Diplomatic Immunity vs. Sovereign Immunity in International Law

Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

When foreign officials visit the United States or American citizens engage with foreign governments, two distinct legal shields come into play: diplomatic immunity and sovereign immunity.

Both protect foreign entities from U.S. jurisdiction, but they operate in fundamentally different ways and serve different purposes in international relations.

Diplomatic immunity protects individual foreign government representatives—ambassadors, diplomats, and certain staff members—from local courts and legal processes. Sovereign immunity protects foreign states themselves—the governments and their agencies—from being sued in U.S. courts without their consent.

These protections exist not as personal privileges but as essential tools for international cooperation. They enable states to communicate and conduct business across borders while maintaining their independence and dignity.

Understanding Diplomatic Immunity

Diplomatic immunity shields foreign government officials from the jurisdiction of local courts and authorities for both their official actions and, to a significant extent, their personal activities. Its core purpose is to safeguard diplomatic communication channels and enable diplomats to carry out their duties with freedom, independence, and security, even during political tensions between nations.

This protection is functional, not personal. It ensures the efficient performance of diplomatic missions on behalf of their governments. Without immunity, host nations could easily obstruct diplomatic dialogue by pressuring or harassing foreign representatives.

The principle operates on reciprocity: diplomats assigned to any country generally benefit equally from these protections. If U.S. authorities failed to uphold these internationally agreed-upon rules, it could complicate U.S. diplomatic relations and potentially lead to less favorable treatment of American personnel stationed abroad.

The Vienna Convention Foundation

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 provides the primary international framework for modern diplomatic immunity. This convention, ratified by nearly every country worldwide, transformed long-standing customary practices into clear, written rules, enhancing predictability and uniformity in diplomatic conduct globally.

The convention’s stated aim is “to contribute to the development of friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems,” and to “ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing States.”

The United States ratified the VCDR in 1972. Under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, ratified treaties are “the supreme law of the land,” making the VCDR directly applicable and enforceable within the U.S. legal system. For American citizens, the VCDR is the fundamental rulebook governing how the U.S. interacts with foreign diplomats on its soil and how U.S. diplomats are treated abroad.

Who Gets Diplomatic Immunity

Diplomatic immunity is not uniform—the level of protection varies depending on an individual’s rank and function within a foreign diplomatic mission. This hierarchical structure reflects the functional basis of immunity: those with greater representative roles typically receive broader protections.

Diplomatic Agents: This category includes ambassadors and other high-ranking diplomats who directly represent their sending state. They, along with their immediate family members forming part of their household (spouses and children generally up to age 21, or 23 if full-time students), enjoy the highest level of privileges and immunities.

Administrative and Technical Staff: These individuals provide crucial support to diplomatic agents, including secretaries, IT specialists, communications staff, and some security personnel. They and their qualifying family members enjoy full immunity from criminal jurisdiction and personal inviolability. However, their immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction is generally limited to acts performed in their official duties.

Service Staff: This group includes employees performing support tasks such as driving, cleaning, and maintenance for the mission. They enjoy immunity only for acts performed in their official duties and do not have personal inviolability. Their family members generally receive no diplomatic privileges or immunities.

Special Rules for U.S. Nationals

If a diplomatic agent, staff member, or their family member is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, their immunities are significantly restricted. Generally, a diplomatic agent in this category enjoys immunity only for official acts performed in their functions. Other staff members and family members who are U.S. nationals typically enjoy very limited or no privileges and immunities.

This limitation prevents potential conflicts of loyalty and reduces the possibility of abuse of immunity by individuals with substantial ties to the host country.

State Department Authority

In the United States, the Department of State is the sole government agency responsible for determining who is entitled to diplomatic status and the precise scope of their immunity. Its official certifications of diplomatic status and immunity are considered conclusive and binding by U.S. courts.

The State Department manages the accreditation of foreign diplomatic personnel in accordance with international agreements and U.S. law, such as the Diplomatic Relations Act. This centralized authority ensures consistent and authoritative application of diplomatic immunity rules.

Protections Offered

The VCDR grants comprehensive protections designed to ensure that diplomats and their missions can function effectively without interference from the host state.

