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
Second LJUBLJANA PIL Conference – express registration up to 30 June!
On 10 September 2026, the University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Law, in cooperation with the Institute for Comparative Law, will host the Second Private International Law Conference, a regional forum dedicated to current developments and emerging challenges in private international law. The conference will bring together leading academics, judges, attorneys, arbitrators, and legal practitioners from Slovenia and across Europe to discuss some of the most significant issues arising in cross-border legal practice. With the aim of engaging the international private international law community while also fostering the development and use of Slovenian legal terminology, the conference programme is divided into two parts: a morning session in Slovenian and an afternoon session in English. Abstracts of all presentations will be available in both languages.
Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 4/2026: Abstracts
The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts“ (IPRax) features the following articles:
Virtual Workshop (in English) on July 7, 2026: Christopher Whytock on “Conflict of Laws Through a Human Rights Lens”
On Tuesday, July 7, 2026, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 03:30 p.m. – 05:00 p.m. (CEST).
Christopher Whytock (University of California) will speak, in English, about the topic
“Conflict of Laws Through a Human Rights Lens”
The relationship between human rights and conflict of laws (private international law) is the subject of extensive scholarship in Europe, but almost entirely neglected in the United States. Inspired by European scholarship, this project attempts to extend human rights-oriented analysis to conflict of laws in the United States. It proposes a conceptual framework for understanding the relationship between human rights and conflict of laws in the abstract, applies the framework to conflict of laws in the United States, and offers comparative insights.
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.