State Immunity as a Defense to Resist the Enforcement of ICSID Awards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The enforcement of arbitral awards is an essential component of arbitration: an arbitral award has little to no value if it is not enforceable.4 The importance of ensuring the enforceability of arbitral awards has been recognized through the conclusion of international conventions on arbitration such as the 1958 New York Convention,5 the 1975 Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration,6 and the 1966 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention).7 The critical need to guarantee that the outcome of arbitration proceedings results in the rendering of an enforceable award is also consistently affirmed by institutional arbitration rules.8 Yet guaranteeing the enforceability of arbitral awards is no easy task, especially when States are parties to arbitration proceedings, because of the sovereign immunity from execution that they enjoy. As the number of investment treaty arbitrations, to which States are inevitably a party, has increased, it has become evident that the enforcement process frequently leads to disputes related to sovereign immunity. This is so even if the majority of arbitral awards rendered against States have been complied with voluntarily.9 In fact, the question of State immunity was anticipated during the drafting of the ICSID Convention. In 1972, Aron Broches, its primary architect, presciently noted that ‘[j]udicial as well as arbitral action against a State will frequently be shipwrecked on the rocks of sovereign immunity’.10
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".