State immunity

This subtopic provides guidance on the issue of state immunity and arbitration. The subtopic provides guidance on general considerations around state immunity as well as in depth Practice Notes covering state immunity within jurisdictions such as France, Switzerland, China, Singapore, India and Morocco.

Practitioners may also find the following content useful:

  1. International arbitration—enforcing international arbitral awards—overview

  2. Understanding investment treaty arbitration—overview

  3. see Precedent: Waiver of state immunity clause—England and Wales

State immunity and arbitration—general considerations

This Practice Note considers the general principles of state immunity (also called sovereign immunity), the scope of state immunity, state immunity from jurisdiction and state immunity from execution and gives practical steps that should be considered when dealing with state immunity in the context of international arbitration. It also considers transactions with foreign states.

For more information:

  1. see Practice Note: State immunity and arbitration—general considerations

  2. see Precedent: Waiver of state immunity clause—England and Wales

State immunity in proceedings relating to arbitration (England & Wales)

This Practice Note addresses state immunity from civil proceedings in the courts of the UK, in particular proceedings relating to arbitration.

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

CICC announces revised Arbitration Law took effect 1 March 2026

The China International Commercial Court (CICC) has announced that China’s newly revised Arbitration Law, which replaces the 1995 Arbitration Law, took effect on 1 March 2026. The amendment expands provisions on international arbitration and introduces a ‘place of arbitration’ system, under which the place of arbitration determines the applicable procedural law and the court with jurisdiction unless the parties agree otherwise. In certain foreign-related maritime disputes and disputes involving enterprises in designated free trade zones, parties may choose to establish ad hoc arbitral tribunals composed of qualified individuals, subject to filing requirements. The revised law clarifies that Chinese arbitration institutions and tribunals may handle international investment arbitration cases in accordance with relevant treaties and aligns provisions on the recognition and enforcement of awards with the Civil Procedure Law. It also revises governance requirements for arbitration institutions, enhances arbitrator qualification and disclosure obligations and formally recognises online arbitration. Procedural changes include expanded mechanisms for confirming the existence of arbitration agreements and a reduction in the time limit for applying to set aside an award from six months to three months, while the law further provides for judicial support for preservation measures prior to the commencement of arbitration and permits tribunals to request assistance in evidence collection.

Drawing the line—court review of arbitral institutions’ administrative decisions in Brazil (Vale v B3 & others)

Arbitration analysis: Reversing a first-instance judgment that had dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction and legal standing, the São Paulo Court of Appeals held that Brazilian courts may review administrative decisions rendered by arbitral institutions prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The dispute concerned a decision by the President of the Market Arbitration Chamber (CAM) applying Article 3.6 of its Rules to appoint all three arbitrators and to disregard respondent Vale S.A.’s prior appointment of a co-arbitrator. The court held that the provision presupposes both a plurality of parties and an actual ‘absence of consensus’, which was not present in the case at hand, as the multiparty claimants acted jointly and with convergent interests up to that stage of the proceedings. It further held that the statutory right of each party to appoint a co-arbitrator under the Brazilian Arbitration Act cannot be displaced by institutional discretion in such circumstances. The decision reinforces the judicial control over institutional acts that affect fundamental procedural rights in arbitration and clarifies the São Paulo Court of Appeal’s stance on the distinction between jurisdictional and administrative acts in arbitration. Written by Renato Stephan Grion, partner at Pinheiro Neto Advogados, and Thiago Del Pozzo Zanelato, senior associate at Pinheiro Neto Advogados.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents