Public law as a discipline of legal science which considers public matters – in confront with private matter, is established in ancient Rome and influenced deeply the European history. In the first step, its basic concepts, such as Imperium and Jurisdictio, and its outlook toward the relation of power and law, gave way to the concept of sovereignty as a monopoly of approving, changing and abolishing of statutes. It leads to the establishment of authoritative governments. In the second step, it provides the proponents of absolutism with legal arguments against their traditional and new rivals. At the end, it were the constitutionalists who promote Roman law with some principle of roman private and corporate law and reinterpretation of old concepts in shadow of new needs of era to apply them against their oponents. Finally, these disputes resulted in our understanding of modern state and representation and Roman law, despite to its flexibility, leaved its lasting impression, i. e. formulation of political conflicts in the legal language.

Market and its regulation are not merely economic concepts; rather, they are institutions that inherently encompass political and legal dimensions. Concept of the market takes different forms depending on the overarching political approaches. Each of these approaches employs distinct tools to regulate the market in pursuit of its objectives and theories. Governments sometimes adopt "rules" and "tools" perspective, which involves order and supervision rooted in state authority and public power, falling under mandatory policies and traditional regulatory instruments. Sometimes, they employ a meta-legal perspective, utilizing flexible and modern legal tools. Accordingly, depending on the approaches, three types of tools—"mandatory," "voluntary," and "hybrid"—are applied to mediate the relationship between state and market. In this context, the "Competition Council" and the "Market Regulation Headquarters" play a regulatory role by relying on the dual perspectives of "Imperium" and "Dominium" and employing various regulatory tools. This paper explores how these dual institutions can function within the framework of the mentioned approaches and the tripartite tools, assuming that these institutions possess meta-legal and modern capacities through more flexible tools. By adopting a descriptive-analytical approach, this study examines the market and its relationship with the state, emphasizing institutional and market fundamentalism in the capital market—as drivers of economic growth—and supporting key market actors. It also considers the regulation of both boundary and internal tools, as well as the challenges of ineffective market regulation

Under the general rule of state immunity, each state undertakes to avoid exercising jurisdiction over the actions and property of other states. In the doctrine and jurisprudence, state immunity is often seen as a manifestation of the principle of equality of states. Today, by filing lawsuits in domestic courts of some states and issuing a warrant against foreign governments, even enforcing these rulings, on the one hand, and laying down laws and regulations to violate the immunity in the context of transnational Torts of other states in some countries( the United States, Canada …, ) On the other hand, it has appeared in its internal courts to deal with civil cases of foreign governments, violating this general rule of international law. The European Court of Human Right (ECtHR) explicitly affirmed the immunity of states as a general rule of international law like other international jurisprudence and on the other hand, the rule of immunity of the State, faces the challenge with incoherent judicial procedure of the European Court of some countries (Greece, Italy), Analysing the European ECtHR’, s relevant cases and judicial procedure of the European internal Courts, this study will investigate the effects of these procedures on the immunity rule in the context of transnational Torts in international law.