Foreign Sovereign Immunity: How Absolute is It?

Sovereign immunity is commonly perceived as a shield that allows states to default on debts without legal consequences, relying instead on reputational concerns to ensure repayment. However, this view oversimplifies the legal reality. Sovereign immunity is not a divine or natural right but a legal fiction—an internationally agreed-upon construct that allows states to avoid being sued in foreign courts, primarily to preserve stable international relations. Yet, this immunity can be waived, and in the context of global debt markets, such waivers are routine. Countries often agree to waive their immunity in order to access international credit under more favorable terms, highlighting that immunity is not an impenetrable legal barrier but a flexible tool that states can modify to suit their interests.

In practice, lenders assume that borrowing states have waived immunity unless explicitly stated otherwise. Some states, such as Russia, must then assert their immunity directly. The legal system thus embeds a presumption of waiver for states engaged in global finance, further eroding the myth of automatic immunity. More broadly, immunity exists to promote global welfare, but when abused—whether through environmental harm, human rights violations, or destabilizing economic behavior—it loses its legitimacy. Legal systems may then justifiably revoke this privilege. Historical precedents, such as the Nuremberg trials, show that severe misconduct can lead to the denial of immunity. This principle can extend to financial contexts, suggesting that states harming the international economic order through abusive borrowing practices may forfeit the protections of sovereign immunity. Ultimately, the concept serves global cooperation, not unconditional state protection.

[https://www.learnioe.org/video/foreign-sovereign-immunity-how-absolute-is-it](See more...)