Home > All journals > European Foreign Affairs Review > 29(3) >
$15.00 - Rental (PDF) *
$29.00 - Article (PDF) *
Fulvio Attinà, Marcello Carammia
European Foreign Affairs Review
Volume 29, Issue 3 (2024) pp. 275 – 294
https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2024013
Abstract
The EU’s foreign policy makers are committed to backing the rule-based international order and the creation of international law treaties to tackle global issues. The importance of world framework policies as the foundation of the current world order system that was created after the Second World War is overlooked by the rules-based concept of world order. Based on the High Representative’s strategy papers, this article assesses the views of EU foreign policy makers on world order, multipolarity, and multilateralism to understand the EU’s position in the current transition phase of the world order system. The article also addresses the significance of strategic autonomy as it appears as the core concept of the EU policy towards order transition. The analysis is based on International Relations (IR) scholarship and Complex Systems Theory (CST), which reveals gaps and inconsistencies in current EU views on the changing world order and the necessity to improve our understanding of how the world order transition is evolving.
Keywords
EU foreign and security policy, High Representative strategy papers, World order system, Order transition, World policymaking institutions, Priority collective problems, Framework world policies
Extract
The article examines the complex interplay between sovereign immunity and the enforcement of arbitral awards, particularly in Luxembourg. It highlights the distinction between immunity from jurisdiction and execution, as well as their implications for enforcement. Luxembourg courts adopt a restrictive approach to sovereign immunity from jurisdiction and execution.
Through and analysis of key international conventions like the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (the 'ICSID' Convention) and New York Conventions, alongside Luxembourg’s procedural rules, their complementary roles in enforcement processes is emphasized. It is furthermore explained that the exequatur procedure – meaning the recognition of an arbitral award as legally binding – is separate from execution, which in turn involves seizing the debtor’s assets. Luxembourg’s judiciary aligns with international standards, ensuring state assets used for sovereign purposes remain protected, while commercial assets may be subject to enforcement.
Case law is explored to demonstrate Luxembourg’s pro-arbitration stance, including the conditions under which waivers of immunity are recognized. The article concludes that Luxembourg strikes a balance between upholding sovereign immunity and facilitating enforcement, positioning itself as a reliable forum for arbitration, while safeguarding state sovereignty and creditors’ rights within a stable legal framework.
Journal of International Arbitration