Views
Investment Awards vs Sovereign Immunity: Navigating the Enforcement Maze
By Cara North, Counsel, Ashurst
The intersection of foreign State immunity and the enforcement of international arbitral awards has been a hotly contested issues in recent years. First the question was whether a State has waived immunity from court processes concerning recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards by ratifying the 1965 Convention of Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID Convention) – to which the answer has been yes in Australia and the England and Wales (among other jurisdictions). More recently, the question has been whether a State’s ratification of the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) constitutes an implicit waiver of sovereign immunity, to which the High Court of Australia most recently held no.
In CCDM Holdings, LLC v The Republic of India [2026] HCA 9, the High Court of Australia unanimously held that ratification of the New York Convention does not, of itself, waive foreign State immunity under the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth). The decision aligns Australia with the current position in the United States, Canada, and England and Wales, reinforcing an emerging common law consensus in that regard.
Courtroom Attendance as a Forum Conveniens Factor in Hamilton v Barrow
This post is written by Timon Milan Solár, Doctoral researcher, Faculty of Law, Trnava University, Slovakia.
In October 2025, the High Court of England and Wales (King’s Bench Division) handed down its judgment in Hamilton v Barrow [2025] EWHC 2593 (KB). The case concerned a failed unregulated investment scheme that collapsed in 2017, leaving investors without the possibility of recovering their investments, which ranged from £2,930 to £410,969. At first glance, the decision discusses important procedural questions, including abuse of process and champerty. However, on closer inspection, it also raises an interesting issue of English private international law that has gone overlooked. Can courtroom attendance be a factor in the forum conveniens test?
Greenpeace Anti-SLAPP Suit Blocked by International Antisuit Injunction
This post was written by Hannah Buxbaum, Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law. The post is cross-posted from the Transnational Litigation Blog with kind permission.
In 2019, Energy Transfer, the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline, sued Greenpeace International, a Dutch foundation, in North Dakota state court. Last year, Greenpeace responded with an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) lawsuit against Energy Transfer in Dutch court. In the latest twist in this lengthy dispute, the North Dakota Supreme Court issued an antisuit injunction last week blocking (partially) that anti-SLAPP suit.
The injunction is unusual in two respects. First, it does not actually bar Greenpeace from pursuing the Dutch action; rather, it purports to limit the issues that Greenpeace can raise in that litigation. Second, it was entered after judgment had already been reached in the North Dakota lawsuit. Read more
News
JLMI – Call for papers – Issue no. 2/2027
The following call for papers has kindly been shared with us by the editors of The Journal of Law, Market & Innovation (JLMI).
The Journal of Law, Market & Innovation (JLMI) welcomes submissions for its second issue of 2027.
The Call for Papers for this second issue is devoted to European Regulatory and Supervisory Bodies in the Digital Realm.
You can find the call with all the details at the following link:
A NEW CONSTELLATION OF EU STATE REGULATORY AND SUPERVISORY BODIES IN THE DIGITAL REALM
Prospective articles should be submitted in the form of full papers to submissions.jlmi@iuse.it within 1 December 2026. The publication of the issue is set for the end of July 2027.
For further information, or for consultation on a potential submission, you can contact us by email at editors.jlmi@iuse.it.
Visit our website to read the full announcement.
Asian Conflict of Laws avant la lettre? Thảo Anh Hoàng, Early conflict-of-laws rules: Vietnam’s Lê Code (1483) in East Asian and global contexts
For those (like myself) who view private international law as we know it today as essentially a European invention of the 19th century it is fascinating to see examples of earlier and non-European regimes. One example is Article 48 (on ‘Infringements between peoples outside civilization’) of the Tang Code (653 CE) which reads: