Feb. 3), https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-01-EN.pdf; Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Ger. v. It.: Greece intervening), Separate Opinion of Judge Keith, 2012 I.C.J. 161, ¶¶ 1–3 (Feb. 3), https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-02-EN.pdf.
30. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Ger. v. It.: Greece intervening), Separate Opinion of Judge Bennouna, 2012 I.C.J. 172, ¶¶ 1, 23–27 (Feb. 3), https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-03-EN.pdf.
31. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Ger. v. It.: Greece intervening), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Yusuf, 2012 I.C.J. 291, ¶¶ 56–59 (Feb. 3), https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-05-EN.pdf; Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Ger. v. It.: Greece intervening), Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Gaja, 2012 I.C.J. 309, ¶¶ 1–3 (Feb. 3), https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-06-EN.pdf.
32. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 98–104, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
33. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 113–20, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
34. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 130–33, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
35. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 105–08, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
36. Corte costituzionale [Corte cost.] [Constitutional Court], Oct. 22, 2014, No. 238, Conclusions in Point of Law ¶¶ 3.1–3.5, 4.1, 5.1 (It.), https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/uploads/english/documenti/download/doc/recent_judgments/S238_2013_en.pdf.
37. G.A. Res. 56/83, annex, Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts arts. 3–4 (Dec. 12, 2001), https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/9_6_2001.pdf.
38. Decreto-legge 30 aprile 2022, n. 36 [Decree-Law No. 36 of Apr. 30, 2022], art. 43, G.U. Apr. 30, 2022, n. 100, converted with amendments by Legge 29 giugno 2022, n. 79 [Law No. 79 of June 29, 2022], G.U. June 29, 2022, n. 150 (It.), https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/atto/serie_generale/caricaArticolo?art.codiceRedazionale=22A03859&art.dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=2022-06-29&art.flagTipoArticolo=0&art.idArticolo=43&art.idGruppo=7&art.idSottoArticolo=1&art.idSottoArticolo1=10&art.progressivo=0&art.versione=1.
39. Corte costituzionale [Corte cost.] [Constitutional Court], July 4, 2023, No. 159, Conclusions on Points of Law ¶¶ 16–17 (It.), https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/uploads/english/documenti/download/doc/recent_judgments/Sentenza%20n.%20159%20del%202023%20EN.pdf.
40. Questions of Jurisdictional Immunities of the State and Measures of Constraint Against State-Owned Property (Ger. v. It.), Application Instituting Proceedings, General List No. 183, ¶¶ 1, 4–10 (Apr. 29, 2022), https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/183/183-20220429-APP-01-00-EN.pdf; Questions of Jurisdictional Immunities of the State and Measures of Constraint Against State-Owned Property (Ger. v. It.), Withdrawal of the Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Order, 2022 I.C.J. 462, 464–65 (May 10), https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/183/183-20220510-ord-01-00-en.pdf.
41. Questions of Jurisdictional Immunities of the State and Measures of Constraint Against State-Owned Property (Ger. v. It.), Order, 2024 I.C.J. 1245, 1246–47 (Dec. 17), https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/183/183-20241217-ord-01-00-en.pdf; Case 183: Questions of Jurisdictional Immunities of the State and Measures of Constraint Against State-Owned Property, Int’l Ct. Just., https://www.icj-cij.org/case/183 (last visited Oct. 8, 2026).
42. Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, App. No. 35763/97, ¶¶ 60–67 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Nov. 21, 2001), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-59885&filename=001-59885.pdf; Jones v. Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26, [2007] 1 A.C. 270, [49]–[54] (appeal taken from Eng.), https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060614/jones.pdf.
43. Talmon, supra note 2, at 979, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156512000532 (abstract).
44. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 99–104, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
45. UNTC Status, supra note 18, Netherlands, declaration upon accession (Apr. 23, 2025), https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=III-13&chapter=3&clang=_en.
46. Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, ¶¶ 153–57, https://www.icty.org/x/cases/furundzija/tjug/en/fur-tj981210e.pdf; Arrest Warrant, 2002 I.C.J. 3, ¶¶ 58–61, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/121/121-20020214-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
47. Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 27, 30, 36, 76, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
48. Al-Adsani, App. No. 35763/97, ¶¶ 60–67, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-59885&filename=001-59885.pdf; Kalogeropoulou v. Greece & Germany, App. No. 59021/00, Decision, at 8–9 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Dec. 12, 2002), https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-23539&filename=001-23539.pdf; Jones [2006] UKHL 26, [49]–[54], https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060614/jones.pdf.
49. Ferrini, 128 I.L.R. 658, ¶¶ 9.1–9.2, 12, https://documents.law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/ferrini_v._germany_-_italy_-_2004.pdf.
50. Al-Adsani, App. No. 35763/97, ¶¶ 60–67, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-59885&filename=001-59885.pdf.
51. Kalogeropoulou, App. No. 59021/00, at 8–9, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-23539&filename=001-23539.pdf. The decision has no numbered paragraphs; the pinpoints refer to its printed page numbers.
52. Jones [2006] UKHL 26, [49]–[54], https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060614/jones.pdf.
53. Arrest Warrant, 2002 I.C.J. 3, ¶¶ 58–61, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/121/121-20020214-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
54. Prefecture of Voiotia, 129 I.L.R. at 519–21, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/19062.pdf#page=93.
55. Margellos, No. 6/2002, ¶ 14, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332466450_Germany_v_Margellos_and_18_other_natural_and_legal_persons_intervening_Petition_for_Cassation_Special_Supreme_Court (partial English translation); see also Jurisdictional Immunities, 2012 I.C.J. 99, ¶¶ 36, 76, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/143/143-20120203-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf.
56. Corte cost., No. 238/2014, Conclusions in Point of Law ¶¶ 3.1–3.5, 4.1, 5.1, https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/uploads/english/documenti/download/doc/recent_judgments/S238_2013_en.pdf.
57. Corte cost., No. 159/2023, Conclusions on Points of Law ¶¶ 16–17, https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/uploads/english/documenti/download/doc/recent_judgments/Sentenza%20n.%20159%20del%202023%20EN.pdf.
58. Questions of Jurisdictional Immunities, 2024 I.C.J. at 1246–47, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/183/183-20241217-ord-01-00-en.pdf; Case 183, Int’l Ct. Just., https://www.icj-cij.org/case/183 (last visited Oct. 8, 2026).