Sovereign and Diplomatic Immunity of the
Roman-Ruthenian Church and State (URRC)

As Derived from Canon Law, International Custom, and Legal Precedents

I. Introduction

The United Roman-Ruthenian Church (URRC) and the Pontifical Imperial State of Rome-Ruthenia (SPI), collectively otherwise known as the Roman-Ruthenian Church and State (URRC or SPI), goverened by the Holy Apostolic See of Rome-Ruthenia, maintains its status as a sovereign ecclesiastical entity with a non-territorial state framework; i.e., a nation without borders spanning multiple modern civil states, with which it is not in competition. This document outlines the legal basis for the assertion of sovereign and state immunity for the Prince-Bishop and the Household thereof (known interchangeably as the Pontifical and Imperial Household and the Apostolic Household) and diplomatic immunity for the officials of the Pontifical Court, the Patriarchal Curia, and certain other sections of the Church, based on canon law, international legal principles, and historical precedent. This document is issued under the authority of His Apostolic Highness, Prince-Bishop and Pope-Catholicos of Rome-Ruthenia, Supreme Pontiff of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church, in his capacity as sovereign head of the URRC.

II. The URRC as a Sovereign Entity under International Law

A state does not require physical territory to assert sovereignty under international law. There are recognized non-territorial or limited-territorial sovereign entities, such as but not necessarily limited to:
  • The Holy See of Rome (Vatican City) – Exercises sovereignty despite limited territorial control. Pope St. John Paul II asserted that sovereignty did not come at all, however, from that territory, and neither did its inclusion in the United Nations.
  • The Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) – Recognized as a sovereign entity with diplomatic relations, despite holding merely miniscule territory within the City of Rome.
  • United Nations Diplomats likewise receive diplomatic status and immunity despite the United Nations itself being non-territorial as an entity, territory being held exclusively by member states.
  • Exiled Governments and Recognized Stateless Entities – Historical precedent includes but is not limited to the Free France movement during WWII and the Order of Malta’s extraterritorial status before gaining its current headquarters.
Under customary international law, a state is traditionally defined by the Montevideo Convention (1933), which requires:
  • A permanent population:  The URRC maintains a stable membership, clergy, and adherents worldwide, as well as those who are tied to it by historical legacy, culture, ethnicity, and tradition.
  • A defined territory: While non-territorial and not seeking territorial control, the URRC has historical land within its patrimony. The fact that the URRC does not seek land neither means that it is not inherently and permanently tied to that land nor that it abdicates its sovereign status. Additionally, historical precedent allows for sovereignty without contiguous land. This is particularly true for ecclesiastical entities.
  • A government: The Prince-Bishop and the Curia function as an sovereign ecclesiastical governing body.
  • A capacity to enter into relations with other states: The URRC maintains diplomatic, ecclesiastical, and cultural ties with other entities.
Under established international law, recognition is declaratory, not constitutive of sovereignty. As affirmed in the 1949 UN General Assembly Opinion on Recognition, a state's existence is independent of whether other states acknowledge it. The URRC’s sovereignty derives from its apostolic foundation and historical legitimacy, and not from the discretionary recognition of secular governments.

Given this, the URRC functions as a legitimate ecclesiastical state without territory, but with inherent sovereign authority. While some states may choose to extend formal diplomatic recognition at their discretion, it is well-established in international law that sovereignty does not depend upon external recognition. The Holy See of Rome operated with full sovereignty before the Lateran Treaty of 1929, and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta has maintained international status without a fixed territory and without complete diplomatic recognition by all civil nations. The URRC, likewise, exercises its sovereign functions independently of recognition by any given civil authority.

III. Sovereign and State Immunity of the Household of the Prince-Bishop

As the head of the URRC and the Holy Apostolic See, His Apostolic Highness the Prince-Bishop of Rome-Ruthenia, the Apostolic Household, the Pontifical Court, and the Patriarchal Curia exercise sovereign functions, making them eligible for state immunity under customary international law (as per the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 2004).

