International organisations are endowed with privileges and immunities to safeguard their independence, including, in particular, vis-à-vis their host state. This article first briefly considers the sources of privileges and immunities applicable to international organisations in the Netherlands, which is the host state of many international organizations. The article then focuses on the immunity of international organisations from the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts. The article reviews the relevant national case law in which there have been important developments in recent years against the backdrop of the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In respect of international organisations that enjoy immunity formulated in ‘functional’ (as opposed to ‘absolute’) terms, the article develops some general guidance to determine when that immunity applies. The article then considers the clash between an international organisation's entitlement to jurisdictional immunity and the rights of claimants to have access to the courts under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The article suggests that whether the right to immunity prevails depends on the extent to which the particular organisation's functionality is at issue. In this light, the article critically examines the recent judgements in the incidental proceedings in the Srebrenica case against the United Nations. Finally, in terms of the procedural position of international organisations before the Dutch courts, the article suggests that to enjoy jurisdictional immunity, organisations would be well-advised to actively challenge the jurisdiction of the courts.

Drawing from the Pinochet and Congo v. Belgium judgments, this paper addresses issues arising from the question of which courts (national or international?) are best suited to exercise jurisdiction over individuals accused of crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide. It begins by looking at the approach taken in the Statute of the International Criminal Court. It moves on to discuss established views on the matter in general international law and the opposing visions of this relationship depicted in the Pinochet and Congo v. Belgium cases. It closes by addressing the consequences of the prevalence of one or the other view for the future of international law and the prosecution of international crimes.

Immunity from Jurisdiction — Foreign States — State Commercial Enterprises — Actes de gestion and Actes de pouvoir — Juridical Personality of State Agencies — Provisional Measures — Seizure by Municipal Courts of Goods belonging to Foreign States in Hands of Third Parties — The Law of Egypt.

Immunity from Jurisdiction — Foreign Public Vessels — Crime Committed on Board a Foreign Warship — Spanish Civil War — Attack by Spanish Nationalist Vessel against the Spanish Government Submarine C2 in Port of Brest in 1937.

Immunity from Jurisdiction — State Vessels — Activities of Private Law Nature — Irregularity of Taking Possession — Taking of Possession outside Territorial Waters — Recognition of Acts of Foreign Governments — Nationalization of Vessels by the Republican Government of Spain.

Recognition of Governments — Effects of Non-Recognition.

Immunity from Jurisdiction — Distinction between acts iure imperii and iure gestionis — Relevance of Impossibility of Execution — Trade Agencies of Soviet Russia — Requirement of Express Renunciation of Immunity — Brussels Convention of 1926 — Extensive Interpretation of — Relevance of Non-Recognition of Soviet Government.

Immunity from Jurisdiction — Inclusion in the Diplomatic List — Cross-suit — Implied Waiver of Immunity.

Immunity from Jurisdiction — Binding Force of Declaration of Minister for Foreign Affairs — Position of Head of Legation and Member of Legation Contrasted — Termination of Exterritoriality.