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

French courts re-affirmed how the irreconcilability between an arbitral award and a foreign judgment may amount to a breach of international public policy (SNEL v Congo and FG Hemisphere)

Arbitration analysis: On 16 September 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal (the Court) dismissed Congolese company Société Nationale d’Électricité (SNEL)’s application to set aside an ICC award rendered against it and the Democratic Republic of Congo, confirming France’s pro-enforcement stance. The Court held that as a matter of principle, the irreconcilability between an arbitral award and a non-EU foreign judgment may amount to a breach of international public policy in circumstances where the foreign judgment has first obtained exequatur in France and the irreconcilable decisions result in mutually exclusive consequences. In the present case, because the Congolese judgment relied upon by SNEL had been denied exequatur for lack of proper notice to the opposing party, no irreconciliability could arise. The Court reaffirmed that the mere disregard of a foreign judgment’s res judicata effect by an arbitral award is not, in and of itself, contrary to international public policy. The Court further clarified that the exequatur judge exercises only limited review, verifying the existence of the arbitral award and the absence of any manifest breach of international public policy, dismissing SNEL’s other arguments based on capacity to arbitrate, arbitrability, and foreign procurement rules, which did not amount to a breach of French international public policy. Written by Julie Spinelli, partner at Le 16 Law, and Carl Szymura, associate at Le 16 Law.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents