question: how can citizens of one country sue the government of another country?
comment: They usually sue that other government in their own court system as that is who has jurisdiction in the area. In that case their authority comes from themselves.
passages: For example, a litigant is injured when crossing a bridge in Ottawa, Ontario, joining it to Hull, Quebec due to defects in the roadway. This could result in a lawsuit against the city of Ottawa, the city of Hull, the province of Ontario, the province of Quebec, and even the federal government of Canada. However, court rules often require governments to be sued in their own courts. This situation would require three different lawsuits - one in Ontario, one in Quebec, and one in the Federal Court of Canada. As such, usually one court will accept jurisdiction over the entire matter, and any proceedings or attempt to remove it to the other court will be stayed.
   That case was cited with approval by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in "Marlborough Harbour Board v Charter Travel Co Ltd". In the latter case, the court was prepared to go somewhat further, deciding that the foreign plaintiff's submission to the jurisdiction extended to a counterclaim which raised a new cause of action, provided that such a cross-claim was founded on or directly arose out of the same subject matter as that of the action. 
   To similar effect, the English Court of Appeal in "Republic of Liberia v Gulf Oceanic Inc" concluded that a plaintiff submitted himself to the incidents of his litigation, including liability to a counterclaim properly brought. In that case the plaintiffs had sought a declaration in relation to a contract for the purchase of oil and a resulting arbitration. The defendant's counterclaim for damages for breach of the same contract and tort for wrongful procuring of the breach was permitted to stand, notwithstanding that the foreign defendants could not, in the absence of their own litigation, have been made amenable to the jurisdiction of the court on such an action.
   "With regard to compensation for damages resulting from an infringement of rights, the law of the place in which the infringement occurred shall be applied. If both parties are nationals of the same country or domiciled in the same country, the law of their own country or of their place of domicile may also be applied"
   BULLET::::- Jurisprudential development and political conditions at the foreign forum. Is the court going to send the plaintiff to a land where the law is underdeveloped, uncivilized, or where there is no "equal protection" or "due process"? Is the court going to send the plaintiff to another court in a country where violence is rampant or in the middle of a war? A suit will not be dismissed if the foreign court does not permit litigation of the subject matter of the complaint, no live testimony of the plaintiff is required by appearance, or if the foreign law is otherwise deficient in its protocols or procedures.
   Section::::Exercise of jurisdiction in recognition cases.:Enforcement of foreign judgments in the U.S..
  
  If the time to appeal in the court of origin has lapsed, and the judgment has become final, the holder of a foreign judgment, decree or order may file suit before a competent court in the U.S. which will determine whether to give effect to the foreign judgment. A local version of the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act applies in most states, for example in California. 13 U.L.A. 149 (1986).
   The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 codified the longstanding common law principle that foreign sovereigns could not be held liable for torts in United States courts. After its enactment, the Act became "the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in [United States] courts". The Act states that United States courts may only exercise subject matter jurisdiction in cases brought by a private citizen against a foreign sovereign when the suit falls within one of the Act's enumerated exceptions. Absent subject matter jurisdiction, United States Courts may not exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign. However, one of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's enumerated exceptions is the commercial activity exception, which specifies that foreign sovereigns may be held liable in United States courts when "the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by [a] foreign state". According to the Act, the definition of a "foreign state" also includes an "agency or instrumentality" of the foreign state.
   For example, in Switzerland, where foreign States seeking the return of corruptly acquired assets are often permitted to be a civil party to Swiss criminal investigations or proceedings concerning those assets. Such investigations or proceedings may be commenced by an investigating magistrate on receipt of a request for mutual legal assistance. The foreign State will have the ability to access documents on the Court file, to participate in the examination of witnesses, to make submissions to the investigating magistrate, and to seek the repatriation of the assets. This procedure produces an efficient and often effective combination of civil and criminal proceedings.
   Holmes J in determining that a foreign litigant had submitted himself to this jurisdiction stated:
  
  [21] It is too broad a statement to say that a foreign plaintiff who proceeds in Queensland thereby submits himself to the court's jurisdiction at large. The position, is, in my respect view, correctly stated by Holland J in "National Commercial Bank v Wimborne":
   The U.S. government, its agencies and officials, and corporations owned or controlled by it, are subject to suit for copyright infringement. All infringement claims against the U.S. that did not arise in a foreign country must be filed with the United States Court of Federal Claims within three years of the infringing action. Claims filed in the wrong court are dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The government and its agencies are also authorized to settle the infringement claims out of court.
   Between two different States in the United States, enforcement is generally required under the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" (Article IV, Section 1) of the U.S. Constitution, which compels a State to give another State's Judgment an effect as if it were local. This usually requires some sort of an abbreviated application on notice, or docketing. Between one State in the United States, and a foreign country, Canada, for example, the prevailing concept is comity. The Court in the United States, in most cases, will unilaterally enforce the foreign judgment, without proof of diplomatic reciprocity, either under judge-made law or under specific statutes.
   Not present but agreed to accept the adjudication of the foreign court
   If the country that issued the judgment and the country where recognition is sought are not parties to the Hague Convention on Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (as of December 2017, only ratified by Albania, Cyprus, Kuwait, the Netherlands and Portugal ), the Brussels regime (all European Union countries, as well as Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) or a similar treaty or convention providing for the routine of registration and enforcement between states, the courts of most states will accept jurisdiction to hear cases for the recognition and enforcement of judgments awarded by the courts of another state if the defendant or relevant assets are physically located within their territorial boundaries. Whether recognition will be given is determined by the lex fori, i.e. the domestic law of the court where recognition is sought, and the principles of comity. The following issues are considered:
   BULLET::::3. In the absence of an exclusive jurisdiction clause or some other special factor, a person does not enjoy a right not to be sued in a particular foreign court. Where proceedings are brought in a foreign court, the question of whether or not that forum is an appropriate forum is a factor in assessing the conduct of the party suing there.
   Then, three decades later, in "Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co.", the court considered a generally similar damages action Hawaii brought under the antitrust laws for damages to its general economy resulting from a price fix by four oil companies. The court held that the state could sue as "parens patriae" only for injunctive relief and not for damages. Its citizens would have to sue individually for damages.
   Section::::Facts.:Luigi Ferrini.
  
