Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 February 2015
If a state has waived state immunity by agreement with a non-state entity in advance of court proceedings brought by that entity to enforce an arbitral award against that state, then the enforcement court should give effect to the waiver. That is the opposite of what the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal decided in Democratic Republic of the Congo v. FG Hemisphere, but it is the approach reflected in the 2004 United Nations Convention on the Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property. After examining that Hong Kong case and that United Nations Convention, this paper considers the position in various jurisdictions. The prevalent position is in general terms that consent to arbitration usually constitutes waiver of state immunity from jurisdiction of a court to recognize the arbitral award as creating a debt binding on the state, but usually does not constitute waiver of state immunity from execution of that debt against the assets of the state. The conclusion of the paper includes a model waiver of state immunity from jurisdiction and from execution.
Co-Head of the Public International Law Group and Partner in the International Arbitration Group of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Lecturer at the University of Paris V, and Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics. Gratitude for their helpful comments on earlier drafts is due to James Crawford, Kate Parlett, Jan Paulsson, Philippa Webb, and two anonymous referees who reviewed this paper for the Asian Journal of International Law.
1. See Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Thirtieth Session, UN Doc. A/33/10 (1978), at 386.
2. CRAWFORD, James, Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law, 8th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) at 488CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also see CRAWFORD, James, “Execution of Judgments and Foreign Sovereign Immunity” (1981) 75 American Journal of International Law 820 at 851–852Google Scholar.
3. Democratic Republic of the Congo v. FG Hemisphere Associates  HKCFA 41 [FG Hemisphere].
4. Ibid., at paras. 374–93.
5. Ibid., at para. 392.
6. On the general historical shift in state practice from absolute to restrictive immunity, see Second Report on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, International Law Commission, finalized by Motoo OGISO, UN Doc. No A/CN.4/422 (1989), at paras. 4–10 [Second Report on Jurisdictional Immunities].
7. Interpretation of para. 1, art. 13 and art. 19 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, 26 August 2011; see FG Hemisphere, supra note 3, annex 2.
8. FG Hemisphere, supra note 3 at paras. 11, 382–3.
9. Ibid., at para. 377.
10. Ibid., at paras. 383, 390, 392.
11. Mighell v. Sultan of Johore  1 QBD 149 at 159–60.
12. Ibid., at 161. See the characterization of the procedural context necessary to a proper understanding of this case in COHN, Ernst Joseph, “Waiver of Immunity” (1958) 34 British Yearbook of International Law 260 at 261–263Google Scholar.
13. Duff Development v. Kelantan  AC 797 [Duff].
14. The judgment records a letter from the Colonial Office: “I am directed by Mr. Secretary Churchill to inform you in reply to your letter of July 18 that Kelantan is an independent State in the Malay Peninsula and that His Highness Ismail … is the present sovereign ruler thereof.” Ibid., at 806.
15. Ibid., at 819.
16. See Cohn, , supra note 12 at 266–270Google Scholar, and examining, at 268–9, the case decided by the Hong Kong Supreme Court concerning the China National Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, reported in the Annual Digest, 1947, Case No. 29, at 79.
18. A Company Ltd v. Republic of X  2 Lloyd's Rep. 520 [A Company].
19. Ibid., at 524.
20. An authority concerning the common-law position on waiver of state immunity prior to the 1978 State Immunity Act that could have been referred to would have been Kahan v. Pakistan Federation  2 KB 1003 at 1012 [Kahan v. Pakistan], which Saville J cited in his discussion of diplomatic immunity.
21. A Company, supra note 18 at 523.
25. FG Hemisphere, supra note 3 at para. 377.
27. Duff, supra note 13 at 810; cf. Cohn, supra note 12, especially at 268.
28. NML Capital Limited v. Republic of Argentina  UKSC 31, at para. 114 [NML Capital].
29. Ibid., at para. 59 (emphasis added).
30. FG Hemisphere, supra note 3 at para. 377.
31. See Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 37th session (6 May–26 July 1985), UN Doc. A/40/10 (1985), at para. 228.
32. Duff, supra note 13 at 821.
33. By virtue of provisions such as the UK Civil Procedure Rules 1998/3132, Rule 6.33, and the Hong Kong Rules of the High Court, Cap. 4A Order 11, Rule 1(1) (provisions in relation to service of process out of the jurisdiction).
