The Evolution of the Absolute Immunity in the Domestic Laws of Eurasian Countries and Iran

Articles in Press

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Torbat Heydarieh Branch, Islamic Azad University Torbat-e Heydarieh, Iran

2 M.A. in International Law, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

10.22059/jcep.2025.381215.450253

Abstract

Introduction: This extensive study examines the evolution of the Doctrine of State Immunity under domestic law in selected Eurasian countries: Türkiye, China, Russia, Ukraine, and Iran. The countries were chosen for inclusion because they represent a wide variety of legal traditions. They are important players within the Eurasian region, both geopolitically and having experienced accelerated growth recently through new laws regarding sovereign immunity, and are among the most important countries for regional economic and political cooperation within Eurasia today.
State immunity, which stems from the principle of sovereign equality, has been recognized as a customary and binding rule of international law since before the existence of nation-states. In recent years, there has been a significant trend among states moving from absolute immunity to limited immunity, driven by emerging concepts such as human rights, violations of peremptory norms, and the distinction between imperial and administrative legal acts (acts jure imperii and acts jure gestionis). Accordingly, this research will examine how these developments have occurred.
Research question: In this regard, the research answers the following fundamental question: In what ways has the concept of state immunity developed in domestic law and judicial application in these countries, and what similarities and differences do countries show in their approaches to the concept of immunity?
Research hypothesis: This study assumes that, despite cultural and legal differences, they are gradually changing along similar paths away from absolute immunity to restrictive immunity, although the pace and form of implementation differ.
Methodology: The methodological approach of this research is comparative-analytical, and the required data have been collected through library and documentary studies of relevant laws, judicial procedures, and cases of the countries under study. This approach will conduct a preliminary systematic analysis of domestic laws, court decisions, and international conventions.
Results and discussion: These findings point to the complexity of the evolving complexity of state immunity in the relevant jurisdictions studied. State immunity in Türkiye has gradually developed through legislation and judicial interpretation, especially after the Private International Law and International Civil Procedure Code of 1982. Turkish Courts have increasingly recognized exceptions to immunity, especially in commercial activities, while also showing a willingness to challenge immunity in counter-terrorism contexts. In China, this development has been marked by the passage of the Foreign Government Immunities Law in 2023, which formally adopted the doctrine of restrictive immunity in relation to commercial activities. This is in stark contrast to China’s traditional position of absolute immunity, although it has remained conservative on human rights exceptions and universal jurisdiction.
Russia’s path is set by the 2015 Federal Law on Jurisdictional Immunities, which includes the principle of reciprocity and is a step towards limited immunity, particularly for commercial matters. However, like China, Russia has remained conservative when it comes to addressing immunity exceptions to human rights violations. The Ukrainian experience represents a significant development, as the 2022 decision of the country’s Supreme Court to reject the Russian Federation’s immunity in cases arising from military aggression demonstrates how egregious violations of international law can overwhelm traditional protections of immunity.
Iran’s approach has always been that of reciprocity in all its interactions, as rightly stated in the 2012 Iranian Jurisdiction Law. However, it is more evident that this influence is expanding in Iran's legal, diplomatic, and economic relations with Eurasian countries, especially in strategic areas such as trade, investment, and energy cooperation.
Conclusion: The study concludes that although legal traditions and cultural contexts for the countries we studied vary, there is a general trend towards restrictive immunity across all locations, but that movement is occurring at different speeds. This convergence reflects the broader evolution of international law itself, which seeks to find a balance between traditional state immunity and the protection of international trade or human rights.
Our comparative-analytical study highlights the different paths toward the new status quo: China and Russia have adopted laws (laws of 2023 and 2015, respectively) showing hesitant approaches to human rights exceptions; Türkiye has limited its immunity mainly through judicial interpretation, while recently introducing limited exceptions to combat terrorism; the Ukrainian Supreme Court decision in 2022 is likely to be seen as a turning point for denying Russia immunity as a consequence of military aggression; and Iran's reciprocity practice, which affects its relations with Eurasian partners. Taken together, the above studies show that the evolution of state immunity represents a clear redefinition of sovereignty, or at least a shift away from concepts of absolute immunity, in which human rights protection and trade facilitation gradually replace the protection of state immunity.

