Abstract
State immunity is one of the main maxims of international law. For long years this principle meant that no claim of any nature could be brought against a sovereign state in a court of another state. However, with the globalisation of international trade, states have compromised this principle to include only diplomatic assets and not commercial ones. ICSID arbitration is known to have one of the most powerful mechanisms of settling disputes that came to existence for the same reason which is international investments boom. However, ICSID Convention does not include wavier of enforcement immunity. Therefore, it was found that with regards to enforcement, states local immunity laws can hinder the application of ICSID awards through prohibiting enforcement against specific types of assets under state the immunity principle. The smaller the scope of immunity the better, but, this differs from state to another. Therefore, it was recommended to seek enforcement in a state with the minimum scope of immunity to enhance the chance of enforcement.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