34. Duff, supra note 13 at 835.
35. Kahan v. Pakistan, supra note 20 at 1017.
36. Ibid., at 1012.
37. See Cohn, supra note 12 at 266–70, arguing that the ratio decidendi of Duff was limited to the point that “a submission to arbitrate or even submission to the jurisdiction is not a submission to execution”, and therefore did not require the Court of Appeal to rule as it did in Kahan. In NML Capital, supra note 28 at para. 125, Lord Collins, with whom Lord Walker agreed, referred with approval to Professor Cohn's analysis. See also MANN, F.A., “State Contracts and International Arbitration” (1967) 42 British Yearbook of International Law 8 at 17Google Scholar.
39. Ibid., at 17.
40. United Kingdom State Immunity Act 1978, s. 2(2).
41. NML Capital, supra note 28 at para. 126.
42. HIGGINS, Rosalyn, “Execution of State Property in English Law” in Rosalyn HIGGINS, ed., Themes and Theories: Volume IV (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 400Google Scholar.
43. SINCLAIR, Ian, “The Law of Sovereign Immunity, Recent Developments” (1979) Recueil des cours at 274Google Scholar, ftn 288, and see 259.
44. The State Immunity Act 1978 applied to Hong Kong by virtue of the State Immunity (Overseas Territories) Order 1979, and ceased to have effect there upon China's resumption of the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong on 1 July 1997. See FG Hemisphere, supra note 3 at para. 222.
45. Ibid., at para. 392.
47. WALDOCK, Humphrey, ed., J. L. Brierly, The Law of Nations, 6th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963) at 275Google Scholar.
49. This is equivalent to, for example, the position of Venezuela communicated to the International Law Commission as the Commission prepared the 2004 Convention: Venezuela, Comments and Observations Received from Governments, Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/CN.4/410 (1988), at 90, para. 6.
50. Cf. the comments of Bulgaria on the draft article concerning arbitration agreements in the 2004 UN Convention (then art. 19, which became art. 17 in the final text):
The logic of article 19 is also unacceptable. An arbitration agreement between a State and a natural or juridical person should not mean the automatic waiver of immunity even in the cases specified in the text. On the contrary, an arbitration agreement means that the State is unwilling to waive its immunity from jurisdiction relating to possible specific disputes and accepts arbitration as a means of their out-of-court settlement.
Bulgaria, Comments and Observations Received from Governments, Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/CN.4/410 (1988), at 59, para. 12.
51. FG Hemisphere, supra note 3 at para. 392.
52. Ibid., at para. 161.
53. Ibid., at para. 528. See also NML Capital, supra note 28 at paras. 11, 62.
54. FG Hemisphere, supra note 3 at para. 529.
55. LAUTERPACHT, Hersch, “The Problem of Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States” (1951) 28 British Yearbook of International Law 220 at 226Google Scholar.
58. Ibid., at 247.
59. Art. 10, United Nations Convention on the Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, 2 December 2004, GA Res. A59/38, UN Doc. A/RES/59/38 (not yet entered into force) [UN Convention on State Immunity].
61. Ibid., at 266.
62. Act on the Civil Jurisdiction of Japan with respect to a Foreign State, Act No. 24 of 2009, ss. 5(1)(ii), 16 and 17(1).
63. See, in general, Third Report on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, Thirty-first session of the International Law Commission, finalized by Sompong SUCHARITKUL, UN Doc. A/CN.4/340 (1981), at paras. 85–9, and for examples of specific jurisdictions:
1. Australia: Foreign States Immunities Act 1985, ss. 10(2), 17(2), 31(1).
2. Canada: State Immunity Act, R.S.C., 11985, c. S-18, ss. 4(2)(a) and 12(1)(a); TMR Energy Limited v. State Property Fund of Ukraine, 2003 FC 1517 at para. 65; and BACHAND, Frederic, “Overcoming Immunity-Based Objections to the Recognition and Enforcement in Canada of Investor-State Awards” (2009) 26 Journal of International Arbitration 59 at 79–86Google Scholar.
3. Germany: Sedelmayer v. Russian Federation, Judgment of 6 October 2003 of the Oberlandesgericht, Cologne, extracts translated into English in (2005) XXX YCA 541 at 543.
