International organisations (hereinafter referred to as “IOs”) have evolved and expanded their roles across sectors, enjoying absolute jurisdictional immunity that raises concerns regarding the adequacy of rules governing their operations – espe-cially in the area of modern justice needs. This paper addresses the debates sur-rounding the scope of jurisdictional immunity of IOs against legal responsibility, evaluating its rationale and contrasting it with the lack of appropriate legal redressal forums for violations of IOs. The authors have adopted a qualitative analysis method to examine judicial opinions and controversies involving major IOs like the UN, WHO, and NATO, revealing legal barriers that undermine efforts to hold these organisations accountable for violations of international law. The paper argues for a balanced approach that preserves the essential functions of IOs while establishing effective mechanisms for legal redress and accountability. The authors propose limiting the scope of immunity in specific cases and enhancing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to uphold the rule of law principles.