Home > All journals > Journal of International Arbitration > 26(1) >
$25.00 - Rental (PDF) *
$49.00 - Article (PDF) *
Frédéric Bachand
Journal of International Arbitration
Volume 26, Issue 1 (2009) pp. 59 – 87
https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2009003
Abstract
Canada’s State Immunity Act is problematic in that it does not clearly prevent foreign states from raising pleas of jurisdictional immunity to defeat applications seeking the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made against them. Worst, the Act can even be interpreted as allowing foreign states to raise such pleas to avoid obligations arising out of international awards. In this respect, Canadian law is clearly out of step with the law in force in jurisdictions that can truly be said to be wholehearted supporters of the international arbitration system, where such pleas are, quite rightly, unambiguously forbidden. While ideally the problem would be addressed through a legislative amendment, this article contends that it can be addressed through a dynamic and contextual interpretation of the Act’s provisions relating to the waiver exception.
Extract
Canada’s State Immunity Act is problematic in that it does not clearly prevent foreign states from raising pleas of jurisdictional immunity to defeat applications seeking the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made against them. Worst, the Act can even be interpreted as allowing foreign states to raise such pleas to avoid obligations arising out of international awards. In this respect, Canadian law is clearly out of step with the law in force in jurisdictions that can truly be said to be wholehearted supporters of the international arbitration system, where such pleas are, quite rightly, unambiguously forbidden. While ideally the problem would be addressed through a legislative amendment, this article contends that it can be addressed through a dynamic and contextual interpretation of the Act’s provisions relating to the waiver exception.
Journal of International Arbitration