4. Ghana: NML Capital Limited v. The Republic of Argentina, High Court of Ghana, Suit No. RPC/343/12, 11 October 2012, at 13, 16, 21–2, in which the High Court accepted that immunity can be waived (overturned on appeal on other grounds).
5. Israel: Foreign States Immunity Law 5769-2008, ss. 9, 11, 17.
6. Japan: Act on the Civil Jurisdiction of Japan with Respect to a Foreign State, Act No 24 of 24 April 2009, ss. 5(1)(ii), 16, 17(1).
7. Russian Federation: Civil Procedure Code (2003), s. 401.
8. Singapore: Singapore State Immunity Act 1979, ss. 4(2) and 11(1).
9. Sweden: LIAMCO v. Socialist Peoples’ Libyan Arab Jamahirya, Decision 0261/79 of the Svea Court of Appeal, 18 June 1980, 20 I.L.M. 893 at paras. 4–5;
10. South Africa: Foreign State Immunities Act 87 of 1981, ss. 3(2) and 10(1).
11. United Kingdom: State Immunity Act 1978, ss. 2(2), 9(1), 13(3); Sabah Shipyard v. Pakistan  EWCA Civ. 1643 at paras. 18–27; Svenska Petroleum Exploration AB v. Government of the Republic of Lithuania  EWCA Civ. 1529 at para. 117 [Svenska Petroleum].
12. United States of America: Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (1976) 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(1), 1610(a)(1), discussed by Congress at H. Rep. No. 94-1487, 94th Cong., 2d Sess; Ipitrade International v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, Judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 25 September 1978, 465 F. Supp 824 (1978), 826; Restatement of the Law (Third): The Foreign Relations Law of the United States (American Law Institute, 1987) at 456 [Third Restatement].
64. UN Convention on State Immunity, supra note 59, art. 7(1).
65. Ibid., art. 30.
66. Ibid., First Recital.
67. Ibid., art. 5.
68. Ibid., art. 10.
69. Ibid., art. 7(1).
70. The annex to the UN Convention on State Immunity, supra note 59, specifies that in this article the “expression ‘commercial transaction’ includes investment matters”.
71. UN Convention on State Immunity, supra note 59, art. 17.
72. See the comments of the Chairman of the Drafting Committee in 2219th Meeting, Summary Records of the Meetings of the Forty-third Session, International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.457 (1991), at para. 60.
73. See FOX, Hazel and WEBB, Philippa, The Law of State Immunity, 3rd. ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) at 393Google Scholar.
74. UN Convention on State Immunity, supra note 59, art. 20.
75. Ibid., arts. 18(a)(ii) and 19(a)(ii).
76. Ibid., arts 18(a) and 19(a).
77. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening),  I.C.J. Rep. 99 at para. 115 [Jurisdictional Immunities Case].
78. Ibid., at para. 117.
80. AIG Capital Partners v. The Republic of Kazakhstan  EWHC 2239 (Comm) at para. 80.
81. Jones v. Ministry of Interior for Saudi Arabia  1 AC 270 at para. 47.
82. NML v. Argentina, French Cour de cassation, Judgments No. 394, 395, and 396 of 28 March 2013.
83. Oleynikov v. Russia, Judgment of 14 March 2013, Application No. 36703/04, European Court of Human Rights, at para. 66.
84. Ibid., at paras. 66–8.
85. Ibid., at paras. 66–73.
86. Ibid., at paras. 69–71.
87. Ibid., at para. 71. Russia's request for a referral of this case to the Grand Chamber of the Court was rejected; see European Court of Human Rights, “Cases referred to the Grand Chamber” (September 2013), online: ECHR <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4486072-5407555>.
88. FG Hemisphere, supra note 3 at para. 261. Cf. art. 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980) concerning the “Obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force”.
89. Boddington v. British Transport Police  2 AC 143 at 170.
90. See, for example, Second Report on Jurisdictional Immunities, supra note 6 at paras. 38–40; Mann, supra note 37 at 18–19; VAN DEN BERG, Albert Jan, “Recent Enforcement Problems Under the New York and ICSID Conventions” (1989) 5 Arbitration International 2 at 10–12Google Scholar; and New York City Bar, “Recommended Procedures for Recognition and Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards Rendered Under the ICSID Convention” (July 2012), online: <http://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/20072262-Procedures forAwardsunderICSID.pdf> at 5–6.
