Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

State Immunity and International Arbitration in Sweden

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Der Schutz des Individuums durch das Recht

  • 1200 Accesses

Abstract

The question of State immunity and international arbitration is not a new issue. It has been addressed by practitioners and scholars alike on many occasions. With the growing number of awards based on investment protection treaties, the question of State immunity is becoming more relevant than ever, since the respondent in arbitrations based on such treaties is always a sovereign State. This notwithstanding, several aspects of this issue remain unresolved. Most of the unresolved issues do not directly concern the arbitration proceedings. Typically, they arise only when the award has been rendered and when the winning side is seeking to enforce the award. While arbitrators generally aspire to render a valid and enforceable award, once an award has been rendered, measures taken with respect to the award are typically beyond the control and authority of the arbitrators. Given the fact that State immunity is one of the most traditional topics of public international law, and also of private international law, and in light of its growing importance, it is perhaps surprising that it is still an issue in international arbitrations.

Prof. Kaj Hobér, Professor of International Investment and Trade Law at Uppsala University.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a comprehensive discussion of state immunity see e.g. Badr (1984); Schreuer (1988). Fox and Webb (2002); Hafner et al. (2006).

  2. 2.

    Decision dated 18.12.2021, Docket number Ă– 3828-20, Ascom Group SA et al. v. the Republic of Kazakhstan and the National Bank of Kazakhstan.

  3. 3.

    With respect to the former Soviet Union, see, e.g. Boguslavskiĭ (1989), pp. 144–154, 178–182.

  4. 4.

    See e.g. Badr (1984), p. 34 et seq, and Schreuer (1988), p. 10 et seq. Several attempts have been made in municipal codifications, and otherwise, to define “commercial acts”, see, e.g. s 3(3) of the UK State Immunity Act; s 1603(d) of the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; Article 2(1) (g) of the International Law Commission Draft Articles on State Immunity, and Article IC of the Draft Convention prepared by the International Law Association.

  5. 5.

    See The Jurisdictional Immunities Convention was adopted during the 65th plenary meeting of the General Assembly by resolution A/59/38 of 02.12.2004. https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/4_1_2004.pdf, accessed 30.11.2022., p. 5 et seq.

  6. 6.

    The Jurisdictional Immunities Convention was adopted during the 65th plenary meeting of the General Assembly by resolution A/59/38 of 02.12.2004. https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/4_1_2004.pdf, accessed 30.11.2022.

  7. 7.

    See Article 28 of the Convention.

  8. 8.

    See Article 30(1) of the Convention, which provides: “The present Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit of the thirtieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Secretary-General of the United-Nations.”

  9. 9.

    See Sect. 5 below.

  10. 10.

    Article 1 of the Convention.

  11. 11.

    Article 3 of the Convention.

  12. 12.

    Article 5 of the Convention.

  13. 13.

    Article 9 of the Convention.

  14. 14.

    Articles 18 and 19 of the Convention.

  15. 15.

    Articles 18 and 19 of the Convention require that the State has “expressly consented to the taking of such measures.” Moreover, Article 20 of the Convention further provides that “where consent to the measures of constraint is required under Articles 18 and 19, consent to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 7 shall not imply consent to the taking of measures of constraint.”

  16. 16.

    Article 19(c) of the Convention.

  17. 17.

    See Sect. 5 below.

  18. 18.

    Article 19(c) of the Convention.

  19. 19.

    Act (1976:661) On The Privileges And Immunities In Certain Cases, as amended.

  20. 20.

    Govt Bill 2008/2009:204, p. 109.

  21. 21.

    United Nations Treaty Collection, status as of 01.07.2022.

  22. 22.

    The Charente Case, was one of ten attachment cases concerning as many vessels which had been requisitioned by the Government of Norway and chartered by it to the British Government, see Supreme Court of Sweden, NJA 1942, p. 65.

  23. 23.

    Supreme Court of Sweden, NJA 1942, p. 65, 74–75.

  24. 24.

    Supreme Court of Sweden Carin Beckman and Åke Beckman v People’s Republic of China, NJA 1957, p. 195.

  25. 25.

    Supreme Court of Sweden, NJA 1999, p. 821; Supreme Court of Sweden, NJA 2009 p. 905.

  26. 26.

    Supreme Court of Sweden, NJA 2011, 475.

  27. 27.

    See decision dated 18.12.2021, Docket number Ă– 3828-20, Ascom Group SA et al. v. the Republic of Kazakhstan and the National Bank of Kazakhstan, supra and discussion at p. 23 et seq.

  28. 28.

    Supreme Court of Sweden, NJA 1999, p. 821.

  29. 29.

    For comments on the case see, Mahmoudi (2001), pp. 192–197.

  30. 30.

    Local Authority of Västerås Kommun v Republic of Iceland, NJA 1999, p. 821, at 825.

  31. 31.