The Prince-Bishop, as the Supreme Pontiff of the URRC, holds a status under canon law that is inherently sovereign, acknowledging no earthly superior. This is in accordance with the ecclesiastical principle that the Church, as the divine institution entrusted with spiritual governance, stands above all civil authority, with the Prince-Bishop holding universal authority. This universality is not, however, a claim of spiritual or temporal jurisdiction over other churches or states but rather a recognition of the church’s independence, its apostolic succession, and its divine mandate.

The URRC, like all true Apostolic Churches, upholds the doctrinal principle that the Church is superior to the state in all matters of faith, morality, and spiritual governance. While the URRC does not seek to govern or interfere with the governance of civil states in mundane administrative affairs, it has the divine duty to comment on and guide society in accordance with sacred doctrine. As affirmed by Saint Thomas Aquinas, laws that contradict divine and natural law lack true legitimacy and therefore do not bind the conscience of the faithful. No civil government, therefore, may interfere in the internal governance, discipline, or administration of the URRC, nor may it legitimately impose laws that directly oppose the moral law. This is consistent with historical canon law traditions and the position taken by other ecclesiastical states and sovereign religious institutions throughout history.

Indeed, the principle of non-interference in ecclesiastical governance has been affirmed in multiple legal frameworks. For example, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled in cases such as Sindicatul Păstorul cel Bun v. Romania (2013) that states cannot interfere in the internal governance of religious institutions. Similar protections exist under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which affirms the doctrine of church autonomy in cases such as Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral (1952) and Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich (1976).
  • Sovereign and State Immunity – The Prince-Bishop, the Apostolic Princess, the defined members of the Apostolic Household, and the ecclesiastical state itself are not subject to legal proceedings in foreign courts without express consent.
  • Acta jure imperii – Official state and religious acts (including governance, administration, and ecclesiastical rulings) cannot be challenged under domestic jurisdiction.
  • Exemption from civil suits – Members of the Apostolic Household carrying out religious and state duties are protected from civil litigation where URRC sovereignty is invoked.
URRC sovereign and diplomatic immunity applies exclusively to internal ecclesiastical governance and diplomatic functions. It does not interfere with the legal jurisdiction of civil states over matters unrelated to URRC governance. However, as an apostolic entity, the URRC asserts full authority over its clergy, officials, and religious members in accordance with canon law and the principles of sovereign ecclesiastical independence.

IV. Diplomatic Immunity of URRC Officials

The URRC’s diplomatic representatives, including the entirely of members of the Pontifical Court, the nobility of the Pontifical Imperial State, the officials of the Patriarchal Curia, the bishops of the church, and others so defined by the Prince-Bishop or the Pontifical Secretariat qualify for diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961).

This is similar to the status of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, who has no civil territorial sovereignty yet receives diplomatic recognition and courtesies under the Lausanne Treaty of 1923; the Armenian Apostolic Church, which has a form of diplomatic status despite not being a sovereign state, and extraterritorial Catholic orders, such as the Teutonic Order, which historically exercised sovereign rights while under religious rule. Also, the United Nations regularly extends diplomatic courtesies to non-state religious entities, such as the Holy See of Rome’s Permanent Observer Mission and the recognition of religious NGOs. The URRC engages in international diplomacy, maintaining official consultative relations within the United Nations system. While its sovereignty is independent of external recognition, it operates in the international arena similarly to other religious sovereign entities, including but not limited to the Holy See of Rome and SMOM.

