<p >Abstract: This article is dedicated to problematic issues of jurisdictional immunity, developing from the total liberation of foreign states from the jurisdiction of courts of other foreign states (the doctrine of absolute jurisdictional immunity) to a purely functional understanding of the activities of a modern foreign state, expressed in the concept of functional jurisdictional immunity and in an expansive approach to interpreting the actions of a state as a waiver of jurisdictional immunity and understanding its behavior in as consent to the jurisdiction of a court of a foreign State. The article examines the provisions of the norms of international treaties on the jurisdictional immunities of foreign states, acts of national law (in particular, the US Act on the Immunity of a Foreign Sovereign (FSIA)) and the provisions of the Federal Law On the Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States and Their Property. The article considers the problems of identifying the defendant as a foreign state, the bearer of sovereign authority iure imperii, the problem of the criterion for distinguishing the actions of iure imperii and iure gestionis, the problem of understanding the principle of reciprocity and the problem of improper defendant for the actions of states not recognized by Russia. The article analyzes two international treaties – the 1972 European Convention on State Immunity and the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of the State and Its Property, which are not international treaties of the Russian Federation, but are full-fledged instruments for the formation of norms of international law and national legislation. According to the author of this article, the list of "conclusive" actions of a foreign state indicating its consent to the jurisdiction of a foreign state is open.