An issue which is crucial to the operation of the rule in practice concerns the extent to which local remedies must be exhausted. As already pointed out, the interplay between the two principal sets of conflicting interests, those of the host or respondent state arising from its sovereignty and those of the alien in securing a fair and equitable solution to his complaint without being put to undue expense or hardship, is significant here, although there tends to be a greater emphasis on those of the host or respondent state in having an opportunity to settle the dispute by its own means. The scope of the rule is inextricably linked with limitations on it which will be discussed in detail in the following chapter, although there will be some overlap between the two subjects. Here, however, the object is to examine how extensive must be the resort to local remedies in order to enable the host or respondent state to have a proper opportunity of settling the dispute. The development of the rule, particularly through judicial decisions, demonstrates that, while great respect is shown for the sovereignty of the host or respondent state, there has been some concern for the interests of the alien, so as not to make the extent of resort required unreasonable.