Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T09:43:37.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enforcement of an Arbitral Award against a State: with Whom are You Dealing?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

A. van Blankenstein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The effort to attract commercial arbitration to the Permanent Court of Arbitration [hereinafter PCA] in 1962 by introducing the Rules of Arbitration and Conciliation for Settlement of International Disputes between Two Parties of Which only One is a State [hereinafter the 1962 Rules], has met with little success. In other articles of this issue of the Leiden Journal of International Law the reasons for this failure are discussed. These articles also contain suggestions on how changes in the legal framework and the administration of the PCA may improve this situation.

Type
Articles
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 6 , Issue 2: Special Issue 1993: THE FLAME REKINDLED: New Hopes for International Arbitration , August 1993 , pp. 357 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The Permanent Court of Arbitration – New Directions 10 (1991).

2. Lauterpacht, H., The Problem ofJurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States, 28 BYIL 220 (1951)Google Scholar; Bouchez, L.J., The Nature and Scope of State Immunity from Jurisdiction and Execution, 10 NYIL 3–33 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sinclair, I., The Law of Sovereign Immunity, Some Recent Developments, 167 Recueil des Cours 113–284 (1980)Google Scholar; Sucharitkul, S., Developments and Prospects of the Doctrine of State Immunity, Some Aspects of Codification and Progressive Development, 29 NILR 252–64 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Higgins, R., Certain Unresolved Aspects of the Law of State Immunity, 29 NILR 265–276 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; G.M. Badr, State Immunity: An Analytical and Prognostic View (1984); Trooboff, P.D., Foreign State Immunity: Emerging Consensus on Principles, 200 Recueil des Cours 293–429 (1986)Google Scholar; C.H. Scheuer, State Immunity: Some Recent Developments (1988).

3. [1978] 2 Y.B. Int'l Law Comm'n 153, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1978/Add.1.

4. This is reflected in the maxim par in parem imperium non liabet.

5. See Badr, supra note 2, at 63.

6. See Higgins, supra note 2, at 268.

7. Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (1976), 15 I.L.M. 1388–1392 (1976), Amendments to the FSIA (1988), 28 I.L.M. 397 (1989).

8. State Immunity Act (1978), 17 I.L.M. 1123–1129(1978).

9. Singapore; State Immunity Act (1979), UN Legislative Series, Materials on Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States and Their Property 28, U.N. Sales No. E/F.81 V.10 (1982), Pakistan; State Immunity Ordinance (1981), id. at 20, South-Africa; Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (1982), id. at 34, Canada; Act to Provide for State Immunity in Canadian Courts (1982), 21 I.L.M. 798–801 (1982).

10. Foreign States Immunity Act (1985). 25 I.L.M. 715–724 (1986).

11. European Convention on State Immunity and Additional Protocol (1972) Europ. T.S. No. 74, in 1987 the following states were party to this Convention: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, Chart Showing Signatures and Ratification of Conventions and Agreements Concluded within the Council of Europe (1987).

12. Report of the International Law Commission on its Work of its Forty-third Session, 46 U.N. GAOR Supp. 10, at 10.

13. See Bouchez, supra note 2, at 8; e.g. Lord Wilberforce: “It is necessary in the interest of justice to individuals having […] [commercial, or other private law] transactions with states to allow them to bring such transactions before the court”, in I Congreso del Partido, 1983 A.C. 244, 64 I.L.R. 314 (1984); Alfred Dunhill of London Inc. v. Republic of Cuba, 425 U.S. 682 (1976), 66 I.L.R. 66 (1984).

14. See e.g. the US Supreme Court: “In their commercial capacities, foreign governments do not exercise powers peculiar to sovereigns […]” in Alfred Dunhill of London v. Republic of Cuba, supra note 13, at 225; the Cour de Cassation: “[…] the foreign state […] did not carry out any act of public authority […] but acted, on the contrary, in the same manner as any private individual”, in Spanish State v. SA de L'Hotel George V. judgement of Jan. 17, 1973, Cass., Fr., 65 I.L.R. 62 (1984).

15. See Badr, supra note 2, at 65.

16. But see I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 323 (1990); Institut de Droit International, 64 Annuaire Tome 2 (1991) at 214–279.

