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
Recent Publication: Towards Universal Parenthood in Europe
The recently published book Towards Universal Parenthood in Europe (Editoriale Scientifica, 2025), edited by Laura Carpaneto, Francesca Maoli, and Ilaria Queirolo, offers a timely and rigorous contribution to European private international law and family law scholarship.
This volume follows the convention reported at this blog here and likewise presents the results of the UniPAR – Towards Universal Parenthood in Europe project, an EU-co-funded research initiative that addresses some of the most complex legal challenges in cross-border parenthood. Bringing together expert authors from different universities across European Union, the book combines theoretical frameworks with practical insights into how parenthood is recognised and regulated across different Member States. Covering six EU jurisdictions (Spain, Belgium, Italy, Bulgaria, Croatia and Poland) the book provides comprehensive national reports and comparative analyses on key issues of jurisdiction, applicable law, adoption, recognition of decisions and birth certificates and judicial cooperation in parenthood matters. The contents are available here.
This scholarly work advances the debate on the need for coherence in legal frameworks governing parentage and family relationships in European Union, especially in contexts involving cross-border mobility, assisted reproductive technologies and the recognition of family statuses across Member States. The final conclusions and recommendations serve both academic and policy audiences, offering structured reflections on legislative gaps and potential paths towards harmonised rules in EU private international law.This is an essential resource that deepens understanding of the legal implications of cross-border parenthood and strengthens the foundation for future legislative reform in European Union.
Richard Fentiman’s Lecture on Contactless Injunctions in English Law
Richard Fentiman will be speaking on “Contactless Injunctions: New Approaches to Jurisdiction in English Law” at the forthcomming virtual workshop in the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law series “Current Research in Private International Law” to be held on on Tuesday, 3 March 2026, at 11:00 (CET).
Richard Fentiman is Professor Emeritus of Private International Law at the University of Cambridge. His research is especially concerned with the law and practice of international commercial litigation and in particular with issues concerning jurisdiction and interim remedies. He will be speaking about the practice of the English courts which regularly grant extraterritorial injunctions to freeze foreign assets or prevent foreign proceedings. In a departure from past practice they will now do so even in the absence of any material link with England. This reveals much about English law’s distinctive approach to injunctions and begs deeper questions about the appropriate grounds for exercising jurisdiction in private international law.
The virtual lecture will be held as a video conference via Zoom. Prior registions is necesarry by Monday, 2 March 2026, using this link.
Jurisdiction in the Middle Ages
Since not all readers of the blog can be presumed to be avid consumers of the Journal of Legal History, it may be worth pointing out that issue 46/1 (2025) (table of contents here) was dedicated to jurisdiction in the European Central Middle Ages. In their (open access) introduction, historians Danica Summerlin and Alice Taylor suggest explaining medieval law neither through the (rediscovered) Codex Justinianus as the basis of a ius commune, nor through the concept of legal pluralism, but instead through the emerging law of jurisdiction. Indeed, their approach deviates from earlier state-focused analyses on struggles between state and church and instead “foregrounds actors and performances as the means by which jurisdictions were asserted, defined and formalized – or, to put it another way, as the means by which jurisdiction came into being.” The issue emerges from a British Academy funded multi-year research project on Jurisdictions, political discourse, and legal community, 1050–1250 that brought together (legal) historians from Europe and North America – but not, it seems, conflict of laws scholars. The contributions are fascinating and relevant for those of us who want to understand conflict of laws through its history – and may perhaps even provide a basis for future collaborations across disciplines?