91. Federal Arbitration Act, 9 USC Title 9 (1947, as amended).
92. See the use of “confirm” in the “arbitration exception” in the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, 28 USC 97, s. 1605(a)(6).
93. See, for example, Yugoslavia v. SEEE, Tribunal de grand instance de Paris, 6 July 1970, 65 ILR 47 at 48–9 [Yugoslavia v. SEEE].
94. BRIGGS, Adrian, The Conflict of Laws, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)Google Scholar at 140.
96. Ibid., citing BOWER, George Spencer and HANDLEY, Kenneth R., Spencer Bower, Turner and Handley on The Doctrine of Res Judicata, 3rd ed. (London: Butterworths, 1996)Google Scholar.
97. Lawrence COLLINS et al., eds., Dicey, Morris, and Collins: Conflict of Laws, 15th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2012) at 678–88.
98. FG Hemisphere, supra note 3 at paras. 19 and 194. See also Svenska Petroleum, supra note 63(11) at para. 10, discussed below.
99. FG Hemisphere, supra note 3 at paras. 11 and 382–3.
100. Ibid., at para. 390.
101. Ibid., at para. 530.
102. Ibid., at para. 163; also see at paras. 176 and 178. The sections of the dissenting judgments of Mr Justice Bokhary PJ and of Mr Justice Mortimer NPJ relevant to waiver more generally may be found at paras. 149–79 and 526–31, respectively.
103. Ibid., at para. 164.
104. Emmanuel GAILLARD and John SAVAGE, eds., Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999) at 391. This has also been expressed drawing a sharper distinction between immunity from jurisdiction and that from execution: “the French courts have endeavoured to give full effect to an award rendered against a state, rather than allowing the state to submit disputes to arbitration despite its immunity from jurisdiction, but then prevent the award from becoming enforceable simply by relying on its immunity from execution.”; GAILLARD, Emmanuel, “Waiving State Immunity from Execution in France: An Update” (2000) 224 New York Law Journal 33Google Scholar at para. 5. See also the concurring opinion of Judge Tillinger in LIAMCO v. Socialist Peoples’ Libyan Arab Jamahirya, Decision of 18 June 1980, Svea Court of Appeal, 20 I.L.M. 893 at paras. 9–10; and VAN DEN BERG, Albert Jan, “Recent Enforcement Problems under the New York and ICSID Conventions” (1989) 5 Arbitration International 2 at 12Google Scholar.
105. France, Comments and Observations Received from Governments on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/CN.4/410 (1988), at para. 36.
106. Cass Civ 1, 6 July 2000,  1 Bull Civ. 207, the relevant short extract from a very short judgment being: “l'engagement pris par l'Etat signataire de la clause d'arbitrage d'exécuter la sentence dans les termes de l'article 24 du règlement d'arbitrage de la Chambre de commerce international impliquait renonciation de cet Etat à l'immunité d'exécution.” This controversial judgment was received differently by different French commentators, for example Nathalie MEYER-FABRE, “Enforcement of Arbitral Awards against Sovereign States, a New Milestone: Signing ICC Arbitration Clause Entails Waiver of Immunity from Execution Held by French Court of Cassation in Creighton v Qatar, July 6, 2000” (2000) Mealey's International Arbitration Report 48, thought it “far-fetched”, whereas, for example, Gaillard thought it “a very significant step forward in ensuring the enforceability of arbitral awards against states”; see Gaillard, supra note 104 at para. 2. On inconsistencies in the French jurisprudence in this area, before and after the decision in Creighton, see FRANÇOIS-PONCET, Sarah, HORRIGAN, Brenda, and KARAM, Lara, “Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Against Sovereign States or State Entities—France” in Doak BISHOP, ed., Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Against Sovereigns (New York: Juris Publishing, 2009), 369–372Google Scholar. Contrast, for example, Yugoslavia v. SEEE, supra note 93 at 49, Eurodif v. Iran, Court of Appeal of Paris, 21 April 1982, and the French cases cited by REINISCH, August, “European Court Practice Concerning State Immunity from Enforcement Measures” (2006) European Journal of International Law 803 at 818–819Google Scholar, and Fox and Webb, supra note 73 at 385–7. See also the distinction drawn between the French and English positions by Lord Mance in Dallah Co v. Ministry of Religious Affairs  UKSC 46 at para. 19.
