---
title: "Jurisdiction, Immunities and the VCDR and VCCR"
description: "Learn the jurisdictional bases, sovereign and diplomatic immunities, and the VCDR and VCCR regimes governing diplomatic and consular relations with leading ICJ"
url: "https://modeldiplomat.com/learn/lessons/exam-international-law-jurisdiction-immunities-diplomatic-consular-law-vcdr-vccr"
---

[New](https://modeldiplomat.com/)

Jurisdiction, immunities & diplomatic/consular law (VCDR/VCCR)

Read 1 of 4

1/80 XP so far this lesson

Lesson 18 min 20 XP

# Jurisdiction, immunities & diplomatic/consular law (VCDR/VCCR)

Jurisdictional bases, sovereign and diplomatic immunities, and the VCDR/VCCR regimes governing diplomatic and consular relations, with the leading ICJ authorities.

## The five bases of jurisdiction

State jurisdiction—the competence to prescribe, adjudicate and enforce law—rests on five recognised principles. **Territoriality** (subjective: act begun in-state; objective: completed in-state) is primary; the *Lotus* case (PCIJ, 1927) endorsed objective territoriality and held that absent a prohibitive rule, states enjoy a wide discretion. **Nationality** (active personality) grounds jurisdiction over a state's own nationals abroad. The **protective principle** covers acts threatening security or essential governmental functions (currency counterfeiting, espionage). **Passive personality** asserts jurisdiction over offences against a state's nationals abroad—historically contested but now accepted for terrorism. **Universal jurisdiction** attaches to crimes of international concern—piracy (UNCLOS Art. 105), grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, torture (CAT Art. 5(2)), and genocide—exercisable irrespective of any nexus.

## Sovereign (state) immunity

State immunity bars one state's courts from adjudicating another state's acts. The doctrine has shifted from **absolute** to **restrictive** immunity, distinguishing *acta jure imperii* (sovereign acts, immune) from *acta jure gestionis* (commercial acts, not immune). The UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (2004, not yet in force) codifies the restrictive theory; the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 and UK State Immunity Act 1978 are national counterparts.

In *Jurisdictional Immunities of the State* (Germany v. Italy; Greece intervening), the ICJ on 3 February 2012 held that Italy violated Germany's immunity by allowing civil claims for WWII atrocities, ruling that the gravity of a violation—even a jus cogens breach—does not displace immunity, because immunity is procedural while the prohibition is substantive. The 2014 Italian Constitutional Court Judgment No. 238 controversially declined to give domestic effect to that ruling. *Arrest Warrant* (DRC v. Belgium, ICJ, 14 February 2002) confirmed that an incumbent foreign minister enjoys full personal immunity (*immunity ratione personae*) from foreign criminal jurisdiction even for alleged crimes against humanity, though prosecution remains possible before international tribunals or after leaving office.

## Personal vs functional immunity

Two immunities recur across the syllabus. **Immunity *ratione personae*** is status-based, attaches to serving heads of state, heads of government and foreign ministers (and diplomats), is absolute while in office, and ceases on leaving office. **Immunity *ratione materiae*** is conduct-based, attaches to official acts, and survives office but is increasingly held not to bar prosecution for international crimes—the line *Pinochet (No. 3)* (UK House of Lords, 24 March 1999) drew when it held that torture under the 1984 CAT could not be an official function attracting continuing immunity for a former head of state. Retain this distinction precisely: examiners reward candidates who pair each immunity with its temporal scope and its leading case.

One question, then back to the lesson

Ask about this lesson