State immunity

State immunity

This subtopic provides guidance on the issue of state immunity and arbitration. The subtopic provides guidance on general considerations around state immunity as well as in depth Practice Notes covering state immunity within jurisdictions such as France, Switzerland, China, Singapore, India and Morocco.

Practitioners may also find the following content useful:

•
International arbitration—enforcing international arbitral awards—overview
•
Understanding investment treaty arbitration—overview
•
see Precedent: Waiver of state immunity clause—England and Wales

State immunity and arbitration—general considerations

This Practice Note considers the general principles of state immunity (also called sovereign immunity), the scope of state immunity, state immunity from jurisdiction and state immunity from execution and gives practical steps that should be considered when dealing with state immunity in the context of international arbitration. It also considers transactions with foreign states.

For more information:

•
see Practice Note: State immunity and arbitration—general considerations
•
see Precedent: Waiver of state immunity clause—England and Wales

State immunity and arbitration in Europe

State immunity and arbitration in Austria

This Practice Note discusses the role of state immunity in arbitration proceedings, and as a defence to enforcement

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Arbitration News

Singapore High Court orders partial setting aside of award of damages made in excess of scope of submission to arbitration (India Glycols Ltd and others v Texan Minerals and Chemicals LLC)

Arbitration analysis: This case involved a successful partial setting aside of an arbitral Award of damages pursuant to Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (‘Model Law’) on grounds that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration. In this case, the Singapore High Court partially set aside a part of the Award imposing liability for damages for breach of contract on two of the three Respondents, finding that the issue of the two Respondents’ breach of contract and liability for the same never arose in the arbitration nor was it within the scope of the submission to arbitration. This case provides useful guidance as to how a court approaches a challenge to an award made in excess of a tribunal’s jurisdiction. Written by Magdalene Ong, partner at WongPartnership LLP.

Hong Kong—security for costs imposed on plaintiffs in application to set aside arbitral award (Y S v GI GG)

Arbitration analysis: This decision affirms well-established legal principles on the grant of security for costs in the context of an application to set aside an arbitral award under section 81(1) of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) (AO). The plaintiffs argue that the award should be set aside as it acknowledges a Set-Off Mechanism, the effect of which the plaintiffs contend conflicts with Hong Kong public policy. The Set-Off Mechanism in this case, in essence, obliged the 1st plaintiff to waive the purchase price for shares in the amount outstanding to the 1st defendant, should the 2nd defendant fail to pay the 1st defendant any amount due under a promissory note. The 1st defendant applied for security of costs to be furnished by the plaintiffs in the set aside proceedings. Mrs Justice Mimmie Chan considered that the set aside application had little prospect of success and held that it would be just to exercise discretion to order the plaintiffs to provide security for costs. The case demonstrates the Hong Kong Courts’ consistently supportive stance towards arbitration and arbitral awards, in that the ordinary principles to security of costs will not be departed from to make easier any challenge to an arbitral award. Written by Paul Starr, partner at King & Wood Mallesons; Felicity Ng, senior associate at King & Wood Mallesons; Sian Knight, professional support lawyer at King & Wood Mallesons.

Sanctions ordered for noncompliance with awards in telecommunications row

Mealey’s: A New York federal judge on 22 April 2025 granted a motion for civil contempt sanctions against the majority shareholders of a Latin American telecommunications company for their ongoing failure to comply with five partial awards issued against them in an ongoing arbitration with the company’s minority shareholders.

French domestic courts will defer to arbitral jurisdiction when the parties raise set-off arguments on the basis of subsequent contracts that do not contain arbitration agreements (SCEA [D] et Fils v Groupe Carré–CA, Douai)

Arbitration analysis: The Court of Appeal of Douai upholds a first instance ruling by the Commercial Court of Arras, declining jurisdiction in favour of arbitration, based on an arbitration clause. Even though the proceedings initiated by the claimant SCEA [D] et Fils (‘SCEA [D]’) raised a legal question as to the contractual existence of two prior unsigned agreements, upon which the respondent SAS Groupe Carré (‘Groupe Carré’) had relied to offset alleged indemnities against a subsequent contractual invoice, the Court held that the dispute pertained to the latter signed contract, such that the matter of the contractual existence was merely an argument related to the latter contract, and not the subject of the dispute. As that contract contained an arbitration agreement, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute. Written by Adi Trivedi, associate, and Sara Nadeau-Seguin, partner, at Teynier Pic, in Paris.