107. CA Paris, 10 August 2000,  Rev. Arb. 114. On waiver of state immunity not constituting a waiver of diplomatic immunity now also see NML v. Argentina, French Cour de cassation, Judgment No 867 of 28 September 2011.
108. NML v. Argentina, French Cour de cassation, Judgments No. 394, 395, and 396 of 28 March 2013. The original French reads:
Attendu que, selon le droit international coutumier, tel que reflété par la Convention des Nations Unies, du 2 décembre 2004, sur l'immunité juridictionnelle des Etats et de leurs biens, si les Etats peuvent renoncer, par contrat écrit, à leur immunité d'exécution sur des biens ou des catégories de biens utilisés ou destinés à être utilisés à des fins publiques, il ne peut y être renoncé que de manière expresse et spéciale, en mentionnant les biens ou la catégorie de biens pour lesquels la renonciation est consentie.
110. United Kingdom State Immunity Act 1978, s. 9(1). With the substitution of “Singapore” for “United Kingdom”, the same text appears verbatim in s. 11(1) of the Singapore State Immunity Act of 1979, as amended.
111. COLLINS, Lawrence, ed., Dicey & Morris: The Conflict of Laws, 13th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2000) at 251Google Scholar; FOX, Hazel, “States and the Undertaking to Arbitrate” (1988) 37 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1 at 11–18Google Scholar. Also see Foreign State Immunity (1984) Australian Law Reform Commission Report No. 24 at paras. 104–5.
113. Svenska Petroleum, supra note 63(11) at paras. 68–73.
114. Ibid., at paras. 69–71; Hansard, House of Lords Debates, 16 March 1978, vol. 389, cols. 1516–17 (The Lord Chancellor) and Hansard, House of Lords Debates, 28 June 1978, vol. 394 col. 316 (The Lord Chancellor): “The Amendment removes the links with the United Kingdom, and by deleting the reference to the United Kingdom or its law, it will ensure that a State has no immunity in respect of enforcement proceedings for any foreign arbitral award.”
115. NML Capital, supra note 28 at paras. 89 and 90.
116. Svenska Petroleum, supra note 63(11) at para. 117.
120. Singapore State Immunity Act of 1979, as amended, s. 15(3) contains identical terms. See also to equivalent effect, Foreign States Immunities Act 1985, Australia, s. 31(1).
122. Svenska Petroleum, supra note 63(11) at paras. 117, 121, 123.
123.  EWHC 1841 (Comm).
124. Ibid., at para. 33.
125. Ibid., at paras. 38–48.
126. Ibid., at para. 49.
127. Ibid., at para. 50.
128. Foreign States Immunities Act 1985, Australia, s. 17(2).
129. See especially, ibid., ss. 30 and 31(1).
130. Third Restatement, supra note 63(12). See also the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, 28 USC 97, s. 1605(a), especially 1605(a)(1) and 1605(a)(6), dealing with immunity from jurisdiction, and see further s. 1610(a)(1), dealing separately with waiver of immunity from attachment and execution.
131. Birch Shipping Corporation v. The Embassy of the United Republic of Tanzania, Judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 18 November 1980, 507 F. Supp. 311 (1980) at 312.
132. 395 F. 3d 229 (5th Cir. 2004).
133. Ibid., at 233.
134. Ibid., at 234.
135. Ibid. Also see Ipitrade International v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, Judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 25 September 1978, 465 F. Supp 824 (1978) at 826.
136. Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, 28 USC 97, s. 1605(a)(6).
137. S & R Davis International v. The Republic of Yemen 218 F.3d 1292 at 1301–1302 (11th Cir. 2000) [Davis v. Yemen], citing Creighton Limited v. Qatar 181 F.3d 118 at 123–4 (D.C. Cir. 1999) [Creighton v. Qatar], citing Cargill International S.A. v. M/T Pavel Dybenko 991 F.2d 1012 at 1018 (2nd Cir. 1993) [Cargill International].
