The decisions rendered by the House of Lords in ex parte Pinochet have not only held the attention of the general public, but also have been broadly considered in academic writing. Most of the public international lawyers1y’ comments concentrate on analysing the judgments, which is absolutely necessary as, owing to the particularities of procedure, twelve Law Lords – thus twelve distinguished lawyers of a court held in highest regard throughout the world – have given lengthy opinions on very intricate questions of international and domestic law. Consequently, the present article intends to refrain as far as possible from further comment and critique on what was decided by the House of Lords. Instead, it will undertake a closer look at the aftermath of the Pinochet decision. The main question is whether the decisions in ex parte Pinochet have resulted in a change in the relevant public international law rules concerning heads of state immunity. The ‘classic’ content of these rules shall be provided, together with the uncertainties and inconsistencies which existed well before ex parte Pinochet, and the new trends and developments that are calling them into question (infra section 3). The whole analysis is based on the assumption that the issues touched upon in the House of Lords' decisions are at the heart of the fundamental changes which international legal scholarship is currently undergoing, particularly since the 1990s. We are thus not only facing a possible change of legal rules, but must also reflect on the potential modification of basic concepts in the areas of statehood, sources of law and the position of the individual (infra section 4).