Keywords

References

نی، عباس و سیدمصطفی کازرونی (1395)، «بررسی تطبیقی قوانین مصونیت دولتی جمهوری اسلامی ایران با ایالات متحدۀ امریکا با توجه به دستبرد 2 میلیارد دلاری ایالات متحده بر اموال ایران»، مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، دوره 7، شماره 2، صص. 461-491، (doi: 10.22059/jcl.2016.60689).
حاتمی، مهدی و فرشته سادات حسینی (1395)، «مصونیت قضایی دولت با تأکید بر رأی دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در قضیه آلمان علیه ایتالیا»، مجله حقوقی دادگستری، دوره 80، شماره 93، صص.61-86، (doi: 10.22106/jlj.2016.19859).
حبیبی مجنده، محمد، سیدعلی حسینی آزاد و الناز رحیم خویی (1393)، «نقد عملکرد ایالات متحده آمریکا در نقض مصونیت قضایی دولت ها در آیینه حقوق بین الملل و رأی 2012 دیوان بین المللی دادگستری»، مجله حقوقی بین المللی، دوره 31، شماره 51، صص. 67-96، (doi: 10.22066/cilamag.2015.15771).
حسینی اکبرنژاد، حوریه (۱۳۹۸)، «تعارض میان منفعت عمومی جامعه و منفعت فردی دولت‌ها: گذار از اصل مصونیت در پرتو تحول حقوق بین‌الملل کیفری»، پژوهش‌های حقوقی، دوره 18، شماره ۳۸، صص. 27-43، (doi: 10.48300/jlr.2019.93328).
خضری، سید مرتضی (1391)، «مصونیت دولت از نگاه حقوق بین‌الملل»، پژوهش‌نامه اندیشه‌های حقوقی، دوره 1، شماره 3، صفحات 113-146، قابل دسترسی در: https://rroltd.journals.ikiu.ac.ir/article_203.html، تاریخ دسترسی: ۲۳/۰۷/۱۴۰۴.
رینیش، آگوست، امیرساعد وکیل (۱۳۸۶)، «رویه‌ دیوان‌ اروپایی‌ در ارتباط‌ با مصونیت‌ دولتها از اقدامات‌ اجرائی»، مجله حقوقی بین‌المللی، دوره ۲۵، شماره ۳۸، صص. ۴۷-۸۹،  (doi: 10.22066/cilamag.2008.17525).
شهلایی، فراز (۱۳۹۴)، «یک جدال حقوقی تمام عیار: ایتالیا علیه دیوان بین المللی دادگستری»، پژوهش‌های حقوقی، دوره ۱۴،‌شماره ۲۷، صص. ۲۰۱-۲۲۱، قابل دسترسی در: https://jlr.sdil.ac.ir/article_32129.html، تاریخ دسترسی: ۰۶/۰۸/۱۴۰۴.
ظاهری، علیرضا (۱۳۸۲)، «تحولات قاعده مصونیت دولت: تأثیر قانون صلاحیت دادگستری جمهوری اسلامی ایران و قانون مبارزه با تروریسم ایالات متحده آمریکا»، مجله حقوقی بین‌المللی، شماره ۲۱، دوره ۳۰، صص. 119-۱۷۷، (doi: 10.22066/cilamag.2004.1802).
عبدالهی، محسن، حسین خلف رضایی (۱۴۰۰)، «معادله تعارض اصل مصونیت دولت با قواعد آمره حقوق بشر»، دوفصلنامۀ علمی حقوق تطبیقی, شماره ۰، دوره ۱۸، صص. 101-11۸، قابل دسترسی در: https://law.mofidu.ac.ir/article_46920.html، تاریخ دسترسی: ۱۹-۰۹/۱۴۰۴،
فیروزآبادیان، مهدی، زهره افشار قوچانی و فرامرز یادگاریان (1404)، «گذار از مصونیت مطلق به مصونیت نسبی دولت: پلی میان اسکاندیناوی و خاورمیانه در آیینه تحولات حقوق بین‌الملل»، پژوهش تطبیقی حقوق اسلام و غرب،
       (doi: 10.22091/csiw.2025.12333.2634).