138. Cargill International, ibid., at para. 24.
139. Creighton v. Qatar, supra note 137 at 122–3.
141. Compare, for example, Ipitrade International v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, supra note 135; and Libyan American Oil Company v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahirya, Judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 18 January 1980, 482 F. Supp 1175 (1980), decided following the introduction of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act and prior to the introduction of s. 1605(a)(6) of that Act, and, for example, Seetransport Wiking Trader Schiffarhtsgesellschaft MBH & Co., Kommanditgesellschaft v. Navimpex Centrala Navala 989 F. 2d 572 (2nd .Cir. 1993) at 576–9, decided after the introduction of s. 1605(a)(6).
143. Cargill International, supra note 137 at 1018; Creighton v. Qatar, supra note 137 at 123–4; Davis v. Yemen, supra note 137. See also, for a more recent example, the Opinion of Judge Boasberg in Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company v. Republic of Ecuador, Civil Action No. 12-1247 (JEB), United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 6 June 2013, at 3–7.
144. Compare Creighton v. Qatar, supra note 137, where personal jurisdiction was not established, with Davis v. Yemen, supra note 137 at 1303 et seq., where personal jurisdiction was established. On the distinction between subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction in the US generally, see Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982).
145. RSC 1985, c S-18. For commentary, see Bachand, supra note 63(2).
146. RSC 1985, c S-18, s. 4(2)(a).
147. TMR Energy Limited v. State Property Fund of Ukraine, 2003 FC 1517, at para. 65.
148. RSC 1985, c S-18, s. 12(1).
149. Collavino Incorporated v. Yemen (Tihama Development Authority), 2007 ABQB 212 at para. 139.
150. BGH SchiedsVZ 2013, 110, at 111. The original German reads:
Ob aus dem Abschluss einer Schiedsvereinbarung zumindest ein Verzicht auf Immunität im Verfahren auf Anerkennung und Vollstreckbarerklärung eines Schiedsspruchs (als Erkenntnisverfahren besonderer Art) abgeleitet werde kann, bedarf keiner grundsätzlichen Entscheidung.
Discussion may also be found at: BVerfG NJW 2007, 2605 at para. 37; BGH, 4 October 2005, extracts translated into English in (2006) 31 YCA 707 at 716; BGH NJW-RR 2002, at 933; OLG München Schieds VZ 2007, 164, 165; ESCHER, Alfred, NACIMIENTO, Patricia, and WEISSENBORN, Christoph, “Investment Arbitration and the Participation of State Parties in Germany” in Karl-Heinz BÖCKSTIEGEL, Stefan Michael KRÖLL, and Patricia NACIMIENTO, eds., Arbitration in Germany: The Model Law in Practice (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2007)Google Scholar, 1013 at 1048; Uwe SCHÖNFELD, “Die Immunitat ausländischer Staaten vor deutschen Gerichten” (1986) NJW 2980, at 2985; SCHWAB, Karl Heinz and WALTER, Gerhard, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (München: C.H. Beck Verlag, 2005)Google Scholar, chapter 26 at para. 3, and chapter 27 at para. 1.
151. BGH SchiedsVZ 2013, 110 at 111. The original German reads:
Denn der Antragsgegner hat sich im ISV 2002 nicht nur allgemein einem Schiedsverfahren unterworfen. Vielmehr bestimmt Art. 10 II 3 ISV 2002, dass “der Schiedsspruch nach innerstaatlichem Recht vollstreckt wird.” Damit hat sich der Antragsgegner auch dem Verfahren unterworfen, das in Deutschland als Vorstufe einer späteren Zwangsvollstreckung notwendig ist. Bedarf es zur Vollstreckung eines ausländischen Schiedsspruchs in Deutschland eines Verfahrens der Anerkennung und Vollstreckbarerklärung, widerspräche es dem Sinn und Zweck des Übereinkommens, wenn man die vertraglichen Regelungen dahingehend auslegen würde, dass sich der Antragsgegner im insoweit notwendigen Zwischenverfahren auf seine Immunität berufen und damit eine Zwangsvollstreckung von vorneherein vereiteln könnte, obwohl zB die Zwangsvollstreckung in nicht hoheitlich genutzte Gegenstände eines fremden Staates grundsätzlich zulässig ist, also keiner Einwilligung oder eines Immunitätsverzichts bedarf (vgl nur BVerfG NJW 2007, 2605 Rn 39 mwN).
