A survey of the International Court's treatment of state jurisdiction and immunities cannot but note the infrequency of occasion, due to the consensual nature of its jurisdiction, on which the Court has dealt with these issues. The first section of this chapter examines these lost opportunities. In the cases in which the Court has had such opportunity, there has been no general analysis equal to that to be found in the Permanent Court's judgment in the Lotus. A traditional approach to issues of jurisdiction may be construed more by implication than express statement from the Court's judgments. Implicitly, the Court appears to recognize territory and nationality as bases for jurisdiction, and to acknowledge the reciprocal nature of such jurisdiction with a consequent duty not to intervene and the rule of exhaustion of local remedies. However, the International Court as a court administering international law between states is more concerned with the effects on the international law of acts of exercise of jurisdiction than with their effects within the internal legal order of the state exercising jurisdiction. Here, it has explored the consequences of such acts of jurisdiction as a basis for title to territory and a ground for state responsibility. The second and third sections of this chapter will address these topics. A fourth section considers the Court's treatment of limits on state jurisdiction including immunities granted to other states and international organizations.