This Practice Note examines the law of state immunity in New Zealand generally before discussing the two situations above. For a general introduction to arbitration in New Zealand, see Arbitration in New Zealand—an introduction. For methods of challenging jurisdiction of arbitration awards generally, see Practice Note: Challenging jurisdiction and anti-suit provisions in New Zealand. State immunity may have relevance for arbitration proceedings in one of two situations: • a challenge to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal on the basis of state immunity, or • a challenge to enforcement of the arbitration award on the basis of state immunity State immunity as applied to investment arbitration awards pursuant to the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1979 is discussed separately below. Note: New Zealand judgments below are not reported by LexisNexis®. State immunity in New Zealand: generally A defendant state in proceedings may object to jurisdiction on the basis of state immunity. The basis for the doctrine is comity and international

State immunity under Nigerian Law Nigerian legislation does not provide general immunity for the state from suits, nor does it prevent the federal or state governments and foreign governments from enjoying immunity within Nigeria. Nevertheless, specific legislation exists to safeguard particular state assets from being subjected to enforcement of judgments or arbitral awards. Additionally, the Nigerian courts have adopted a restrictive interpretation when faced with the question of state immunity regarding foreign state authorities. While Nigerian law recognises diplomatic immunity for foreign governments and their officials under the Constitution and the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act 2010, foreign states may be sued before the Nigerian courts in certain situations. The Supreme Court, in African Re-insurance Corporation v Fantaye (1986) LPELR – 214 (SC) (not reported by LexisNexis®), noted that: ‘…the basic rule at common law as regards the jurisdiction of English courts over sovereigns or sovereign states was that a foreign sovereign or sovereign

For arbitrations seated in the Sultanate of Oman (‘Oman’), the Oman Arbitration Act (Royal Decree No. 47 of 1997, as amended), which came into force on 28 June 1997 and was amended in 2007, acts as the lex arbitri. The Oman Arbitration Act is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. The Oman Arbitration Act is supplemented by the Civil Procedure Law (Royal Decree No. 29 of 2002) and Oman’s adoption of the New York Convention (Royal Decree No. 36 of 1998). In general, sovereign immunity is not a recognised doctrine in Oman. However, Omani law prescribes certain protections against relief sought in administrative contracts and attachment of state owned property to safeguard the public interest in such instances. State immunity in Oman State immunity is limited under Omani law. For example, there is not an overarching rule stipulating that government entities are immune form suit, nor does it expressly stipulate foreign governments entities also enjoy broad immunity within Oman. Furthermore,

This Practice Note considers the role of state immunity in relation to arbitration proceedings in Portugal. 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 Portugal State immunity is not a legal rule in force in the Portuguese jurisdiction. In fact, there is no express legal provision enacting the principle that ‘par in parem non habet judicio’ (state immunity). Although Portugal is a party to the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, drawn up on 17 January 2005 in New York (Portugal acceded to the New York Convention on State Immunity by Decree of the President of the Portuguese Republic No 57/2006 of 20 June 2006, which entered into force on 14 September 2006), this international legal instrument is not yet in force. Portugal is also

This Practice Note considers the role of state immunity in relation to arbitration proceedings in the Russian Federation. 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—the Russian legal framework The Russian Federation (Russia) takes a restrictive rather than absolute approach to state immunity. This was not always the case. Russia’s restrictive approach to state immunity took effect from 1 January 2016 when Federal Law No 297-FZ ‘On jurisdictional immunities of foreign state and property of foreign state in the Russian Federation’ of 3 November 2015 (the Law on Immunities) came into force. The Law on Immunities upholds the international law approach to state immunity. However, the Law on Immunities provides several notable exemptions and waivers of immunity which can be only applied to causes of action which

This Practice Note considers the role of state immunity in relation to arbitration proceedings in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA, Saudi, Saudi Arabia). 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 relevant legal framework • the Saudi Arbitration Law issued through Royal Decree No. M/34 on 16 April 2012 (the Arbitration Law) based on the UNICTRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The Arbitration Law applies to arbitration proceedings taking place in Saudi Arabia and to arbitration proceedings held outside Saudi Arabia when the parties agree to the Arbitration Law being the governing law of the proceedings (Arbitration Law, Article 2) • the Implementing Regulations of the Arbitration Law issued by Cabinet of Ministers’ decision number 541 on 22 May 2017 (the Implementing Regulations of the Arbitration Law) • the Enforcement Law issued by the Royal Decree No. M/53 dated 30 July 2012 (the Enforcement