17. See Badr, supra note 2, at 80.

18. Id. at 92; E. Lauterpacht, Aspects of Administration of International Justice 55 (1991).

19. See Trooboff, supra note 2, at 319.

20. See Higgins, supra note 2, at 273; Preliminary Report on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, by Mr. Motoo Ogiso, Special Rapporteur, [1988] 2 Y.B. Int'l Law Comm'n 109, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1988/Add.l.

21. See Higgins, supra note 2, at 275.

22. Crawford, J., Execution of Judgments and Foreign Sovereign Immunity, 75 AJIL 820–869 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cahiers de CEDIN. L'Immunité d'Execution de l'Etat Etranger (1988); G.R. Delaume, Transnational Contracts, Applicable Law and Settlement of Disputes, Ch. 12 (1990).

23. See Scheuer, supra note 2, at 125; Delaume, supra note 22, at 1; Bouchez, supra note 2, at 19.

24. Second Report on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, by Mr. M. Ogiso, Special Rapporteur, [1989] 2 Y.B. Int'l Law Comm'n 72, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1989/Add.l.

25. For ships: Brussels Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to the Immunity of State-Owned Vessels. 1926. 176 L.N.T.S. 199, Arts. 1–3; the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone. 1958, 516 U.N.T.S. 205. Arts. 18–20; the Geneva Convention on the High Seas, 1958, 450 U.N.T.S. 82, Arts. 8,9; United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/121; for aircrafts: the Rome Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to the Precautionary Attachment of Aircrafts. 1933, 192 L.N.T.S. 289: for diplomatic and consular property: the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, 500 U.N.T.S. 95; the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, 596 U.N.T.S. 261; the New York Convention on Special Missions, 1969, 9 I.L.M. 127 (1970); the Vienna Convention on the Representation of States in Their Relations with International Organisations of a Universal Character, 1975, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 67/16.

26. See Crawford, supra note 22, at 821–822; see also, ILC Draft Articles, Arts. 16, 18, 19.

27. See Harvard Law Scool Draft Convention on Competence of Courts in Regard to Foreign States, 26 AJIL supp. (1932) at 706.

28. Crawford, supra note 22, at 820; Schreuer, supra note 2, at 126.

29. See Bouchez, supra note 2, at 19: G. Bernini and A.J. van den Berg, The Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Against a State: The Problem of Immunity from Execution, in J.D.M. Lew (ed.), Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration 360 (1986).

30. See Delaume, supra note 22, at 1.

31. See Scheuer, supra note 2, at 63–91.

32. The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 [hereinafter New York Concention], 330 U.N.T.S. 38; The European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of 1961, 484 U.N.T.S. 349; The Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of 1975, 14 I.L.M. 336 (1975).

33. ‘Internationalized’ arbitration can take place under auspices of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Dispute (hereinafter ICSID) according to the Convention for the Settlement of Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States of 1965, 575 U.N.T.S. 160, the International Chamber of Commerce or national law, Attenbury, S. Ward, Enforcement of A-National Arbitral Awards Under the New York Convention of 1958, 32 VJIL 471–515 (1992)Google Scholar; see also A.J. van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958, 34–43 (1981).

34. Scheuer, supra note 2, at 63.

35. This separation is also applied in the ICSID Convention: Art. 54 obliges each Contracting State to recognize an ICSID award and treat the award as if it were a final judgement of its court while Art. 55 provides that Art. 54 shall not be construed as derogating from the law on immunity from execution in any Contracting State, A. Broches, Awards Rendered Pursuant to the ICSID Convention, 2 ICSID Rev. 287–334 (1987).

36. Cf. European Convention Art. 12; ILC Draft Articles, Art. 17; FSIA Sec. 1605(a)(6); SIA Sec. 9; Australian Act Sec. 17(c).

37. Sweden, Libyan American Oil Company v. Socialist People's Arab Republic of Libya, judgement of June 18, 1980, Svea Court of Appeals, Swed., 62 I.L.R. 225 (1982); France, Société Européenne et d'Entreprises v. Yugoslvia, judgement of Nov. 18, 1986, Cass., Fr, 26 I.L.M. 373 (1987).

38. Delaume, G.R., State Contracts and Transnational Arbitration, 75 AJIL 816 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “[Recognition] is the natural complement of the binding character of any agreement to submit to arbitration and should not be impaired by considerations of immunity, which are proper to matters of execution”.

