Judicial Immunity of the State in Investment Arbitration: A Comparative study

Abstract

   This study aims to investigate the impact of the state's judicial immunity on the state's submission to investment arbitration, as arbitration is one of the most important means of resolving disputes in investment arbitration. However, the judicial immunity of the state as one of the parties to investment arbitration requires dealing with it with extreme caution; in particular, some countries may barricade themselves behind the judicial immunity of the state to prevent submission to arbitration and force the other party to resort to its national jurisdiction, which causes a disturbance in international relations.

   The study also deals with the definition of investment arbitration, the concept of judicial immunity, its justification, scope, and the impact of this immunity on investment arbitration when the state or one of its public legal persons is involved.

    The study reached many conclusions, the most prominent of which was that a balance must be achieved between the country's public interest, protecting its interests and achieving its sovereignty on the one hand and the interest of the contracting parties in investment contracts on the other hand. Furthermore, the study also found that the state's judicial immunity in investment arbitration is relative, not absolute, as the state's subjection of its will to investment arbitration does not affect its sovereignty and independence.

   The interaction and relation between states and investors, in light of economic developments and the importance of foreign investments in the development of the national economy, requires organizing the issue of states' judicial immunities and finding solutions for the state to maintain its judicial immunity in investment arbitration to evade its contractual obligations.