The London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v. Kingdom of Spain (M/T “Prestige”)

2021 ◽  
Vol 195 ◽  
pp. 531-611

531State immunity — Jurisdiction — State Immunity Act 1978 — Arbitration — Spain seeking to set aside order granting English claimant company permission to serve application claim form — Appointment of arbitrator — Whether Spain entitled to State immunity — Whether Spain lacking immunity under Sections 2, 3 or 9 of Act — Whether Spain having submitted to jurisdiction of the Court — Whether arbitration proceedings relating to a commercial transaction entered into by Spain — Whether proceedings relating to a contractual obligation falling to be performed in United Kingdom — Whether Spain having agreed in writing to submit dispute to arbitrationArbitration — Arbitration Act 1996 — English claimant company seeking to appoint arbitrator in proceedings against Spain — Whether Spain entitled to State immunity under State Immunity Act 1978 — Whether court having jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator — The law of England

Subject Brexit and fisheries. Significance Brexit has been portrayed by many in the fishing industry as a great opportunity, but it poses significant challenges for the industry and government, especially in terms of exports and devolution. Impacts A no-deal Brexit will result in more fish being caught by UK fishermen and lower fish prices. The United Kingdom is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and will have to continue to meet its obligations after Brexit. The United Kingdom will need to work closely with other coastal states to manage the effects of climate change on fish migration.


2021 ◽  
Vol 196 ◽  
pp. 593-628

593Arbitration — Arbitration award — International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) — ICSID Convention, 1965 — Article 54 — Recognition and enforcement of award — Distinction between enforcement and recognition proceedings — International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) implementing ICSID Convention in domestic law — Whether ICSID Convention excluding any claim for foreign state immunity in proceedings for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award — Meaning of recognition and enforcement in Article 54 and execution in Article 55 of ICSID Convention — Whether Spain’s accession to ICSID Convention constituting a submission to jurisdiction of Federal Court of AustraliaRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — ICSID Convention, 1965 — International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) — Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) — Whether Spain entitled to plead foreign State immunity — Whether ICSID Convention excluding any claim for foreign state immunity in proceedings for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award — Meaning of recognition and enforcement in Article 54 and execution in Article 55 of ICSID Convention — Whether Spain’s accession to ICSID Convention constituting a submission to jurisdiction of Federal Court of AustraliaTreaties — Interpretation — ICSID Convention, 1965 — Articles 54 and 55 — Meaning of recognition and enforcement in Article 54 and execution in Article 55 of ICSID Convention — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Whether ICSID Convention excluding any claim for foreign state immunity in proceedings for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award — Whether Spain’s accession to ICSID Convention constituting a submission to jurisdiction of Federal Court of AustraliaState immunity — Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) — Exceptions to immunity — Exception where foreign State agreeing by treaty to submit to jurisdiction — Spain acceding to ICSID Convention — Whether constituting submission to jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia — Whether Spain entitled to plead foreign State immunity — Whether ICSID Convention excluding any claim for foreign State immunity in proceedings for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award594Jurisdiction — State immunity — Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) — Spain acceding to ICSID Convention — Whether constituting submission to jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia — Whether Spain entitled to plead foreign State immunity — Whether Federal Court of Australia having jurisdiction — The law of Australia


2003 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Voyiakis

This comment discusses three recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of McElhinney v Ireland, Al-Adsani v UK, and Fogarty v UK. All three applications concerned the dismissal by the courts of the respondent States of claims against a third State on the ground of that State's immunity from suit. They thus raised important questions about the relation the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention)—especially the right to a fair trial and access to court enshrined in Arcticle 6(1)—and the law of State immunity.


2018 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-232
Author(s):  
Tareq Na’el Al-Tawil ◽  
Prabhakar Gantasala ◽  
Hassan Younies

Purpose This paper aims to discuss the benefits and disadvantages of the law on the expansion of the jurisdiction of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court. The major role of DIFC Courts in the Arab community is to handle cases related to commerce and business. For a long time, the court had been acting only in their geographical area until a new law was enacted to extend their jurisdiction all over the world. Afterward, a lot of criticism emerged as for why and how the court will benefit from such actions. The law has drawn a harsh response, although most benefits have also been experienced since the court received quite a large number of new signings. Interaction at the world business forum has benefited the economy of Dubai thanks to the law. Design/methodology/approach The following study focuses on a description of such benefits and drawbacks. The study does not evaluate a factual process of expansion but indicates the most distinct evidence of positive, as well as negative consequences of the expansion. Findings It is appropriate to make a general comment on the fact that the expansion of DIFC Court is not sufficiently effective at the current stage. Needless to say, it contains numerous positive aspects, but the gaps are evidently essential because they place the entire Court in a hard circumstance. The Court does not have a well-developed legal framework for its new area of jurisdiction as long as its limited volume of prior precedent is a distinct sign of the Court’s dependence on the UAE’s Law. In such way, DIFC Court will not be able to address issues within new fields of jurisdiction, as it simply lacks an expertise and international law in its legal framework. Moreover, the jurisdiction over new areas of international business was not verified with a plain system of mediation, which is why a current expansion of DIFC Court has to be recognized as redundant. However, its advantages are tending to produce their effects provided that the Court manages to address its current problems. Originality/value The study has described the basic benefits and drawbacks of DIFC Court expansion. To speak about the main benefits, they can be depicted as appliance of the common law, unification of English language for proceedings, presence of a preliminary arbitration and guarantees of award enforcement. In a similar way, the drawbacks of the expansion have been issued. The study has identified such drawbacks as lack of international and sophisticated expertise, untested legal framework, strong influence of forum non conveniens, and existence of a limited volume of prior precedent. The paper has not assessed a success of a factual expansion of DIFC Court jurisdiction, but it has managed to fulfill its primary purpose. Thus, the paper has identified a certain tendency concerning the expansion.


Headline UNITED KINGDOM: England reopening carries major risks


Significance The law underlines the government’s effort to boost the cybersecurity of Chinese networks, especially of critical infrastructure. China presents itself as a major victim of cyberattacks, including from foreign actors, just as it draws growing criticism from Western governments as a leading sponsor of hacks, espionage operations and intrusions. Impacts Foreign cybersecurity services providers will have restricted access to China’s market. Chinese tech indigenisation could weaken its cybersecurity if domestic technology is less secure than its foreign counterpart. Beijing will counter but avoid publicly attributing cyberattacks to specific state-linked actors.


Keyword(s):  

Headline UNITED KINGDOM: CPI upgrades signal earlier tightening


Headline UNITED KINGDOM: Core CPI and wages are key to policy


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document