On 14 September 2010 the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) delivered its judgment in Akzo Nobel.1 The judgment and its preceding opinion focused on the application of legal professional privilege to communications between a client and in-house legal counsel. The less-emphasized aspect of the case was the Court's decision to exclude all lawyers qualified outside of the European Union (EU) from the application of legal professional privilege.2 Because the application of legal professional privilege to lawyers from third States was not the focus of Akzo Nobel, the issue was lost in the extensive debate surrounding privilege and in-house legal counsel. The Court unfortunately missed an opportunity to reshape EU privilege law in acknowledgement of its negative consequences on the EU human rights framework and also on the EU's relationships with countries which do not apply a similar bright line rule. These implications will be discussed below with a particular emphasis on the EU's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its relationship with the United States (US).

The recent decision of the House of Lords in Kuwait Airways Corporation v. Iraqi Airways Company1 has done little to help resolve one of the most difficult questions relating to the practical application of the 1978 State Immunity Act. Indeed, it highlights the near intractable nature of the question at the heart of the case: was the seizure and subsequent operation by the respondent (IAC) of ten aircraft belonging to the applicant (KAC) an act—or action (and the distinction is important)—which attracted immunity under the Act? The answer to such a question is difficult enough when the acts involved are done by a State. When, as in this case, they are done not by the State but at the behest of the State, it becomes even more difficult to resolve and the principal problem with the decision of the majority in the House of Lords is that it fails fully to appreciate the full effect of this point of difference. Moreover, in order to return to the position abandoned by their interpretation of the Act, the majority raise the spectre of justiciability, which not only introduces additional complications but also distorts the frame of reference.

On 9 January 2003 Mexico instituted proceedings against the United States of America for violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963.1 Mexico based the jurisdiction of theCourt on Article 36(1) of the Statute of the Court which provides that:

Once again cases concerned with the threshold questions of private international law, such as characterisation and jurisdiction, have dominated the scene.

The relationship between State immunity and diplomatic immunity has always been a rather complex one. The two concepts undoubtedly have a common juridical background in the form of the concepts of sovereignty, independence and dignity.1 On the other hand, recent developments in both fields have seen a move towards a more functional-based approach. Thus, in relation to diplomatic immunity, the dominant theoretical basis is that of functional necessity.2 As regards State immunity, recent developments in both international law3 and, more particularly, in UK law4, from absolute to restrictive State immunity, have resulted in a more functionally orientated approach, that is, a shift of emphasis in matters of State immunity from immunity ratione personae to immunity ratione materiae.5 Now two recent cases in the United Kingdom have raised the possibility that, in the case of diplomats at least, the two concepts may be combined to provide a double immunity for diplomatic agents against civil suit. More controversially, the cases have raised the possibility of a third type of protection based upon immunity ratione personae in what could be said to amount to a modified act of State doctrine. The cases in question are Propend Finance Pty Ltd. v. Alan Sing and The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police6 and Re P (Diplomatic Immunity: Jurisdiction).7