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
Crossroads in Private International Law Webinar with Tobias Lutzi on “Crossroads in Private International Law Seminar on the Reform of EU Private International Law” at the University of Aberdeen
The Centre for Private International Law & Transnational Governance of the University of Aberdeen is continuing its Crossroads in Private International Law webinar series with a talk by Tobias Lutzi (University of Augsburg) titled ‘Between Ambition and Realism – What to Expect from the Upcoming Reforms to the Rome II and Brussels Ia Regulation?’:
The Centre for Private International Law & Transnational Governance invites you to attend the next seminar in our Crossroads in Private International Law seminar series. You can find the link to register at the bottom of this page.
Prof Tobias Lutzi (Junior Professor for Private Law at Augsburg University) will give a seminar on the reforms to the Rome II and Brussels Ia Regulation. Prof Lutzi has kindly provided the following abstract:
Last year, the EU Commission formally kicked off the process of reforming two key instruments of EU Private International Law, identifying potential areas for reform and setting out some overarching policy goals. In 2026, the Commission will face the more difficult decision of which of those areas to actually focus on. This talk will discuss the respective merits of those areas of reform, highlighting the tension between ambition and realism that will shape the Commission’s work.
We are looking forward to welcoming you online or on campus!
Additional information and the link to register can be found here.
Revue critique de droit international privé – Issue 2025/4
Written by Hadrien Pauchard (assistant researcher and doctoral student at Sciences Po Law School)
The fourth and last issue of the Revue Critique de droit international privé of 2025 has just been released. It contains four articles, eight case notes, and six book reviews. In line with the Revue Critique’s policy, the doctrinal part will soon be made available in English on the editor’s website (for registered users and institutions). Read more
Conflict of laws in the South African courts: an(other) recent missed opportunity
Posted on behalf of Jason Mitchell, barrister at Maitland Chambers in London and at Group 621 in Johannesburg.
An Australian, Hannon, wants to book a Southern African safari with his partner, Murti, as a surprise birthday gift. He sees one he likes on an Australian travel website. Hannon fills in the online form.
It turns out that the website is just the agent for a South African company, Drifters Adventours. Drifters emailed Hannon the price and payment details. Attached to the email is a brochure. The brochure says, “Drifters do not accept responsibility for any loss, injury, damage, accident, fatality, delay or inconvenience experienced while on tour.” The brochure also says, “You will be required to complete and sign a full indemnity prior to your tour departure.” Read more