This Practice Note considers the role of state immunity in relation to arbitration proceedings in Australia. For a general introduction to state immunity and arbitration, see Practice Note: State immunity and arbitration—general considerations. In addition, for Practice Notes on state immunity in a number of jurisdictions around the world (including England and Wales), see our State immunity subtopic: State immunity and arbitration—overview. State immunity in Australia is governed by the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) (FSI Act). The FSI Act applies to civil litigation in Australian courts involving 'foreign states' (as defined in the Act). Prior to the enactment of the FSI Act, state immunity was governed by the common law. Similar to the UK State Immunity Act 1978, the FSI Act provides exceptions to immunity for commercial transactions and commercial property. The FSI Act provides a separate provision (FSI Act, s 17) that addresses immunity in relation to arbitration proceedings and enforcement of arbitral awards. This Practice Note summarises the approach to state

This Practice Note considers the role of state immunity in relation to arbitration proceedings in Austria. For a general introduction to state immunity and arbitration, see Practice Note: State immunity and arbitration—general considerations. In addition, for Practice Notes on state immunity in a number of jurisdictions around the world (including England and Wales)), see our State immunity subtopic: State immunity—overview. States and state-owned entities are often parties to international business transactions. Contracts entered into by states, in particular those involving private parties from another country, frequently contain arbitration clauses. As a consequence, states are often parties to international arbitration proceedings. As a consequence of the participation of states in international arbitration, the concept of state immunity and more particularly the question of whether a state can invoke its immunity in arbitral proceedings or, at a later stage, against the enforcement of an arbitral award becomes an important issue. A 2012 case, discussed in this Practice Note, exemplifies how the Austrian Supreme Court has dealt with a state’s immunity defence against the enforcement of

This Practice Note considers the role of state immunity in relation to arbitration proceedings in Brazil. For a general introduction to state immunity and arbitration, see Practice Note: State immunity and arbitration—general considerations. In addition, for Practice Notes on state immunity in a number of jurisdictions around the world (including England and Wales), see our ‘State immunity’ subtopic: State immunity and arbitration—overview. This Practice Note considers the concept of state immunity in Brazil. It discusses exceptions to the concept of absolute state immunity and waiver of state immunity, both generally and in the context of international arbitration. Concept of state immunity in Brazil State immunity is a customary norm of international law. Based on the principle of the equality of states, ‘state immunity’ represents the concept of non-interference between states and respect of sovereignty. It establishes that one state does not have the right to judge the actions of another, as equals have no authority over one another. As a general rule, this immunity protects a foreign state,

State immunity This Practice Note considers the role of state immunity in relation to arbitration proceedings in Canada. For a general introduction to state immunity and arbitration, see Practice Note: State immunity and arbitration—general considerations. In addition, for Practice Notes on state immunity in a number of jurisdictions around the world (including England and Wales), see our ‘State immunity’ subtopic: State immunity and arbitration—overview. State immunity is an organising principle between independent states. It ensures that individual nations and the international order remain faithful to the principles of sovereignty and equality. Sovereignty guarantees a state’s ability to exercise authority over persons and events within its territory without undue external interference. Equality is the recognition that no one state is above another in the international order. State immunity is the manifestation of these principles (Kazemi Estate v Islamic Republic of Iran). The political realities of international relations in an imperfect world also justify state immunity. Because it is practically impossible to enforce domestic judgments against

This Practice Note summarises the position taken by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (China) on state immunity. For a general introduction to state immunity and arbitration, see Practice Note: State immunity and arbitration—general considerations. For Practice Notes on state immunity in a number of jurisdictions around the world (including England and Wales), see our ‘State immunity’ subtopic: State immunity and arbitration—overview. Note: Chinese and Hong Kong court judgments referred to in this Practice Note are not reported by LexisNexis® UK. State immunity—definition, concepts and approaches State immunity (often referred to as sovereign immunity) is a concept of public international law that describes relationships involving sovereign states, often invoked by states or state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in jurisdictional challenges or in attempting to resist enforcement against their assets. The doctrine of sovereign immunity is essential in designing responsible risk mitigation strategies in working with states or SOEs. The doctrine of state or sovereign immunity is based on the principles of territorial sovereignty, equality and independence of sovereign states. The doctrine defines the relationship between states,

This Practice Note considers the role of state immunity in relation to arbitration proceedings in Egypt. For a general introduction to state immunity and arbitration, see Practice Note: State immunity and arbitration—general considerations. In addition, for Practice Notes on state immunity in a number of jurisdictions around the world (including England and Wales), see: State immunity and arbitration—overview. Law No 27 of 1994 on arbitration in civil and commercial matters International arbitration in Egypt is governed by Law No 27 of 1994 on Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Matters (the ‘Arbitration Law’). This law is inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law and the principles on which it is based, and became effective on 22 May 1994. It repealed Articles 501–513 of the Civil Procedures Law which had previously regulated arbitration cases, and now the rules of Civil Procedures Law No 13 of 1968 and Civil Evidence Law No 25 of 1968 are the ones applied to arbitration procedures and enforcement of the award as supplementary

