The concept of State and diplomatic immunity flows from customary international law1There are several justifications which exist for State immunity. The most prominent is thedoctrine of restrictive immunity of foreign States which exempts foreign States fromjurisdictional prosecution in another States national court. Inherent in this doctrine is also thepresumption that States should not interfere with any public acts of foreign sovereign Statesand nor should they intervene in the conduct of foreign policy out of respect of the Statessovereign equality.and itis often expressed in the maxim par in parem non habet jurisdictionem, or more simply, thatno State can claim jurisdiction over another. These immunities exist in order to promotestable relations between States and they are based on the notion that States will be able toconduct peaceful and passive diplomacy when they are in force. The establishment ofdiplomatic relations between nations takes place by their mutual consent – as stipulated inArticle 2 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961. It is through this mutualconsent that agents of one State may enter the territory of another State and act in theirofficial capacity. The privileges bestowed upon a diplomatic agent sent to a receiving Stateare such that the agent has exclusive power of the territorial sovereign to regulate and toenforce decisions of its organs while ensuring they respect the territory and the population ofthe receiving State. It is acknowledged that these privileges are limited to the rights bestowedby the receiving State, such that the receiving State can use reasonable force when ensuringthat the activities being conducted by diplomatic agents are not in excess of the licence beingconferred to them, or that their actions are in breach of international law.