فیروزآبادیان، مهدی و فرامرز یادگاریان (1404)، «تعارض مصونیت دولت و حقوق بشر: به سوی یک سازکار بین‌المللی جبران خسارت»، دوفصلنامۀ بین‌المللی حقوق‌بشر، دوره 20، شماره 1، (doi: 10.22096/hr.2024.2040625.1686).
کدخدایی، عباسعلی، عبدالله عابدینی(۱۳۹۴)، «مصونیت دولت و قاعده آمره: استثنای در حال ظهور؟»، فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی دانشگاه تهران، دوره 45، شماره 1، صص. 35–62، (doi: 10.22059/jplsq.2015.53721).
کرباسی، مهشید، علیرضا ضاهری و عباس کوچ نژاد (۱۴۰۳)، «قاعده مصونیت دولت با تاکید بر رویکرد فدراسیون روسیه»، پژوهش‌های حقوقی، دوره ۲۳، شماره ۶۰، صص. ۳۵۷-۳۸۸، (doi: 10.48300/jlr.2023.416178.2442).
کرباسی، مهشید، علیرضا ظاهری، محسن عبدالهی و عباس کوچ‌نژاد (۱۴۰۱)، «مصونیت دولت‌ها و اموال آنها در پرتو حقوق داخلی کشورها (مطالعه موردی ژاپن و ایتالیا)»، مجله پژوهش‌های حقوقی، دوره 21، شماره ۵۱، صص. ۳۹–۷۲،
(doi: 10.48300/jlr.2022.302728.1754).
کرم زاده، سیامک (1397)، «صدور و اجرای آرای دادگاه‌های امریکا علیه اموال بانک مرکزی ایران از منظر حقوق بین‌الملل و حقوق امریکا»، مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، دوره 9، شماره 1، صص. 351-379، (doi: 10.22059/jcl.2018.247831.633598).
کولایی، الهه، محمد صداقت (۱۳۹۶)،‌ «بحران اوکراین و آیین نظامی روسیه»، مطالعات اوراسیای مرکزی، شماره ۱۰، دوره ۱، صص. ۲۰۵-۲۲۰، (doi: 10.22059/jcep.2017.62908).
کولایی، الهه، عابد نوروزی زرمهری (1400)، «همکاری ایران، روسیه و جمهوری آذربایجان در ایجاد راه ‌گذر شمال- جنوب و تأثیر آن بر امنیت ملی ایران»، فصلنامه سیاست، دوره  ۵۱، ‌شماره ۳، صص. ۷۸۹-۸۱۱، (doi: 10.22059/jpq.2021.318617.1007743).
قانون صلاحیت دادگستری جمهوری اسلامی ایران برای رسیدگی به دعاوی مدنی علیه دولت‌های خارجی (1390)، مجلس شورای اسلامی، قابل دسترسی در: https://rc.majlis.ir/fa/law/show/809987، تاریخ دسترسی: ۲۳/۰۷/۱۴۰۴.
متقی دستنایی، افشین، آرش سلطانی ‌(۱۴۰۱)، «تأثیر بنیان‌های ژئوپلیتیکی سیاست خارجی جمهوری ‌اسلامی ‌‌ایران نسبت به ترکیه در اوراسیا»، مطالعات اوراسیای مرکزی، دوره 15 1، شماره ۱، صص. 307-330،
(doi: 10.22059/jcep.2022.319067.449985).
محروق، فاطمه و فاطمه سنیسل (۱۴۰۴)، ‌«جایگاه تحریم‌های اتحادیۀ اروپا و ایالات ‌متحد علیه روسیه در بحران اوکراین»، مطالعات اوراسیای مرکزی، دوره ۱۸، شماره ۱، صص. ۳۶۱-۳۹۰، (doi: 10.22059/jcep.2025.378503.450233).
میرفخرائی، سیدحسن (۱۴۰۲)، «بحران اوکراین و تغییر در قطبش نظام بین‌الملل؛ پیامدها بر مشارکت راهبردی ایران و روسیه»، مطالعات کشورها، دوره ۱ ، شماره ۴، صص. ۵۵۷-۵۷۸، (doi: 10.22059/jcountst.2023.361560.1041).
یادگاریان، فرامرز، محسن محبی و امیرحسین ملکی زاده (1403)، «اثبات صلاحیت ماهوی دیوان بین المللی دادگستری در پرونده نقض معاهده مودت 1955»، فصلنامه مطالعات بین‌المللی، دوره 21، شماره 1، صص. 31-54، (doi: 10.22034/isj.2024.398132.2012).
 
