Publication: La inmunidad soberana como obstáculo a la ejecución de laudos arbitrales en materia de inversión.
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2015-04-07
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Iprolex, S.L.
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
La eficacia de los laudos arbitrales dictados en materia de inversión se ve favorecida por diversos convenios internacionales, señaladamente la Convención de Washington de 1965, que establece un régimen autónomo para este tipo de arbitraje y la Convención de Nueva York de 1958. Sin embargo, cuando la parte condenada en el procedimiento arbitral ha sido un Estado soberano y se niega a cumplir voluntariamente lo establecido por los árbitros, el inversor se verá abocado a iniciar un proceso, esta vez judicial, para llevar a cabo la ejecución forzosa del laudo ante una o varias jurisdicciones y satisfacer así el derecho que previamente le fue reconocido. En estos casos, el Estado renuente al pago puede alegar una importante prerrogativa derivada del Derecho internacional público: su inmunidad de ejecución, y llegar a impedir, al menos procesalmente, la adopción de medidas coercitivas contra determinados bienes que se encuentren fuera de su territorio. El presente artículo aborda esta interacción entre la ejecución efectiva del laudo y la inmunidad de los Estados, analizando tanto el marco jurídico de ambas instituciones, como la costumbre internacional y práctica jurisprudencial de los tribunales sobre la materia.
Effectiveness of investment treaty arbitration awards is favored by some international conventions, mainly ICSID Convention, which provides an autonomous system for this kind of arbitration, and the New York Arbitration Convention of 1958. However, when the loser party of the arbitration is a State and it refuses to comply the award, the investor will have to start another proceeding, judicial instead of arbitration, to carry out the award’s enforcement in one or more jurisdictions to satisfy the pecuniary obligation imposed by the award. In these cases, the reluctant State could claim the immunity from execution as a procedural bar, and prevent the adoption of measures of constraint against certain property located outside its territory. This paper analyses the interaction between the effective enforcement of arbitral awards and the States immunities, considering the legal framework of both institutions, the customary international law and the jurisprudence on the matter.
Effectiveness of investment treaty arbitration awards is favored by some international conventions, mainly ICSID Convention, which provides an autonomous system for this kind of arbitration, and the New York Arbitration Convention of 1958. However, when the loser party of the arbitration is a State and it refuses to comply the award, the investor will have to start another proceeding, judicial instead of arbitration, to carry out the award’s enforcement in one or more jurisdictions to satisfy the pecuniary obligation imposed by the award. In these cases, the reluctant State could claim the immunity from execution as a procedural bar, and prevent the adoption of measures of constraint against certain property located outside its territory. This paper analyses the interaction between the effective enforcement of arbitral awards and the States immunities, considering the legal framework of both institutions, the customary international law and the jurisprudence on the matter.