This Practice Note discusses the role and impact of state immunity on arbitration proceedings seated in France. For a general introduction to state immunity and arbitration, see Practice Note: State immunity and arbitration—general considerations. For Practice Notes on state immunity in a number of jurisdictions around the world, see the State immunity subtopic: State immunity—overview. Note: The French cases referred to below are not reported by LexisNexis® UK. The notion of state immunity in France: general principles French law recognises two types of state immunities: (i) state immunity from jurisdiction (or jurisdictional immunity) and (ii) state immunity from enforcement. State immunity from jurisdiction—this is a principle which prevents a court/tribunal from having jurisdiction to hear a case over the state benefiting from the immunity. The rules applicable to state immunity from jurisdiction are determined by case law. French courts sometimes refer to the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property dated 2 December 2004 (UN Convention), which serves

This Practice Note considers the role of state immunity in relation to arbitration proceedings under German law. For a general introduction to state immunity and arbitration, see Practice Note: State immunity and arbitration—general considerations. In addition, for Practice Notes on state immunity in a number of jurisdictions around the world (including England and Wales), see our ‘State immunity’ subtopic: State immunity and arbitration. Note: all German judgments referred to in this Practice Note are not reported by LexisNexis®. The law on state immunity in Germany Whether an asset of a foreign state can be enforced against in Germany is a question of German law. This question is not governed by the law of the state against which enforcement is being sought. Germany does not have a separate statute on state immunity. Instead, international law is applied directly. For the majority of states, Article 25 of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz (GG)) and section 20 of the Court Constitution Act (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz

This Practice Note considers the role of state immunity in relation to arbitration proceedings in India. For a general introduction to state immunity and arbitration, see Practice Note: State immunity and arbitration—general considerations. In addition, for Practice Notes on state immunity in a number of jurisdictions around the world (including England and Wales), see our ‘State immunity’ subtopic: State immunity and arbitration—overview. Note: Indian judgments referred to in this Practice Note are not reported by LexisNexis® UK. Concept of state immunity In international law, the principle of sovereignty demands that a sovereign state should respect the sovereignty of the other sovereign states. All sovereign states are considered equal. Accordingly, international law developed to provide foreign states immunity from the jurisdictions of domestic courts of other states. However, changes in the remit of what a sovereign state does, and their increasing involvement in trade and commerce, has led to carving out of exceptions under which immunity of a sovereign state is said to have been waived. This Practice Note aims to summarise

This Practice Note considers the role of state immunity in relation to arbitration proceedings in Italy. For a general introduction to state immunity and arbitration, see Practice Note: State immunity and arbitration—general considerations. In addition, for Practice Notes on state immunity in a number of jurisdictions around the world (including England and Wales), see our state immunity subtopic: State immunity and arbitration—overview. The Italian approach to state immunity Italy has long played an active role in the evolution of the doctrine of state immunity, gradually moving from a position of absolute immunity—anchored in the traditional principle par in parem non habet iudicium—towards a more nuanced doctrine of restrictive immunity. Italian courts, alongside their Belgian counterparts, were among the first to challenge the absolute immunity approach in the early 20th Century. Today, Italy embraces the restrictive immunity doctrine, limiting immunity to acts performed iure imperii—that is, acts expressing the sovereign power of the state—while excluding acts carried out iure gestionis, such as those of a commercial

The Japanese framework differs in important respects from common law models. Japan codified its law of foreign state immunity comparatively recently, in the Act on the Civil Jurisdiction of Japan with respect to Foreign States (Act No. 24 of 2009) (the ‘Foreign States Act’), which entered into force on 1 April 2010. The Foreign States Act closely follows the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (2004) (‘UNCJI’), which Japan signed in January 2007 and ratified in 2009. As a consequence, the analysis under Japanese law tends to track the structure and language of UNCJI more faithfully than the common-law statutes (such as the UK State Immunity Act 1978 and Singapore’s State Immunity Act 1979) that pre-date the UNCJI. The concept of state immunity and the absence of an ‘act of state’ doctrine State immunity (or sovereign immunity) prohibits the courts of one state from asserting jurisdiction

This Practice Note considers the role of state immunity in relation to arbitration proceedings in Morocco. For a general introduction to state immunity and arbitration, see Practice Note: State immunity and arbitration—general considerations. In addition, for Practice Notes on state immunity in a number of jurisdictions around the world (including England and Wales), see our ‘State immunity’ subtopic: State immunity and arbitration—overview. Absolute immunity of the Moroccan State property located on its own territory and its limits In civil law cultures, there are two trends: a trend which establishes absolute immunity of public entities (jure imperii), including in trade matters or ordinary activities, and a more liberal trend when it comes to the enforcement on the property of legal entities engaged in trade and industry (jure gestionis). Those two trends depend on the interpretation of the sovereign immunity under ‘restrictive’ or ‘extensive’ regarding the sovereignty of state within public international law. The Moroccan regime on immunity from enforcement of legal entities illustrates the second trend. In Morocco,