Personal Inviolability

Diplomatic agents cannot be arrested or detained. The host country has an affirmative duty to treat them with due respect and take all appropriate measures to prevent any attack on their person, freedom, or dignity.

Inviolability of Residences and Property

The private home of a diplomatic agent, as well as their personal papers, correspondence, and property, generally enjoy the same level of inviolability and protection as the premises of the diplomatic mission itself.

Criminal Immunity

Diplomatic agents benefit from complete immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the host country. They cannot be prosecuted in the host country’s criminal courts for any offense, regardless of its severity, unless their immunity is waived by their home state.

Civil and Administrative Immunity

Diplomatic agents are generally immune from civil and administrative jurisdiction of the host state. However, this immunity has three important exceptions:

• Actions relating to private real estate located in the host country, unless the diplomat holds it on behalf of the sending state for mission purposes
• Actions relating to succession matters in which the diplomat is involved as a private individual
• Actions relating to any professional or commercial activity engaged in by the diplomatic agent outside of their official functions

Mission Premises Inviolability

The premises of a diplomatic mission are inviolable. Host country authorities may not enter mission premises without the explicit consent of the head of the mission. The host country has a special duty to protect mission premises from intrusion, damage, disturbance, or impairment of dignity.

Archives and Communication Protection

The archives and documents of a diplomatic mission are inviolable at all times and wherever located. They cannot be seized or inspected by the host government.

Diplomatic missions must be permitted to communicate freely and securely with their home government. The “diplomatic bag” used to transport official correspondence cannot be opened or detained by host country authorities, even if there are suspicions about contents.

Tax and Customs Exemptions

To prevent the host state from indirectly burdening a foreign mission through fiscal means, diplomatic agents are generally exempt from most taxes in the receiving state. This typically includes exemption from income tax on their official salary, sales taxes on personal goods, and customs duties on items imported for official mission use.

In the United States, the Department of State’s Office of Foreign Missions administers a tax exemption program based on reciprocity. OFM issues tax exemption cards that specify the level of exemption, with different animal symbols indicating the extent of exemption: an Owl for unrestricted mission tax exemption, a Buffalo for restricted mission tax exemption, an Eagle for unrestricted personal tax exemption, and a Deer for restricted personal tax exemption.

Limits and Responsibilities

The system of diplomatic immunity includes important checks and balances to address potential misconduct without dismantling the framework necessary for international diplomacy.

Duty to Respect Host Country Laws

Diplomatic immunity does not grant diplomats a license to disregard local laws and regulations. All persons enjoying privileges and immunities have a clear duty to respect the laws of the receiving state and not interfere in its internal affairs. This principle serves as a critical counterbalance to the extensive protections afforded.

Waiver of Immunity

Immunity “belongs” to the sending state, not to the individual diplomat. Consequently, only the sending state has the authority to waive a diplomat’s immunity. A diplomat cannot waive their own immunity, and any waiver by the sending state must be explicit and clearly communicated.

In situations where a diplomat in the U.S. is alleged to have committed a crime, the Department of State typically requests the diplomat’s home country to waive their immunity. If immunity is waived, the individual can then be subject to the U.S. judicial process.

Persona Non Grata Declaration

If a diplomat’s conduct is unacceptable or if a sending state refuses to waive immunity in a serious case, the host state can declare a diplomat persona non grata (“person not welcome”) at any time without explaining its decision.

Upon such a declaration, the sending state is obligated to recall the individual. If the sending state fails to do so within a reasonable period, the host state may refuse to recognize the person as a member of the diplomatic mission, effectively stripping them of their diplomatic status and immunity.

The PNG mechanism can be employed for involvement in espionage, commission of serious criminal acts, or as a symbolic gesture of severe displeasure with the sending state’s actions or policies.

U.S. Implementation

The principles of diplomatic immunity are given effect in the United States through the Diplomatic Relations Act (DRA) of 1978. This federal law formally incorporates the provisions of the VCDR into U.S. domestic law and makes the VCDR’s standards generally applicable to diplomats from all countries, regardless of whether their home country is a party to the VCDR.

The DRA also empowers the President (authority delegated to the Secretary of State) to adjust the privileges and immunities accorded to diplomats from a particular country based on reciprocity. This means the U.S. can provide more or less favorable treatment than stipulated in the VCDR, depending on how U.S. diplomats are treated in that foreign country.

The U.S. government has established policies and procedures to address abuses. These include formally requesting waivers of immunity from the sending state in all cases where prosecution would otherwise occur and, if waiver is refused in serious cases, requiring the departure of the offending individual from the United States.

Understanding Sovereign Immunity

Sovereign immunity, also known as foreign sovereign immunity, is a fundamental legal doctrine holding that a sovereign state cannot be sued in the courts of another state without its explicit consent. This principle protects the state itself—the primary actor in the international legal system—rather than its individual representatives.

The core idea stems from the principle of sovereign equality of states, often expressed by the Latin maxim par in parem non habet imperium, meaning “an equal has no power over an equal.” It marks respect for the independence and dignity of each sovereign nation.

Historical Evolution

The doctrine of sovereign immunity has undergone significant evolution, particularly during the 20th century.

From Absolute to Restrictive Immunity

Historically, foreign states enjoyed nearly complete, or “absolute,” immunity from lawsuits in the courts of other nations. This meant that a state could generally not be sued abroad, regardless of the nature of its actions or the subject matter of the dispute.

As states became increasingly involved in international commerce and engaged in activities that were essentially commercial or private in nature, the doctrine of absolute immunity began to face challenges. It was argued that granting immunity for such commercial acts gave states an unfair advantage over private parties with whom they did business.

In response, the theory of “restrictive immunity” emerged and gained widespread acceptance. This theory distinguishes between a state’s public or governmental acts (acts jure imperii), for which immunity is generally retained, and its private or commercial acts (acts jure gestionis), for which immunity is typically not granted.

The United States formally adopted the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity in 1952 through a letter from the Acting Legal Adviser of the Department of State, Jack B. Tate, to the Attorney General. This “Tate Letter” signaled a major policy shift for the U.S. government.

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

In the United States, the principles of foreign sovereign immunity are codified in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976. This federal law is the cornerstone of sovereign immunity practice in the U.S.

Purpose and Key Features

The FSIA was enacted with several important objectives:

Codification of Restrictive Immunity: It wrote the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity into U.S. law, providing a statutory basis for distinguishing between a foreign state’s public acts (immune) and its commercial or private acts (not immune).

Transfer of Immunity Determinations to Courts: A crucial change brought about by the FSIA was transferring responsibility for making sovereign immunity determinations from the Department of State to federal courts. Prior to the FSIA, the State Department would often issue “suggestions of immunity” in specific cases, a practice that could be influenced by political and foreign policy considerations. The FSIA aimed to ensure that these critical decisions would be made on “purely legal grounds” by judges.

Comprehensive and Uniform Regime: The Act sought to create a single, comprehensive, and uniform legal framework for all lawsuits against foreign states and their governmental agencies in U.S. courts, whether federal or state.

FSIA as Exclusive Basis

The FSIA provides the exclusive basis for U.S. courts to obtain jurisdiction over a foreign state. If the FSIA does not apply to a defendant, or if one of its specific exceptions to immunity is not met, then U.S. courts lack the authority to hear the case against that foreign state.

Definition of “Foreign State”

The FSIA defines “foreign state” broadly to include:

• The foreign state itself (the sovereign nation)
• Political subdivisions of a foreign state, such as provinces, regions, or local governments
• Agencies or instrumentalities of a foreign state

An entity qualifies as an “agency or instrumentality” if it is a separate legal person and is either an “organ” of a foreign state or its political subdivision, or a majority of its shares or other ownership interest is owned by the foreign state or its political subdivision.

The U.S. Supreme Court clarified in Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson that for a corporation to be considered an instrumentality of a foreign state based on ownership, the foreign state must directly own a majority of its shares. Indirect ownership through another state-owned entity is generally not sufficient.

Individual Officials vs. States

The Supreme Court held in Samantar v. Yousef that the FSIA does not apply to lawsuits brought against foreign government officials in their personal capacity. The FSIA governs immunity for the foreign state and its defined entities, not for individual officials sued for their own alleged wrongdoing.

General Rule and Exceptions

The foundational principle of the FSIA is that foreign states are presumptively immune from the jurisdiction of courts in the United States. When a lawsuit is filed against an entity that appears to be a foreign state or its instrumentality, the starting assumption is that U.S. courts cannot hear the case.

This presumption places a specific burden of proof in litigation. Initially, the defendant entity must establish that it qualifies as a “foreign state” within the FSIA’s meaning. Once the defendant has made this showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that one of the specific statutory exceptions to immunity applies to the case.

Key Exceptions to Immunity

While the FSIA establishes a general rule of immunity, it carves out several crucial exceptions where U.S. courts can exercise jurisdiction:

Waiver of Immunity: A foreign state is not immune if it has waived its immunity, either explicitly or by implication. Explicit waivers occur when a foreign state clearly agrees to submit to U.S. court jurisdiction, often found in international treaties or contractual clauses. Implied waivers include situations like agreeing that U.S. law will govern a contract or filing a responsive pleading without raising the immunity defense.

Commercial Activity: This is one of the most significant and frequently litigated exceptions. An activity is deemed “commercial” based on its nature, not its purpose. The key question is whether the foreign state is engaging in the type of activity that private parties typically engage in for trade, traffic, or commerce.

For the exception to apply, the lawsuit must be “based upon” commercial activity with a sufficient connection to the U.S.: commercial activity carried on in the United States, an act performed in the United States in connection with commercial activity elsewhere, or an act performed outside the United States in connection with commercial activity elsewhere that causes a “direct effect” in the United States.

Expropriation of Property: This exception applies when a lawsuit involves rights in property that was taken by a foreign state in violation of international law. There must also be a U.S. nexus: the expropriated property must be present in the United States in connection with commercial activity, or it must be owned or operated by an agency or instrumentality engaged in commercial activity in the United States.

Recent Supreme Court decisions have significantly narrowed this exception’s application, holding that it generally does not cover a state’s taking of its own nationals’ property and that merely alleging proceeds from expropriated property were mixed with general treasury funds is insufficient.

Non-Commercial Torts Occurring in the U.S.: This exception waives immunity for lawsuits seeking money damages for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by a tortious act or omission of the foreign state that occurred in the United States.

However, this exception excludes discretionary functions (those involving judgment or choice grounded in social, economic, or political policy) and certain intentional torts like malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights.

State-Sponsored Terrorism: This exception allows U.S. courts to hear cases against foreign states officially designated by the U.S. Department of State as “state sponsors of terrorism.” The lawsuits must seek money damages for personal injury or death caused by acts such as torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or providing material support for such acts.

Litigation Procedures

Successfully suing a foreign state in a U.S. court under the FSIA involves navigating strict procedural requirements, particularly concerning how legal documents are served on the foreign sovereign.

Service of Process

The FSIA provides specific and hierarchical methods for serving legal documents on a foreign state. These methods are, in order of preference:

1. By delivery according to any special arrangement for service between the plaintiff and the foreign state
2. By delivery according to an applicable international convention on service of judicial documents (such as the Hague Convention)
3. By sending copies of the summons, complaint, and notice of suit, with translations into the official language of the foreign state, by mail requiring a signed receipt, to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs
4. If service cannot be made by mail within 30 days, by sending two copies through diplomatic channels via the U.S. Department of State

The Department of State provides a detailed checklist for plaintiffs using this fourth method and charges a significant fee for this service. The complexity of these service rules underscores the sensitivity of suing a foreign sovereign and the FSIA’s intent to ensure foreign states receive proper notice in a manner that respects their sovereignty.

Department of Justice Role

Although the FSIA transferred primary responsibility for immunity determinations to courts, the U.S. Department of Justice can still play a role in FSIA litigation through “Statements of Interest” as an amicus curiae (friend of the court). These filings allow the U.S. government to present its views on important legal questions that may have significant implications for U.S. foreign policy.