    Bostadsrättsföreningen x 13 v. Kingdom of Belgium, NJA 2009, 905.

  32. 32.

    As mentioned, the UN Convention has not entered into force.

  33. 33.

    Supreme Court of Sweden, NJA 2009 p. 905, p. 5.

  34. 34.

    Supreme Court of Sweden, NJA 2009 p. 905, pp. 5–6.

  35. 35.

    Supreme Court of Sweden, NJA 2009 p. 905, p. 7.

  36. 36.

    Supreme Court of Sweden, NJA 2009 p. 905, p. 12.

  37. 37.

    The award is reproduced and discussed in Hobér (2007), 46 et seq, Appendix 1.

  38. 38.

    For an overview of the court proceedings in Germany, see Stumpe (2008), p. 167 et seq.

  39. 39.

    Supreme Court of Sweden, NJA 2011, 475.

  40. 40.

    Supreme Court of Sweden, NJA 2011, 475, para. 4.

  41. 41.

    Supreme Court of Sweden, NJA 2011, 475, para. 14.

  42. 42.

    Supreme Court of Sweden, NJA 2011, 475, para. 8, 16.

  43. 43.

    Supreme Court of Sweden, NJA 2011, 475, para. 23.

  44. 44.

    Melander (1975), p. 81.

  45. 45.

    Paulsson (1981), pp. 895–896.

  46. 46.

    See Supreme Court of Sweden, NJA 1942, p. 65.

  47. 47.

    This issue was not ruled on by the Supreme Court in its recent decision – see Sect. 5 below – nor does it seem to have been argued in the case.

  48. 48.

    Supreme Court of Sweden, NJA 1999, p. 821; Supreme Court of Sweden, NJA 2009 p. 905, pp. 5–6.

  49. 49.

    See Supreme Court of Sweden, NJA 2011, 475, p. 19.

  50. 50.

    Supreme Court decision dated 18.12.2021, Docket number Ă– 3828-20, Ascom Group SA et al. v. the Republic of Kazakhstan and the National Bank of Kazakhstan, at p. 9.

  51. 51.

    Supreme Court decision dated 18.12.2021, Docket number Ă– 3828-20, Ascom Group SA et al. v. the Republic of Kazakhstan and the National Bank of Kazakhstan at p. 15.

  52. 52.

    Supreme Court decision dated 18.12.2021, Docket number Ă– 3828-20, Ascom Group SA et al. v. the Republic of Kazakhstan and the National Bank of Kazakhstan.at p. 15.

  53. 53.

    Supreme Court decision dated 18.12.2021, Docket number Ă– 3828-20, Ascom Group SA et al. v. the Republic of Kazakhstan and the National Bank of Kazakhstan at p. 16.

References

  • Badr G M (1984) State immunity: an analytical and prognostic view. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague/Boston/Lancaster

    Google Scholar 

  • BoguslavskiÄ­ MM (1989) Mezhdunarodnoe chastnoe parvo. Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenii͡a, Moskva

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox H, Webb P (2002) The law of state immunity, 3rd edn. Oxford International Law Library, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner G, Kohlen MG, Breau SC (2006) State practice regarding state immunities (La pratique des etats concernant les immunitĂ©s des etats). Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • HobĂ©r KI (2007) Investment arbitration in Eastern Europe: in search of a definition of expropriation. Juris Publishing, Huntington

    Google Scholar 

  • HobĂ©r KI (2021) International commercial arbitration in Sweden, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahmoudi S (2001) Local authority of VästerĂĄs v. Republic of Iceland. Case No. 1999:112. Am J Int Law 95(1):192–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melander G (1975) Hävande av immunitet. SvJT:81–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulsson J (1981) Sweden: Court of Appeals of Svea judgment concerning recognition and enforcement of arbitral award. Int Legal Mater 20(4):891–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer CH (1988) State immunity: some recent developments. Am J Int Law 83(2):415–419

    Google Scholar 

  • Stumpe F (2008) Enforcement of arbital awards against State parties in Germany – State Sovereignty and Independent State Entities. Decisions rendered in Sedelmayer v. Russian Federation. Stockholm Int Arbitr Rep 2:169–174

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Uppsala, Schweden

    Kaj Hobér

Authors
  1. Kaj Hobér
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kaj Hobér .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Europäische Akademie der Arbeit in der Universität Frankfurt am Main, University of Labour, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland

    Philipp B. Donath

  2. Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland

    Alexander Heger

  3. Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland

    Moritz Malkmus

  4. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer PartG mbB, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland

    Orhan Bayrak

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hobér, K. (2023). State Immunity and International Arbitration in Sweden. In: Donath, P.B., Heger, A., Malkmus, M., Bayrak, O. (eds) Der Schutz des Individuums durch das Recht. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66978-5_44

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66978-5_44

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-66977-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-66978-5

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation