 Individuals have rarely access to international courts, and domestic courts are very often the most natural legal venue to demand the respect of rights and to seek justice. And this last section of week 7 about seeking justice will address the most common international law hurdle when a claim against a foreign state, a foreign official or an international organization is presented to a domestic court or tribunal, and this hurdle is called jurisdictional immunities. In order to clearly understand the issue that we are going to address, it is important to clarify first what we are not going to deal with. We are not going to address the domestic law issues that arise when individuals or other legal persons decide to sue a government, state agencies or state officials, before their own national courts and tribunals. In some jurisdictions, the state and all its subdivisions and officials are treated like any other litigant and there is no limit to the possibility of bringing a contract claim or a tort claim against any of them, or to request that an administrative act be quashed. In other jurisdictions, the state and its subdivisions and officials are to a certain degree immune from the domestic court's scrutiny, and even in legal systems that are deeply marked by the requirement of the rule of law. For instance, domestic law doctrines derived from the separation of powers, like the political question doctrine in the United States, or the theory of act de gouvernement in France, or any other similar domestic law doctrine, those doctrines allow to shield certain foreign policy decisions or other highly sensitive political decisions from judicial scrutiny. And those important issues cannot be of interest to us in this course because they are essentially based on constitutional domestic traditions and they remain unregulated by international law. Because every domestic legal order is different and absent any specific treaty provision, treaty obligation, international law is not concerned with those issues and they will not be covered in this course. Another issue that we are not going to cover relates to the rules of international law that apply when the property of a foreign state or the property of an international organization is seized in order to enforce a judgment by which that foreign state or the organization has been ordered to pay compensation. And those issues relate to measures of constraint and attachment of property and assets. And international law has something to say about those issues, but it makes no sense I think to speak about the rules of international law in that regard if one does not have a clear understanding of the domestic enforcement procedures. And however, because those procedures vary from state to state and are of interest to some very specialized attorneys, this course will not cover enforcement measures against foreign state property or the asset of international organizations. Rather, we are going to address the international law obligations which prevent domestic courts from entertaining substantive claims when the respondent in a case is a foreign state or an international organization. Those obligations on the side of the domestic courts are corresponding rights of the state or of the organization which is sued before the foreign domestic court. The foreign state or the international organization will claim the benefit of jurisdictional immunities so that the domestic court will have to abstain from passing judgment on their impugned action. But to what extent do jurisdictional immunities exist to the benefit of states or organization? Also, as announced at the very beginning of this week, we are going to address the rules of international law relating to the immunity of state officials when they are prosecuted abroad on account of alleged crimes and again who benefits from such immunities and in which circumstances do they exist. Before engaging with the concrete rules of international law on the immunities of states, of international organizations and of state officials, it is important to stress that immunity does not equate with irresponsibility and it does not mean impunity. The fact that a subject is exempt from judgment by certain national authorities does not mean that its impugned actions are legal. Neither does it mean that it is not responsible for what it did and that no court, no tribunal, will ever be able to decide on such responsibility. The rules on jurisdictional immunities are rules that by forbidding some judges to adjudicate, allocate the authority to pass judgment to other judges and those judges are most usually the national judges of the state or of the officials concerned. But of course, it is often the fact that states do not have a proper and independent judiciary, a fair and impartial judicial system and this leads to consider that justice should be sought abroad by turning to the courts of another state where courts are reliable and enjoy a real constitutional independence and this is perfectly understandable and the reason why immunities are today very much criticized and contested as an illegitimate obstacle in the pursuit of justice. However, one needs to be careful in that regard because getting away with immunities will maybe result on the short term with justice for victims but on the longer term this may result in some already powerful states exercising their authority through their courts and tribunals over other states and other organizations to the detriment of the sovereignty, the independence and the autonomy of those subjects. In other words, the rules on immunity may at first sight seem outrageous and unjust but if one criticizes and rejects them, one should carefully think of what the world would be without them because doing away with immunities would of course have to be reciprocal if the courts of western states begin to adjudicate claims against other states, even states that are called rogue states, one should not expect the court of those other states to pay respect to the immunity of the western states. Can you imagine the tensions resulting from everyone judging everyone about disputes that would be very much politically loaded? Would such a chaos serve the cause of justice and peace and what remains of the authority of a judge if the judgments it issues remains dead letter and cannot be enforced? I'm not saying that the rules on immunity do not have to evolve to a certain degree, I'm just saying that in the world as it stands today they continue to fulfill an important role and public purpose to the benefit of the world community. Let us turn to the immunity of states from jurisdiction.