The assertion of diplomatic immunity serves not merely as a legal mechanism but as a canonical safeguard against the persecution of clergy and officials of the Church by civil authorities. Throughout history, religious leaders and clergy have been subjected to unjust prosecution, political retaliation, and coercion by secular governments seeking to interfere with the mission of the Church. As such, diplomatic and sovereign immunity ensures that clergy and officials can fulfill their ecclesiastical and humanitarian duties without fear of political retribution or civil overreach.
  • Functional Immunity (ratione materiae) – Officials acting within their diplomatic capacity for the URRC are immune from prosecution related to their official duties.
  • Personal Immunity (ratione personae) – Cardinals, Prelates of the Fiocchetti, members of the Patriarchal Chapter, Pontifical Nunzios, Pontifical Delegates, Officials of the First Class, and other designated officials as defined herein, by the Prince-Bishop, or the Pontifical Secretariat, are entitled to full diplomatic protection under applicable legal frameworks.
  • Canon Law – Canons 269, 270, 276, 277, and 278 of the Code of Canon Law of the URRC (2025), or such applicable successor canons, apply universally. Canon law is recognized historically as a legitimate and binding legal system within ecclesiastical structures. The URRC's canonical authority derives from the same tradition that established the legal foundations of other Catholic and Orthodox Churches. As such, URRC canon law governs all internal matters and is binding upon its clergy, officials, and adherents, independent of secular recognition.
  • Universality – All immunities name herein and otherwise applicable  apply universally, even in cases when an official of any kind of the URRC may be a citizen of a given civil state.
URRC nunzios and delegates, legates, and accredited diplomatic personnel should therefore be granted privileges and immunities. And, while the URRC asserts its inherent sovereign and diplomatic rights, its clergy and officials are expected to conduct themselves ethically, with integrity, and in full respect of local customs and laws, insofar as they do not contradict divine law or the rights of the Church. The URRC operates in good faith as a responsible and constructive participant in international religious and diplomatic affairs, fostering harmony and mutual respect with all states and communities in which it is present.

V. Select Precedents in Support

  • The Holy See of Rome’s Recognition Despite Non-Territorial Periods – Before Vatican City was established as a separate entity by the Lateran Treaty in 1929, the Holy See of Rome exercised sovereignty without land ownership or territorial sovereignty, but retained immunity.
  • The Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) – Recognized internationally with full diplomatic immunity despite holding no independent land.
  • The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople – Exercises religious sovereignty in Turkey and abroad, with diplomatic protections and courtesies extended in certain jurisdictions, such as through, but not limited to, the Lausanne Treaty of 1923.
  • Other Religious-Political Entities – Various recognized religious orders and ecclesiastical structures have historically been granted sovereign and diplomatic status.
  • Recognition in General – The URRC's sovereignty is a matter of fact, not discretion. Just as the Holy See of Rome remained sovereign before the Lateran Treaty, and the SMOM operates independently of universal recognition, the URRC’s apostolic succession, divine mandate, and historical foundations affirm its sovereign status, regardless of external acknowledgment. However, the URRC continually seeks positive relations with other Churches, governments, and institutions, fostering cooperation while maintaining its independence.

VI. Conclusion & Legal Implications

The URRC’s unique status as a sovereign, non-territorial ecclesiastical state entitles it to sovereign and state immunity for itself and for its Sovereign and Household, and diplomatic immunity for its envoys, as defined herein, under both canon law and international legal precedent.
  •  Legal & Diplomatic Recognition – The URRC can assert immunity claims based on historical, religious, and international principles.
  •  Non-Interference in Internal Affairs – Foreign courts should not have jurisdiction over matters concerning URRC governance or ecclesiastical rulings.
  • Protection of Officials – URRC officials and diplomtic envoys acting in diplomatic or ecclesiastical capacities should receive full diplomatic protections and courtesy.
In the event that sovereign or diplomatic immunity is challenged by a civil state, the URRC will always assert its canonical and international legal rights while pursuing the most prudent course of action to protect its clergy and officials. While some states—particularly those hostile to religious sovereignty or to religion in general—may attempt to disregard these protections, the URRC shall always uphold its position as a sovereign ecclesiastical entity. In cases of legal dispute, the URRC shall seek peaceful resolution through diplomatic engagement, international advocacy, and, if necessary, canonical adjudication under its own ecclesiastical legal system. However, any attempts by external authorities to unlawfully override URRC sovereignty will be treated as an act of ecclesiastical aggression, to be responded to with appropriate measures within the bounds of canon law and natural justice.

Given these legal foundations, we affirm the URRC’s inherent sovereign and diplomatic rights. Recognition by international bodies, governments, and institutions is a matter of acknowledgment—not creation—of these rights, which remain inalienable and legally valid. This is made without prejudice or challenge to the sovereign status and authority of any civil nation now presently functioning or so functioning in the future.

19 March A.D. 2025


 

 

[Curia]

[Main Page]

 

 

DISCLAIMER, LEGAL, AND COPYRIGHT NOTICES