image_pdfimage_print

Views

Australian Federal Court Backs India on Sovereign Immunity: Another Twist in the Devas v. India Saga

by Shantanu Kanade, Assistant Professor, Dispute Resolution, Jindal Global Law School, India 

The Federal Court of Australia (“Federal Court”), in its recent judgement in the Republic of India v. CCDM Holdings, LLC[1] (“Judgement”), held that the Republic of India (“India”) was entitled to jurisdictional immunity from Australian Courts in proceedings seeking recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards dealing with disputes arising from ‘non-commercial’ legal relationships. The Court’s judgment was rendered with respect to an appeal filed by India against an interlocutory judgement of a primary judge of the same court, rejecting India’s sovereign immunity claim.

Background of the Dispute

Three Mauritian entities of the Devas group (“Original Applicants”) had commenced arbitration proceedings in 2012 under the 1998 India-Mauritius BIT, impugning India’s actions with respect to an agreement for leasing of space spectrum capacity entered between Devas Multimedia Private Limited (an Indian company in which the Original Applicants held shares) and Antrix Corporation Limited (an Indian state-owned entity). In 2011, India’s Cabinet Committee on Security decided to annul the said agreement, citing an increased demand for allocation of spectrum towards meeting various military and public utility needs (“Annulment”). The arbitration proceedings that followed culminated in a jurisdiction and merits award in 2016[2] and a quantum award in 2020 (“Quantum Award”)[3]. The Original Applicants have since sought to enforce the Quantum Award against India in different jurisdictions, discussed here.[4]

  Read more

Finder on the Supreme People’s Court’s Notice on Foreign State Immunity Procedures

The news about the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China issuing the Notice on Procedural Matters Related to Civil Cases Involving Foreign State Immunity has been previously reported on this blog.

Following this significant development, Professor Susan Finder, a distinguished Scholar in Residence at Peking University School of Transnational Law, has kindly shared her insights on the matter. Her post was originally published on the Supreme People’s Court Monitor. Given its valuable contribution, we decided to repost it here.

Our sincerest thanks to Professor Susan Finder for her thoughtful analysis and generosity in sharing her thoughts. Read more

The Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China issued the Notice on Procedural Matters Related to Civil Cases Involving Foreign State Immunity

(This is written by Xiaoxuan Gu, a PhD student in School of Law, University of Macau)

The Foreign State Immunity Law of the People’s Republic of China (CFSIL) took effect on January 1, 2024.[i] To ensure its proper implementation and guide courts nationwide in lawfully and efficiently adjudicating civil cases involving foreign state immunity, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) formulated supporting procedural rules. On March 26, 2025, the SPC issued the Notice on Procedural Matters Related to Civil Cases Involving Foreign State Immunity (hereinafter the “Notice”), which provides definitive guidance to courts at all levels in handling such novel foreign-related cases.

The Notice stipulates provisions on key procedural matters, including case acceptance criteria, centralized jurisdiction mechanisms, service of process rules, jurisdictional immunity review procedures, and protocols for obtaining evidentiary certifications from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Read more

News

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?

New Book Alert: Recognition and Enforcement of Non-EU Judgments

An upcoming milestone in private international law — Recognition and Enforcement of Non-EU Judgments (Bloomsbury / Hart Publishing, Feb. 19 2026), edited by Tobias Lutzi, Ennio Piovesani, and Dora Zgrabljic Rotar.

This is not just another doctrinal text, but the first comprehensive comparative deep dive into how EU Member States handle judgments from outside the EU, an area of law that has been notoriously fragmented and under-theorized.

The book contains country reports from 21 EU Member States on their national rules on recognition and enforcement of non-EU judgments in a unified framework, giving the reader both breadth and comparative depth. The editors pull these strands together in a detailed comparative report that highlights patterns of convergence and divergence across EU jurisdictions. Additionally, the book situates the Member State approaches in relation to the Brussels I regime and the 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention, which is itself reshaping global judicial cooperation. It had practical and scholarly appeal

The release date is 19 February 2026 and it is available for pre-order already at here.

Hybrid Lecture: Venezuela’s Oil, Between a Rock and a Hard (Arbitration) Place (UCL, 26 Feb 2026, 1pm)

Event type: Hybrid
Date & time: 26 Feb 2026, 13:00 – 14:00
Speaker: Prof. Eugenio Hernández-Bretón, Universidad Central de Venezuela and Universidad Monteavila
About the event: Over the past 50 years, Venezuela’s legal framework for the oil industry has been on a roller coaster. In 1975, the industry was nationalized, compensating private investors, but an “intentional” loophole allowed for private participation. In the mid-1990s, nationalization shifted to the “oil opening,” despite facing political opposition and legal battles, and allowing for extensive private participation in the oil sector as well as providing for arbitration in certain cases. By the early 2000s, a new business model emerged, denouncing the previous “phony nationalization” and leading to a “renationalization” that reserved primary activities (exploration and extraction) for the Venezuelan state, and terminating agreements with private investors. This resulted in numerous arbitration cases worldwide, with some awards ordering Venezuela to pay substantial sums, though few were enforced and none of the expropriations were compensated. In January 2026, as a result of recent events, a new hydrocarbons law was proposed, currently under parliamentary consideration, easing private participation in primary activities and explicitly allowing international arbitration, which had been demonized in the previous two decades.
About the speaker: Eugenio Hernández-Bretón is tenured professor at the Universidad Central de Venezuela and at Universidad Monteavila, both in Caracas. He holds the chairs of private international law and international civil procedure. He has also lectured on Arbitration and Comparative Law, among other courses in Venezuela and abroad, including at The Hague Academy of International Law. As a practicing lawyer he has participated in numerous international arbitration cases. Professor Hernández-Bretón earned a doctorate in laws from the University of Heidelberg, and master’s degrees from Columbia University and the University of Tubingen. He received his law degree from the Universidad Catolica Andres Bello in Caracas. Additionally, Professor Hernández-Bretón served as President of the Academy of Political and Social Sciences of Venezuela.
Further information, including details on how to book a free ticket for the event, is available here: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/events/2026/feb/venezuelas-oil-between-rock-and-hard-arbitration-place.

Upcoming Events