The foregoing study brings out certain conditions and limitations upon the general proposition that foreign states are immune from suit before national courts. In the first place a growing number of courts are restricting the immunity to instances in which the state has acted in its official capacity as a sovereign political entity. The current idea that this distinction is peculiar to Belgium and Italy must be enlarged to include Switzerland, Egypt, Roumania, France, Austria and Greece. The entity claiming the immunity need not be a "state" in the traditional sense, but it must be a person of international law. As to succession to property real or personal and as to real claims regarding real property within the state of the forum, the immunity does not hold. The exclusion of other matters from the jurisdiction of national courts may be considered to rest upon a lack of competence in the court, but it is more usually regarded technically as an immunity, although it is not essential that it be pleaded by the respondent. As an immunity it may be waived, either expressly or tacitly, at the time of the process or previously, but the renunciation once made cannot be withdrawn. As to what constitutes an implied renunciation, there are two distinct lines of judicial opinion: one, very conservative, followed by the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and perhaps Holland, the other less static, more influenced by the development of the economic activities of the modern state, espoused by the courts of many other states.
It is interesting to note that the swing toward the more radical doctrine of holding states responsible to the courts for their economic activities was given a great impetus by the appearance on the international stage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Courts that had never before assumed jurisdiction over an unwilling foreign state tore aside the veil and saw beneath the garments of the sovereign a powerful