Abstract
Reconciling the law of state immunity with international human rights law is tantamount to re-balancing the interests of the parties involved. Absolute immunity only recognised the interests of the states. The expression ''par in parem non habet imperium" paraphrases the sovereignty of states, a concept, which must still be regarded as one of the principal foundations of the international legal order.
However, as noted above, the absolute doctrine became inadequate as soon as the individual and his interests had to be accommodated. If ''par in parem non habet imperium" meant that the courts of one state could not exercise adjudicatory jurisdiction over another state, the restrictive doctrine, irrespective of its scope, put an end to that fiction. All of a sudden the need arose to explain why states could have "imperium" over other states in some cases but not in others. A workable distinction has yet to be found.