A number of conclusions may be drawn from the preceding inquiry, some of them confirming commonly held presumptions and opinions about the topic, while others might lead to a reappraisal of traditional views.
A descriptive analysis of how national courts react to international organizations as parties before them led to the important outcome that national courts do not exclusively 'solve' cases involving international organizations by resorting to the concept of immunity from jurisdiction. It demonstrated that, in fact, courts use a broad range of legal techniques in order to either avoid deciding such cases or to uphold their adjudicative power over such disputes. These methods range, on the one hand, from not recognizing the legal personality or the legal relevance of a particular act of an organization, prudential abstention doctrines, such as act of state, political questions or non-justiciability techniques, lack of adjudicative power theories, to classic immunity from suit concepts. On the other hand, courts may employ various strategies, from refusing to qualify an entity as an international organization, denying the legal relevance and applicability of immunity provisions, and restricting the scope of immunity, to a number of interpretative techniques of regarding the immunity granted waived, in order to assert jurisdiction over disputes involving international organizations.
National courts, on the whole, do not appear to be convinced that international organizations should enjoy absolute immunity from suit. They often find ways to exercise their adjudicative power over disputes involving international organizations. The method most frequently used in order to do so is the application of a restrictive immunity concept based on principles taken from the law of state immunity. This analogous application of sovereign immunity rules sometimes overlaps with the use of a functional immunity concept. Courts generally seem to agree on the