under the 2004 United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property
Publication date: October 05, 2026
When does a State act like a merchant? A scholarly and practical analysis
I. The restrictive theory of State immunity and the significance of the 2004 Convention
The United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, adopted by General Assembly resolution 59/38 of 2 December 2004 (hereinafter the “Convention” or “UNCSI”), is the first comprehensive multilateral instrument to regulate the jurisdictional immunity of States before the courts of foreign States. Although the Convention has not formally entered into force – it requires thirty ratifications, and twenty-five States have ratified or acceded to it so far – it exerts a considerable influence on the formation of customary international law, since it expresses the opinio iuris of States and reflects their practice in the field of jurisdictional immunity. The Convention thus constitutes an important point of reference both for domestic courts and for international tribunals. Many States also regard the Convention as binding to the extent that it codifies customary law already existing in this area.
Jan K., a literature enthusiast with an extraordinary fondness for Polish children’s poetry, finally managed to find a very rare book after a long search – an edition of Julian Tuwim’s “Locomotive,” which he purchased without hesitation from a used bookstore in Maryland, USA, via the online platform AbeBooks. The ease and simplicity of the solution – clicking the “BUY NOW” button, which would soon bring his dream book to him – combined with the bargain price for such a sought-after rarity in the reading community, filled Jan K. with optimism. From that moment on, he simply waited for the Polish Post to knock on his door and deliver him the publication he considered the opportunity of a lifetime. Perhaps it would have been, had Jan K. considered the key issues surrounding importing goods from the USA and the associated costs.
The holiday season is in full swing, but our litigation team remains fully alert — and fully engaged. The best proof: ongoing preparations for proceedings before the General Court of the European Union in Luxembourg in one of the most complex categories of disputes — EU grant litigation.
The dynamic development of artificial intelligence-based technologies is revolutionizing not only the commercial sector but also the area of state oversight of the digital market. The implementation of multi-agent systems by the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) opens a new era in consumer rights enforcement, enabling the mass and automated identification of unfair market practices. With the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Omnibus Directive in force, traditional control methods are giving way to algorithmic interface analysis aimed at eliminating so-called dark patterns and price manipulation. However, the use of “digital controllers” raises fundamental questions for legal science and business practice about the limits of automated decision-making processes in public administration. Although AI agents significantly improve the effectiveness of detecting violations, their legal status as a source of evidence remains the subject of heated debate. The main thesis is that while AI can be a powerful auxiliary tool for regulatory bodies, the ultimate responsibility for determining the facts and assessing the legitimate interests of a party must rest with humans, which is the foundation of a fair procedure in a state governed by the rule of law.
Practical application – the case of a museum as a bidder
Can an entity endowed with a statutory right of first refusal simultaneously influence the price it ultimately pays? In the historical monuments auction market, this question is no longer merely a theoretical dilemma. The active participation of registered museums in auctions, combined with the possibility of later exercising their right of first refusal, raises serious questions regarding auction transparency, the equality of participants, and the limits of permissible exercise of public law rights. This article examines this issue at the intersection of civil law, cultural heritage protection, and fair market principles.