International Framework

Beyond national laws like the FSIA, there has been an international effort to create a more uniform global framework for sovereign immunity. The most significant product is the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2004.

This Convention, like the FSIA, generally follows the restrictive theory of immunity, recognizing that states are not immune for their commercial or private law acts but retain immunity for acts performed in the exercise of sovereign power. It aims to harmonize and clarify the law on state immunity.

However, the UN Convention is not yet in force—it requires 30 ratifications, and this threshold has not been met. The United States signed the Convention in 2005 but has not ratified it. Despite not being formally in force, the Convention is considered influential, with some provisions regarded as reflecting customary international law.

Key Differences Between the Two Systems

While both diplomatic immunity and sovereign immunity protect foreign entities from host state jurisdiction, they are distinct legal concepts with different subjects, sources, scopes, and mechanisms.

Who or What is Protected

Diplomatic Immunity: Primarily protects individual foreign government officials who are accredited as diplomats, certain consular officers, and some categories of mission staff, along with their qualifying family members. It also extends to diplomatic mission premises and official property and archives.

Sovereign Immunity: Protects the foreign state itself as a legal entity, its various political subdivisions, and its designated “agencies or instrumentalities.” Sovereign immunity is immunity for the governmental entity rather than for individuals in their personal capacity.

Primary Legal Sources

Diplomatic Immunity: The principal international legal source is the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, supplemented by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 for consular officials. In the United States, these conventions are given domestic effect through the Diplomatic Relations Act of 1978.

Sovereign Immunity: In the United States, the exclusive legal source is the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. While customary international law provides broader historical and conceptual underpinnings, the FSIA is the specific statute that U.S. courts apply.

Scope and Nature of Protections

Diplomatic Immunity: Focuses on ensuring that individual diplomats and their missions can perform official functions without fear of coercion or harassment. This includes broad personal inviolability, inviolability of residence and mission premises, almost complete immunity from criminal jurisdiction, and substantial immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction (with notable exceptions for acts outside official functions).

Sovereign Immunity: Operates on a presumption of immunity for the foreign state, subject to specific statutory exceptions. These exceptions generally relate to situations where the foreign state is not acting in a purely sovereign capacity, such as when it engages in commercial activities, waives immunity, or in certain cases of torts, expropriation, or state-sponsored terrorism.

Who Determines and Waives Immunity

Diplomatic Immunity: In the United States, the Department of State makes authoritative determinations about individual diplomatic status and immunity scope. The immunity “belongs” to the sending state, not the individual. Therefore, only the sending state can waive a diplomat’s immunity, and this waiver must be express.

Sovereign Immunity: The determination of whether a foreign state is immune in a particular case, or whether an FSIA exception applies, is made by U.S. courts where the lawsuit is filed. A foreign state can waive its own sovereign immunity through contract clauses, international treaty provisions, or conduct in litigation.

Impact on U.S. Citizens

The principles of diplomatic and sovereign immunity can have direct and sometimes challenging consequences for U.S. citizens who interact with foreign officials or governments.

Encounters with Diplomatic Personnel

When U.S. citizens encounter individuals who possess diplomatic immunity, particularly in situations involving accidents or disputes, the application of immunity can significantly alter usual legal processes.

Traffic Incidents

If a person with diplomatic immunity is involved in a traffic accident or commits a moving violation, they can generally be issued a traffic citation by law enforcement. However, due to their immunity from civil, administrative, and often criminal jurisdiction, they may not be legally compelled to appear in court or pay associated fines.

The Department of State, through its Office of Foreign Missions, tracks driving records of diplomatic personnel. In cases of serious or repeated offenses, the State Department can take measures such as requesting the sending state to waive immunity, revoking the individual’s U.S. driving privileges, or, in egregious cases, requesting the individual’s recall or declaring them persona non grata.

Civil Disputes

If a U.S. citizen has a civil dispute with a diplomat—for example, over unpaid rent for a private apartment or personal injury resulting from an act clearly outside the diplomat’s official functions—it might be possible to bring a lawsuit. The VCDR provides exceptions to civil immunity for actions relating to private real property, private involvement in succession matters, and professional or commercial activities undertaken by the diplomat in a personal capacity.

