Enforcement of ICSID awards and state immunity: should immunity trump all? Analysis of the English Court of Appeal’s <i>ISL</i> / <i>Border Timbers</i> conjoined judgment, advocating for a domestic teleological interpretation

Abstract International investment arbitration is arguably the most important means of international dispute settlement and has significant state immunity dimensions. It has all but replaced diplomatic protection as a means of redress for foreign investors. The delocalization of investment disputes by means of investment arbitration has meant that investors have not had to resort to domestic law or courts to settle their disputes against host states. The system works well so long as awards are honoured, but if domestic law processes become involved state immunity can stand in the way of execution and enforcement. A recent English case has highlighted certain state immunity-related complications that could stand in the way of enforcement. This article focuses on the recent English Court of Appeal decision in Border Timbers / ISL, in which it was recently decided that ICSID member states cannot resist the registration of ICSID awards by invoking principles of state immunity, adopting a teleological construction of the UK State Immunity Act 1978. The ruling ensures adherence to the UK’s treaty obligations, as well as avoiding the re-politicization of investment disputes.