Absolute immunity means that a State cannot exercise legislative, judicial or executive powers over another State due to the mere fact that the latter is sovereign. Today, it is rejected by a considerable number of States which represent various legal systems. States argue that private acts of a State performed jure gestionis, apart from the conducts performed jure impreii, are justiciable. It can be asserted that the current State practice embracing the restrictive approach is the direction in which international law has been evolving. That said, States’ interests which led to the adoption of State immunity still continue to induce legislative bodies and courts to be cautious in formulating a broad exception to immunity for employment contracts, causing them to refocus on the question of whether the employment relationship is destined for governmental, public, or sovereign purposes.

The exploitation of the underwater cultural heritage (UCH) involves various competing interests, which are of private and public, commercial and non-commercial nature. The 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (CPUCH) aims to deal with various issues apropos those competing interests. Its basic concerns include how UCH should be best protected, how in situ preservation should be practised, whether UCH should be commercialized at all or not, and whether salvage should be included in the UCH law. This paper examines these said competing interests and then looks for a balance between them. With an in-depth analysis of the concerned principles and rules, it argues for combination of ‘mutuality interests’ in consonance with the basic legislative scheme of the CPUCH. This approach is meant for the exploitation of UCH both for commercial and noncommercial purposes, which would, in fact, fulfill the expectation of the international community.