Sovereign immunity is a principle of international law that shields states from being sued in foreign courts or subjected to arbitration without their consent. This principle ensures that sovereign states cannot be treated like private parties in legal disputes, especially concerning state acts. However, in the context of arbitration, particularly in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), issues of sovereign immunity can be complex, as foreign investors or private parties may wish to bring a dispute against a state for actions that affect their investments. Understanding how sovereign immunity works and how it can be waived or limited in arbitration is crucial for resolving such disputes.
Sovereign immunity protects states from being sued in foreign courts or arbitral tribunals unless they consent to jurisdiction. This immunity is based on the principle that states are equal sovereigns and should not be subject to the authority of another state or international tribunal without their express consent. In arbitration, this immunity can raise significant issues, particularly when foreign investors seek to challenge state actions under Investment Treaties or contracts.
Investor-state arbitration, which allows foreign investors to sue a host state for alleged violations of international investment agreements (such as Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) or Multilateral Investment Treaties (MITs)), typically requires the state to waive its immunity in certain situations:
The principle of sovereign immunity may raise jurisdictional challenges in arbitration. If a state does not agree to arbitrate, an arbitral tribunal may have difficulty asserting jurisdiction over that state. In such cases, the tribunal needs to carefully examine whether the state has waived its immunity or whether the dispute falls within a recognized exception to sovereign immunity.
A common exception to sovereign immunity in arbitration is when the state expressly waives its immunity. This can occur through:
States often claim sovereign immunity in relation to acts that are deemed to be of a public nature. These can include:
While sovereign immunity provides significant protections to states, there are various exceptions under international law that allow foreign investors or private parties to bring claims against a state:
Even when a state consents to arbitration, the enforcement of arbitral awards against sovereign states can be problematic. Sovereign immunity can limit the ability to enforce an award. For example, assets owned by a state may be protected from attachment or seizure in certain jurisdictions.
States often argue that their assets are immune from execution in foreign courts, which can make it difficult for an investor to recover damages awarded in an arbitration proceeding.
Many countries have specific laws or conventions, such as the UN Convention on State Immunity or The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) in the United States, that protect certain state assets from being seized in satisfaction of an arbitral award.
In this case, Metalclad, a US company, claimed that Mexico’s actions violated the provisions of the NAFTA agreement, including issues related to expropriation. The dispute arose after the Mexican government denied the company a construction permit for a waste disposal facility. Mexico argued that certain actions were taken as sovereign acts and should be immune from arbitration. However, the tribunal ruled that Mexico had waived its immunity by signing the NAFTA agreement and had agreed to arbitrate disputes, including those involving expropriation and investment protection.
In a dispute between Ecuador and Peru, both states had agreed to submit their dispute to international arbitration under a treaty. Peru later invoked sovereign immunity, arguing that the arbitration was not applicable to certain sovereign actions. The tribunal, however, found that Peru had waived its immunity by consenting to the arbitration under the Agreement of Peace between the two countries.
Foreign investors should thoroughly review the investment treaty they are subject to, as it may contain a waiver of immunity for disputes. This ensures that if they face issues such as expropriation or discrimination, they can bring their claims to international arbitration.
If engaging in contracts with states or state-owned entities, investors should negotiate clear arbitration clauses that explicitly waive the state’s immunity for disputes relating to the contract or investment.
Investors should consider the enforceability of arbitral awards when dealing with a sovereign state, particularly in jurisdictions where sovereign immunity laws may restrict the seizure of state assets.
Answer By Law4u Team
Discover clear and detailed answers to common questions about public international law. Learn about procedures and more in straightforward language.