This Practice Note considers the role of state immunity in relation to arbitration proceedings in Singapore. 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 concept of state immunity and act of state doctrine The act of state doctrine prohibits the courts of one state from adjudicating on the domestic acts of another state. Concurrently, state immunity or sovereign immunity prohibits the courts of one state from asserting jurisdiction or permitting enforcement against another sovereign or its property, unless the other state submitted to the jurisdiction of the local court. The rationale behind the act of state doctrine is that to allow the Singapore courts to adjudicate on the domestic acts of another state would ‘imperil the amicable relations between governments and vex the peace of nations’ (see: Maldives Airports v GMR Malé International

This Practice Note considers the role of state immunity in relation to arbitration proceedings in South Korea. 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: Korean judgments referred to in this Practice Note are not reported by LexisNexis. Korean courts have recognised state immunity relying on principles of customary international law. It should be noted, however, that South Korea has not entered into any multilateral treaty or convention directly related to state immunity, including the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property. South Korea also does not have domestic legislation governing state immunity. Under the doctrine of state immunity, a court of one state is prohibited from exercising jurisdiction over a sovereign act of another state. State immunity should be considered at two procedural levels,

Introduction Although state immunity is not an obstacle to arbitration, the general rule is that states are immune from the jurisdiction of Spanish courts. However, difficulties regarding state immunity may arise when an application is filed in court against a state to challenge or enforce an award or to obtain an injunction in support of arbitration. The State Immunity Act 2015: General Provisions The Spanish State Immunity Act 2015 (SIA) incorporates into the Spanish legal system the U.N. Convention on State Immunity 2004, although this convention has not entered into force. According to the SIA, s 4, any foreign State and its assets shall enjoy immunity from jurisdiction and enforcement before Spanish courts under the terms and conditions provided in this regulation. However, the SIA, s 16 includes one exception to jurisdictional immunity if an arbitration agreement between the State and an individual of a different state regarding a commercial transaction occurs. Thus, where a foreign State has agreed with a national of another State to submit to arbitration

This Practice Note considers the role of state immunity in relation to arbitration proceedings in Sweden. 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 Introduction—State immunity and international arbitration As a general rule, Swedish courts will respect state immunity in relation to sovereign acts but not for commercial acts. Accordingly, the signing of an arbitration clause generally constitutes a waiver of immunity in respect to arbitral and court proceedings relating to a contract. Problems may however arise in the enforcement stage of an arbitral award. The question then becomes whether the property subjected to the execution measures is significantly used for official purposes. If that is the case, the property is protected. If not, state immunity cannot be invoked, which will be elaborated below. In this context, it is important to clarify that arbitration

This Practice Note considers the role of state immunity in relation to arbitration proceedings in the British Virgin Islands (BVI). 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’ subtopic: State immunity and arbitration—overview. Introduction and background This Practice Note addresses the nuanced but important subject of state immunity in the BVI in the context of commercial arbitration agreements. Where a state or state-owned entity is a party to a commercial contract the non-state counterparty will no doubt want to ensure that any dispute arising between them and any potential award against that entity may be effectively enforced. This is particularly so because the state in question may claim 'state immunity' in order to circumvent obligations and insulate assets from enforcement. State immunity is often raised in the context of jurisdiction

This Practice Note considers the role of state immunity in relation to arbitration proceedings in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). 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. On 3 May 2018, the UAE enacted the Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 on Arbitration (the ‘UAE Federal Arbitration Law’). The UAE Federal Arbitration Law, which came into effect on 16 June 2018, repeals the provisions of Articles 203–218 of the UAE Civil Procedures Law (the ‘Federal Law No. 11 of 1992’) which had previously governed arbitrations seated in the UAE, and applies to all pending UAE-seated arbitrations (excluding arbitrations seated in the DIFC and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), which are exempt-free zones) to new arbitrations seated in the UAE, unless the parties agree to it being governed by another arbitration law,