  Luigi Ferrini was an Italian who was deported from occupied Italy and forced to work in a munitions plant in Germany. During 1998 he instituted proceedings against Germany in lower court at Arezzo. The lower court and then the appeals court denied his claim, on the basis that Germany was entitled to state immunity. However, during 2004 the Italian Court of Cassation reversed this judgment on the grounds that state immunity is lost when international crimes are alleged. On remand, the lower courts entered judgment in favor of Ferrini.
  
  Section::::Facts.:Max Josef Milde.
   For example, in some countries, such as England and Israel, a court may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant that is considered to be a "necessary or proper" party in a case against a local defendant. It is not clear that such a jurisdictional basis would be upheld by American courts when the non-US judgment-creditor seeks to enforce in the United States.
  
  Section::::Service of process.
  
  In every lawsuit, the plaintiff must effect service of process upon the defendant(s). In the international context, the issue of service of process is more complex.
   Since 2003, all applicants were trying to obtain damages at the Slovak courts, including the Constitutional Court. They also acted as injured parties in the criminal proceedings, led by the Slovak police and prosecutors from 2003 onwards. Only M.K. received compensations from the District Court in Spišská Nová Ves in amount of EUR 1,593. The European Court, however, did not find this compensation adequate in the light of the seriousness of the violations.
   For example, the United States had previously accepted the court's compulsory jurisdiction upon its creation in 1946 but in 1984, after "Nicaragua v. United States", withdrew its acceptance following the court's judgment that called on the US to "cease and to refrain" from the "unlawful use of force" against the government of Nicaragua. The court ruled (with only the American judge dissenting) that the United States was "in breach of its obligation under the Treaty of Friendship with Nicaragua not to use force against Nicaragua" and ordered the United States to pay war reparations.
   Section::::Exceptions and abrogation.:Suits brought by the United States.
  
  Because the U.S. is a superior sovereign, it may need to bring suit against a state from time to time. According to the Supreme Court, proper jurisdiction for a contract suit by the United States Federal Government against a state is in Federal District Court.
  
  Section::::Exceptions and abrogation.:Suits brought by another state.
   The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976 establishes the limitations as to whether a foreign sovereign nation (or its political subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities) may be sued in U.S. courts—federal or state. It also establishes specific procedures for service of process and attachment of property for proceedings against a Foreign State. The FSIA provides the exclusive basis and means to bring a lawsuit against a foreign sovereign in the United States. In international law, the prohibition against suing a foreign government is known as state immunity.
  
  Section::::Local governmental immunity.
   In 1999, Nobel peace prize winner Rigoberta Menchú brought a case against the Guatemalan military leadership in a Spanish Court. Six officials, among them Efraín Ríos Montt and Óscar Humberto Mejía, were formally charged on 7 July 2006 to appear in the Spanish National Court after Spain's Constitutional Court ruled in September 2005, the Spanish Constitutional Court declaration that the "principle of universal jurisdiction prevails over the existence of national interests", following the Menchu suit brought against the officials for atrocities committed in the Guatemalan Civil War
   In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued. The United States Supreme Court in "Price v. United States" observed: "It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless it consents thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the statute authorizing it."
   Once a dispute between parties is settled, the winning party needs to collect the award or judgment. If the loser voluntarily pays, no court action is necessary. Otherwise, unless the assets of the losing party are located in the country where the court judgment was rendered, the winning party needs to obtain a court judgment in the jurisdiction where the other party resides or where its assets are located. Unless there is a treaty on recognition of court judgments between the country where the judgment is rendered and the country where the winning party seeks to collect, the winning party will be unable to use the court judgment to collect.
   Germany filed its application to institute proceedings on December 23, 2008. The basis of the Court's jurisdiction was the European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, which during 1961 bound both Germany and Italy to submit subsequent disputes to the ICJ. Italy responded with a counterclaim that Germany should pay reparations for the original events. The counterclaim was rejected on the basis that atrocities predated the European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes and so the Court did not have jurisdiction. During 2011, Greece petitioned and was allowed to intervene in the case on the side of Italy.
  