There is an abundant literature on the subject of state contract awards, including matters concerning recognition and enforcement, and related issues of sovereign immunity. For the most part, however, the studies that have been published tend to focus on spectacular situations involving bitter and protracted litigation in the aftermath of such well-known awards as those between the SEEE and Yugoslavia, SPP and Egypt, and LIAMCO and Libya.

The decision of the United States Supreme Court in Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc. is an invitation to reassess the impact of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) upon public debt litigation. In contrast with other activities of foreign states, which have been the object of extensive and continuing litigation, barely two dozen cases involving public debt disputes have been reported since the FSIA took effect. Whether this situation is attributable to the care with which transnational loan documents are usually drafted or to some other reasons, including possibly the contemporary tendency to rely on debt rescheduling as a means of remedying difficult situations, is an interesting matter of speculation. Whatever the explanation for the relatively limited number of public debt cases, Weltover can be expected to have a decisive impact upon future litigation.

In 1978 a French company (Pipeline) and the National Iranian Gas Company (NIGC) entered into a contract (governed by Iranian law) for the supply and erection of gas pipeline installations linking certain Iranian cities. Apparently not paid for its services, Pipeline brought an action in France against NIGC. NIGC’s plea of immunity was denied by the Court of Appeal of Versailles, whose decision was reversed by the Court of Cassation.

This appears to be the first decision dealing with the recognition in the United States of a foreign judgment rendered against the government of a third country. At issue was the recognition of a default judgment rendered by the English High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, against the People’s Republic of the Congo (Congo). The facts leading to the English judgment were as follows. In 1984 the Congo issued to an English bank a promissory note in the amount of over $26 million corresponding to a Credit Facility Agreement (Credit Agreement) with the bank. At the same time, the National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh (NUFI) became the insurer of the Congo’s obligations under the note. When the Congo failed to make payment, NUFI paid in its stead and became subrogated to the rights of the lender.

Both the rules of sovereign immunity and the law of economic development are undergoing a noteworthy evolution. Both have inspired an abundant literature. Yet, for the most part, the literature in point approaches each subject individually and makes no attempt to consider whether the rules obtaining in one discipline might affect those of the other.