English
Aliyev, Azar and Anastasiia Bessonova (2020), "Russian Law on Immunities: First Stock-Taking", Social Science Research Network,
      (doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3521204).
Bismuth, Régis, Vera Rusinova, Vladislav Starzhenetskiy, and Geir Ulfstein (2022), Sovereign Immunity Under Pressure, Springer, (doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-87706-4).
Damilare, Disu (2021), "Sovereign Immunity from Legal & Arbitral Proceedings and Execution Against Assets of a Sovereign State: The Evolving Paradigm Shift", Nigerian Journal of Arbitration, Vol. 16, (doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4311651).
Dodge, William S (2024), "China's Foreign State Immunity Law: A View from the United States", Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 137–153, (doi: 10.1177/2753412X241247632).
Drew, Katherine Fischer (1962), "The Immunity in Carolingian Italy", Speculum, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 182-197, (doi: 10.2307/2849947).
Fox, Hazel, and Philippa Webb (2015), The Law of State Immunity, 3rd ed. Oxford International Law Library, Oxford: Oxford University Press, (doi: 10.1093/law/9780198744412.001.0001).
Grajewski, Nicole (2023), "Iran and the SCO: The Quest for Legitimacy and Regime Preservation", Middle East Policy, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 38-61, (doi: 10.1111/mepo.12684).
Gündüz, Aslan (1984), Yabancı Devletin Yargı Bağışıklığı ve Milletlerarası Hukuk, İstanbul: Tasvir Matbaası. Available at: https://clio.columbia.edu/catalog/in00033463078?counter=1, (Accessed on: 15/10/2025).
Gündüz, Aslan (2003), Milletlerarası Hukuk Temel Belgeler-Örnek Kararlar, İstanbul: Beta Basım, Available at: https://books.google.com/books/about/Milletlerarası_hukuk.html?id=YZ9GOwAACAAJ, Accessed on: 15/10/2025.
Hazel, Fox and Philippa Webb (2015), "The Restrictive Doctrine of State Immunity: Its Recognition in State Practice", in: The Law of State Immunity, Revised and Updated 3rd Edition, Oxford International Law Library, (doi:10.1093/law/9780198744412.003.0007).
Ji, Xueliang (2023), "A Tale of Two Immunities: The Ongoing Transition from Absolute to Restrictive Sovereign Immunity in China", Asia Pacific Law Review, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 23-40, (doi: 10.1080/10192557.2023.2274633).
Karnaukh, Bohdan (2022), "Territorial Tort Exception? The Ukrainian Supreme Court Held that the Russian Federation Could Not Plead Immunity with regard to Tort Claims Brought by the Victims of the Russia-Ukraine War", Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, Vol. 3, No. 15, pp. 165-177, (doi: 10.33327/AJEE-18-5.2-n000321).
Kök, İdil Buse (2012), State Immunity in Turkish Law: An Analysis of the Doctrine of State Immunity in the Light of the Decisions of the Turkish Court of Cassation, M.S. thesis, Middle East Technical University. Available at: http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12615281/index.pdf, (Accessed on: 15/10/2025).
Kostruba, Anatoliy (2023), "The Art of Legal Warfare: How to Deprive the Aggressor State of Jurisdictional Immunities. Evidence from Ukraine", Estudios Constitucionales, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 166-194, (doi: 10.4067/S0718-52002023000200166).
Kovalova, Tetiana, Iryna Kuderska, Maksym Ktitorov, Mykola Komissarov, and Vitaliy Maltsev (2024), "Procedural Aspects of Overcoming Sovereign Immunity: Relevance for Ukraine and the International Legal Order", SDGsReview, Vol. 4, pp. 1-18, (doi: 10.47172/2965-730X.SDGsReview.v4.n00.pe01866).
Leigh, Monroe (1987), "Jackson v. People's Republic of China", American Journal of International Law, Vol. 81, No. 1, pp. 214-216, (doi: 10.2307/2202155).
Mansour Fallah, Sara (2021), "Judicial Expropriations: Difficulties in Drawing the Line Between Adjudication and Expropriation", in: J. Chaisse, L. Choukroune and S. Jusoh (eds), Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy, Springer, Singapore, (doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-3615-7_120).
Michigan Law Review (1928), "International Law: Immunity of Foreign Sovereigns", Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 576-577, (doi: 10.2307/1279136).
Milanovic, Marko (2023), "Revisiting Coercion as an Element of Prohibited Intervention in International Law", American Journal of International Law, Vol. 117, No. 4, pp. 601-650, (doi: 10.1017/ajil.2023.40).