152. Cf. Third Restatement, supra note 63(12), s. 456(1)(b): “a waiver of immunity from attachment of property does not imply a waiver of immunity from suit.”
153. BGH SchiedsVZ 2013, 110 at 112. The original German reads:
Zwar beinhaltet der Abschluss einer Schiedsvereinbarung keinen Verzicht auf die Immunität in einem Vollstreckungsverfahren. Immunität im Erkenntnis- und Vollstreckungsverfahren sind getrennt zu prüfen; allein von der Unterwerfung unter die Jurisdiktion eines Staates oder von einem entsprechenden Immunitätsverzicht im Erkenntnisverfahren lässt sich nicht auf einen Verzicht für das Zwangsvollstreckungsverfahren schließen (vgl. nur BVerfG NJW 2007, 2605 Rn 37, BGH NJW-RR 2006, 425 Rn 22 mwN.
154. Ibid.; BGH, 4 October 2005, extracts translated into English in (2006) 31 YCA 707 at 716; Sedelmayer v. Russian Federation, Oberlandesgericht, Cologne, 6 October 2003, extracts translated into English in (2005) XXX YCA 541 at 544.
155. Sedelmayer v. Russian Federation, Oberlandesgericht, Cologne, 6 October 2003, extracts translated into English in (2005) XXX YCA 541 at 544 [Sedelmayer].
157. Ibid., at 545.
158. BGH, 4 October 2005, extracts translated into English in (2005) 31 YCA 707 at 709.
159. Sedelmayer, supra note 155 at 544.
160. BGH, 4 October 2005, extracts translated into English in (2005) 31 YCA 707 at 709.
161. Southern District of New York, 12 December 1986, YCA, 1988, vol. XIII, 661 at 665–6; 26 I.L.M. 695 at 699–700. Also see, on the application of diplomatic immunity to an attempt to enforce the same award against diplomatic bank accounts in the District of Colombia, LETCO v. Liberia, 659 F.Supp. 606 (Dist Ct D.C., 1987), (1988) 3 ICSID Review-FILJ 161.
162. SOABI v. Senegal (1990) 117 Journal du Droit International 141 at 167.
163. AIG Capital Partners v. The Republic of Kazakhstan  EWHC 2239 (Comm) at paras. 5–7, and 95(6).
164. For a recent example see Continental Casualty Company v. The Argentine Republic, 893 F. Supp. 2d 747 (E.D. Va. 2012) at 750, and for a less recent one, see S.A.R.L. Benvenuti & Bonfant v. Republic of the Congo, 26 June 1981, Court of Appeal, Paris, (1982) Revue de l'arbitrage 207 at 208–9.
165. On customary international law, see Jurisdictional Immunities Case, supra note 77 at para. 113.
166. For others, see, for example, Foreign States Immunity Law 5769-2008 (Israel), ss. 15 and 17; the general statement of the Greek Supreme Civil and Criminal Court (Areios Pagos) in Cases No. 36 and 37/2002, 13 June 2002 that “immunity from execution … is different and independent from immunity from jurisdiction”; and REINISCH, August, “European Court Practice Concerning State Immunity from Enforcement Measures” (2006) European Journal of International Law 803 at 817–818Google Scholar.
167. State Immunity from Measures of Constraint in Connection with Proceedings before a Court, Report on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1991/Add.1 (Part 2) (1991), at 56.
168. Sixth Report on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, Thirty-first session of the International Law Commission, finalized by Sompong SUCHARITKUL, UN Doc. A/CN.4/376 (1984), at para. 29.
169. NML v. Argentina, French Cour de cassation, Judgments No. 394, 395, and 396 of 28 March 2013.
170. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, “Model Clauses-VII. Waiver of Immunity from Execution of the Award: Clause 15”, online: ICSID <https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/StaticFiles/mod el-clauses-en/15.htm>.
171. See, notably, Figueiredo Ferraz Engenharia de Projeto Ltda v. Republic of Peru 665 F.3d 384 (2nd Cir. 2011), and In Re Arbitration Between Monegasque de Reassurances (Monde Re) v. Nak Naftogaz and the State of Ukraine 311 F.3d 488 (2nd Cir. 2002). These cases are discussed in JURATOWITCH, Ben, “Fora Non Conveniens for Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Against States” (2014) 63 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 477CrossRefGoogle Scholar.