State Immunity in Transnational Torts:The Jurispridence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Inconsistent Practice of Several European States

Under the general rule of state immunity, each state undertakes to avoid exercising jurisdiction over the actions and property of other states. In the doctrine and jurisprudence, state immunity is often seen as a manifestation of the principle of equality of states.Today, by filing lawsuits in domestic courts of some states and issuing a warrant against foreign governments, even enforcing these rulings, on the one hand, and laying down laws and regulations to violate the immunity in the context of transnational Torts of other states in some countries( the United States, Canada …) On the other hand, it has appeared in its internal courts to deal with civil cases of foreign governments, violating this general rule of international law.The European Court of Human Right (ECtHR) explicitly affirmed the immunity of states as a general rule of international law like other international jurisprudence and on the other hand,  the rule of immunity of the State, faces the challenge with incoherent judicial procedure of the European Court of some countries (Greece, Italy), Analysing the European ECtHR’s  relevant cases and judicial procedure of  the European internal Courts, this study will investigate the effects of these procedures on the immunity rule in the context of transnational Torts in international law.