Needham, Jessica (2011), "Protection or Prosecution for Omar Al Bashir? The Changing State of Immunity in International Criminal Law", Auckland University Law Review, Vol. 17, pp. 219-248, Available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/nz/journals/AukULRev/2011/10.pdf, (Accessed on: 15/10/2025).
Oleynikov v. Russia, App. no. 36703/04 (2013), European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 14 March 2013, Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-117124, (Accessed on: 05/11/2025).
Ovcharenko, Olena, Anatoliy Kozachenko, Roman Kabalskyi, and Oleksandr Savchuk (2025), “The Judiciary in Ukraine and Challenges of Wartime: The Protection of Human Rights in Extraordinary Conditions and Prospects of Restoring Military Courts”, Israel Law Review, pp. 1–27, (doi: 10.1017/S0021223725100046).
Özdan, Selman (2019), "State Immunity or State Impunity in Cases of Violations of Human Rights Recognised as Jus Cogens Norms", The International Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 23, No. 9, pp. 1521–1545, (doi: 10.1080/13642987.2019.1623788).
Popko, Yevgen (2023), "Development of the State Jurisdictional Immunity Institution in Private International Law", Legal Horizons, Vol. 2, pp. 51-63, (doi: 10.54477/LH.25192353.2023.2.pp.51-63).
Russia says Iran's S-300 lawsuit impedes deliveries of missile defense systems (2015), Islamic Republic News Agency, Available at: https://en.irna.ir/news/81742840/Russia-says-Iran-s-S-300-lawsuit-impedes-deliveries-of-missile, (Accessed on: 15/10/2025).
Russian Federation v. Noga Import/Export Company (2005), International Law Reports, Vol. 127, pp. 156–62, (doi:10.1017/CBO9781316152591.016).
Štarienė, Lijana (2010), "Cudak v. Lithuania and the European Court of Human Rights Approach to the State Immunity Doctrine", Jurisprudencija/Jurisprudence, Vol. 2, No. 120, pp. 159–175, Available at: https://www.lituanistika.lt/content/26123, (Accessed on: 05/11/2025).
Starzhenetskiy, Vladislav (2022), "Russian Approach to State Immunity: If You Want Peace, Prepare for War?" in: Sovereign Immunity Under Pressure, edited by Régis Bismuth, Vera Rusinova, Vladislav Starzhenetskiy, and Geir Ulfstein, Springer, Cham, (doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-87706-4_4).
Stepanenko, Tetyana Volodymyrivna (2023), "Jurisdictional Immunity of the State: Evolution of the Doctrine", Bulletin of Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs, Vol. 2, No. 101, pp. 55-71, (doi: 10.32631/v.2023.2.37).
Stephenson, Carl (1941), "The Origin and Significance of Feudalism", The American Historical Review, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 788-812, (doi: 10.2307/1841824).
Stewart, David P. and Ingrid B. Wuerth (2021), "Sovereign Immunity as Liminal Space", European Journal of International Law, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 1501-1508, (doi: 10.1093/ejil/chab101).
Toktassynov, Temirtay (2019), "Caspian Sea Convention: the settlement of the long-lasting dispute and its implications", The European Journal of Economics, Law and Politics, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 1-9, (doi: 10.19044/elp.v6no3a1).
United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (2004), UN General Assembly. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/recenttexts/english_3_13.pdf, (Accessed on: 15/10/2025).
Voyiakis, Emmanuel (2003), "Access to Court v State Immunity", International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 297-332, (doi: 10.1093/iclq/52.2.297).
Wuerth, Ingrid. “Immunity from Execution of Central Bank Assets.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Immunities and International Law, edited by Tom Ruys, Nicolas Angelet, and Luca Ferro, 266–84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019, (doi: 10.1017/9781108283632.014).
Yadegarian, Faramarz and Mohammad Razavi (2025), "The Evolution of the International Criminal Court's Judicial Policy on Issuing Arrest Warrants: From Uganda to Palestine", Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, pp. 1-59, (doi: 10.1080/20531702.2025.2540751).
Yang, Xiaodong. (2012), State Immunity in International Law, Cambridge University Press, (doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139016377).
Zabyelina, Yuliya (2023), "The Immunities of Public Officials under International Law", in: Between Immunity and Impunity: External Accountability of Political Elites for Transnational Crime, pp. 23-88, Cambridge University Press, (doi: 10.1017/9781009086301.004).
Central Eurasia Studies

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 14 December 2025

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics