"State U had a long-standing relationship with N, the president of State P. President N had regularly provided information to State U's national intelligence agency on activities of the political foes of State U both in State P and in the countries that neighbor State P. At the same time, State U had long ignored N's activities in helping drug runners transport illicit drugs into State U. Now a change in the government in State U has caused State U not only to dissociate itself from the intelligence activities of President N but also to condemn his drug-related dealings. In need of a boost in the political polls, the president of State U orders his military to invade State P and apprehend President N. This is done. President N is then put on trial in a State U court for violation of State U's antidrug statutes. (a) Assuming that the court can be impartial, does it have jurisdiction to try President N? (b) Is President N immune from prosecution? Explain."
Can you tell from which real life situation this question has been inspired from?