Views
Sovereign Immunity and the Enforcement of Investor–State Arbitration Awards: Lessons from Devas V. India in Australia, The United Kingdom and India
Written by Samhith Malladi, Dual-qualified lawyer (India and England & Wales), and Senior Associate, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas [Bombay office]; and Niyati Gandhi, Partner, Dispute Resolution, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas [Bombay office]
The Recalibration of Enforcement Doctrine
The global campaign to enforce arbitral awards against the Republic of India arising from its long-running dispute with Devas Multimedia has witnessed a significant doctrinal shift in the treatment of sovereign immunity within the enforcement of investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) awards.
To recall, the dispute arises from a contract entered in 2005 between Devas Multimedia Private Limited (Devas) and the Indian state-owned Antrix Corporation (Antrix), which was the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation. Antrix had agreed to lease S-band spectrum to Devas to broadcast its multimedia services in India. Antrix terminated this contract in 2011 citing national security concerns. In a nutshell, the dispute spawned three concluded arbitrations – a commercial ICC arbitration between Devas and Antrix and two investor-state arbitrations between Devas’ shareholders and India under the India-Mauritius Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) 1998 and the India-Germany BIT 1995. In 2022, Devas’ Mauritian shareholders commenced another investor-state arbitration against India under the India-Mauritius BIT in relation to India’s efforts to thwart the award against Antrix in the ICC arbitration, which currently remains pending before the Permanent Court of Arbitration. An overview of the various proceedings arising from this dispute has been previously discussed on this blog here. Read more
Conflict of Law Rules in the Early 20th Century Ethiopia: A Brief Legal History
Guest post by Bebizuh Mulugeta Menkir, former Lecturer of Laws in University of Gondar, currently working as a Lawyer and Senior National Consultant for a legal reform project. E-mail: babimulugeta@gmail.com
The Ethiopian legal system is characterized by the absence of codified rules on conflict of laws. Though it cannot be considered as the exact period in which conflict of laws have emerged in Ethiopia, some elements of such rules can be found even in the early 1900s, which is long before the modern codes were developed in 1950s and 1960s.
A book written by Mersehazen Woledekirkos titled “Ye Hayagenawe Keflezemen Mebacha:Ye Zemen Tarik Tezetaye Kayehute ena Kesemahute 1896–1922”[1] is a record of historical events that happened in 20th century Ethiopia. One of the records is the “Trade Agreement (1908)” that was signed between Ethiopia and France. This agreement, among others, regulates the adjudication of disputes between Ethiopian and French nationals/dependents. This short piece aims to briefly discuss the salient conflict of laws rules that are incorporated in this trade agreement. Read more
US Supreme Court: Hearing in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico). Selling guns comparable to selling beer to teenagers?
Written by Mayela Celis, Maastricht University
The hearing in the case of Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico) No. 23-1141 took place in March 2025 before the US Supreme Court. We have previously reported on this case here and here. The transcript and the audio files can be found here.
As previously indicated, this is a much-politicized case brought by Mexico against US gun manufacturers. Mexico alleges inter alia that defendants actively assist and facilitate trafficking of their guns to drug cartels in Mexico. Among the claims for relief are: Negligence, public nuisance, defective condition – unreasonably dangerous, negligence per se, gross negligence, unjust enrichment and restitution, violation of CUTPA [Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act], Violation of Mass. G.L. c. 93A [Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act] and punitive damages.
News
Second Issue of Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2025
The second issue of LMCLQ was recently published.
It contains the following conflict of laws works,
David Foxton, “The Applicable Law of an Arbitration Agreement: Floating or on the Rocks?”
Marcus Teo and Kah-Wai Tan, “Territoriality over Universalism”
Adrian Briggs, “Submission to a Russian Court”
Virtual Workshop (in English) on June 3, 2025: Michael Karayanni on “Voice and Exit in Private International Law: The Case of the Israeli Inter-religious Regime”
On Tuesday, June 3, 2025, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. (CEST). Professor Michael Karayanni (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) will speak, in English, about the topic
“Voice and Exit in Private International Law: The Case of the Israeli Inter-religious Regime”
Private international law can play a significant role in countries with inter-religious legal regimes by offering individuals an option to “exit” their personal religious law in favor of secular law in effect in a foreign country. My presentation will examine the development of the lex loci celebrationis choice of law rule within Israel’s inter-religious regime. Additionally, it will investigate whether this development has empowered individuals with an adequate “voice” to challenge community-based religious norms.
The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.
If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.
RabelsZ: New issue alert
Issue 2 of RabelsZ 89 (2025) is out. All content is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 and more articles are available Online First. The full table of contents is available here.