39. Judgement of June 11, 1991, Cass., Fr., 30 I.L.M. 1167 (1991).

40. M.B. Feldman, Foreign Sovereign Immunity in the US, 19 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 37 (1986); A.L. Rothstein, Recognizing and Enforcing Arbitral Agreements and Awards against Foreign States: The Mathias Amendments to the Foreign State Immunities Act and Title 9, 1 Emory J.Int'l.Dispute Resolution 108 (1986).

41. See Feldman, supra note 40, at 37; Rothstein, supra note 40, at 108.

42. Amendments to the FSIA, supra note 7.

43. Cf. Sweden Court of Appeals, supra note 37.

44. Australian Act Sec. 17(2).

45. Société Européenne et d'Entreprises v. Socialistische Republiek Joegoslavië, judgement of Oct. 26, 1973, HR, 1974 NJ 361 Neth, 65 I.L.R. 356 (1984); NV Cabolent v. National Iranian Oil Company, judgement of Nov. 28, 1968, Ger., 1969 NJ 484, Neth, 47 I.L.R. 138 (1974).

46. Cf. Art. V 2(a) New York Convention.

47. See text supra, 2.4.

48. But see, Fox, H., States and the Undertaking to Arbitrate, 37 ICLQ 1–29 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49. Libya v. Libyan American Oil Company, judgement of June 19, 1980, BGE, Switz, 62 I.L.R. 228 (1982).

50. Judgement of Oct. 26,1973, supra note 45.

51. Text infra 3.6.

52. Supra note 32; Van den Berg, supra note 33.

53. 84 in 1991, Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary General, 1992, UN Doc. ST/LEG/SER.E/10.

54. E.g. Dutch Code of Civil Procedure Art. 1076, P.Sanders and A.J. van den Berg, The Netherlands Arbitration Act 1986 48 (1987); French Code of Civil Procedure Arts. 1501–1507, 20 I.L.M. 920–922 (1981).

55. See Courde Cassation, supra note 37.

56. 28 I.L.M. 397 (1989).

57. But cf. Libyan American Oil Company v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 482 F.Supp. 1175 (D.D.C.1980), 62 I.L.R. 220 (1982).

58. Art. I.

59. Socobel v. Greek State, judgement of April 30, 1951, Belg., 18 I.L.R. 3 (1951).

60. République Arabe Unie v. Dame X. judgement of Feb. 10, 1960, BGE, Switz, 55 AJIL167 (1961), but Swiss Court require a territorial connection for jurisdiction in proceedings for authorizing measures of execution, e.g. judgement of June 19, 1980, supra note 49; see also Lalive, J.F., Swiss Law and Practice in Relation to Measures of Execution against the Propertry of a Foreign State, 10 NYBIL 153 (1979)Google Scholar; infra p. 24.

61. Judgement of Nov. 28, 1968, supra note 45.

62. Philippine Embassy Bank Account, judgement of Dec. 13, 1977, 45 BVerwG 342, W. Ger., 65 I.L.R. 146 (1984).

63. Cf. Art. 13(4)(b) SIA; Section 32 Australian Act.

64. E.g. Birch Shipping Cor. v. Embassy of the United Republic of Tanzania, 507 F.Supp. 311 (D.D.C. 1980), 63 I.L.R. 524 (1982).

65. See Delaume, supra note 22; in the Netherlands the Minister of Justice can prevent measures of execution against the property of a foreign State if in his opinion such measures would be contrary to international law. However this decision can be reviewed by a court which will apply the rule that measures of execution can be taken against property not in use for public purposes. The court therefore, will make the final decision. Krijgman case, judgement of Nov. 24,1986, Pr. Afd. Rechtspr., Neth., 19 NY1L 439 (1988).

66. EURODIF Corporation v. Islamic Republic of Iran, judgement of March 14, 1984, Cass., Fr, 77 I.L.R. 513 (1988); I.L.C. Draft Articles, Art. 18(l)(c).

67. See Trooboff, supra note 2, at 388.

68. Judgement of June 19,1980, supra note 49.

69. See Scheuer, supra note 2, at 75.

70. See Broches, supra note 35.