Criminal Acts

If a person enjoying diplomatic immunity is alleged to have committed a crime in the U.S., they are generally immune from criminal prosecution unless their home country explicitly waives their immunity. If a waiver is not granted, particularly in cases involving serious crimes, the Department of State’s policy is to require the departure of that individual from the United States.

The U.S. government takes allegations of criminal activity by diplomats seriously. The Department of State is required by law to submit an annual “Report on Cases Involving Diplomatic Immunity” to Congress, detailing serious criminal offenses alleged to have been committed by persons entitled to immunity and the actions taken in response.

Business with Foreign Governments

When U.S. citizens or businesses engage in commercial transactions with foreign governments or entities owned or controlled by foreign states, the principles of sovereign immunity under the FSIA come into play.

Contractual Disputes

If a U.S. business enters into a contract with a foreign state or one of its commercial instrumentalities and a dispute arises, the FSIA’s “commercial activity” exception may permit the U.S. business to sue the foreign state entity in U.S. courts. For this exception to apply, the lawsuit must be based upon commercial activity that has a specified nexus with the United States.

Importance of Waiver Clauses

Given the complexities and potential costs of litigating whether an FSIA exception applies, U.S. businesses contracting with foreign states or their instrumentalities are strongly advised to seek inclusion of explicit waiver of sovereign immunity clauses in their contracts. Such clauses, where the foreign state entity expressly agrees not to assert sovereign immunity and to submit to U.S. court jurisdiction, can preemptively address immunity issues and provide greater legal certainty.

Expropriated Property Claims

If a U.S. citizen’s or company’s property located abroad is taken by a foreign government in a manner that violates international law, the FSIA’s expropriation exception might provide a basis for filing a lawsuit against that foreign state in U.S. courts. However, this exception has very specific requirements and has been interpreted narrowly by recent Supreme Court decisions, making such claims challenging.

Government Resources and Support

When U.S. citizens encounter issues related to diplomatic or sovereign immunity, several U.S. government agencies play key roles in providing information, managing diplomatic aspects, and representing U.S. interests.

Department of State

The Department of State is the primary U.S. government agency and point of contact for matters involving diplomatic and consular immunity. It publishes official guidance, manages the accreditation of foreign diplomatic personnel, makes authoritative determinations on immunity status, formally requests waivers of immunity when appropriate, and has authority to declare foreign diplomats persona non grata.

The State Department also plays a formal role under the FSIA in the service of legal documents on foreign states through diplomatic channels and administers the Diplomatic Tax Exemption Program based on reciprocity principles.

Department of Justice

While the FSIA shifted primary immunity determinations to courts, the Department of Justice may become involved in private FSIA litigation by filing “Statements of Interest.” These allow the U.S. government to offer its views to the court on legal interpretations that could affect U.S. foreign policy or other significant governmental interests.

The Attorney General has a specific statutory role in FSIA cases involving the terrorism exception, with authority to request a stay of discovery against the U.S. government if it would interfere with related criminal investigations, prosecutions, or national security operations.

Information Resources

The U.S. government provides various resources for the public to understand these complex issues. The Department of State’s website is a primary source for official information on diplomatic and consular affairs, including detailed sections on privileges and immunities, tax exemptions, and procedures for service of process under the FSIA.

The Congressional Research Service produces in-depth, non-partisan reports for Congress on diplomatic and sovereign immunity issues. Many of these reports are publicly available and offer valuable analysis.

The complexity of diplomatic and sovereign immunity reflects the delicate balance between facilitating international relations and protecting the rights and interests of U.S. citizens. While these immunities can sometimes limit direct legal remedies, the U.S. government has established institutional mechanisms and resources to manage these situations and seek appropriate resolution through diplomatic channels when necessary.

Understanding these systems helps citizens navigate international interactions more effectively and appreciate both the benefits and limitations of the legal frameworks that govern relations between nations. The structured approach aims to balance the nation’s international legal obligations with domestic legal processes and citizen concerns, contributing to stable and predictable international relations that ultimately serve U.S. interests.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.