There is no doubt that the application of foreign judgments against private persons is different from the application of judgments against states. It is not easy to oblige a state to comply with the provisions of another one or even strength it to implement foreign judgments, because it violates the sovereignty of states and independence. Due to the sensitivity of the subject and showing respect to the sovereignty and independence of states, a kind of courtesy in the international community has evolved intoa principle of international law and has been adopted by many international conventions on the implementation of foreign judgments. States have immunity under this principle from enforcement proceedings, with no action can be taken against them except theone with their consent. The problem of research is evident by the negative impact of this invulnerability on the application of provisions, which is undeniable right of the state. However, this right is contrary to other rights relating to the right of the foreign referee to enforce his judgment. In addition, it is contrary to the requirements of justice, which were issued correctly for a trial that state accepted to be a party to it.The researcher aims to explain the nature of the operational immunity and how to pay it, and how it is waived, by adopting a comparative approach to compare some of the agreements that dealt with this subject, as well as judicial applications and jurisprudential opinions, if any. The researcher concluded that the executive invulnerability has become relative immunity that includes only public or non-commercial sovereign funds. Commercial funds of the state may be implemented by all means ofoperation. This invulnerability is an advantage for the state and can be waived.