| Based on the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, i.e. CITES and ICSID Convention,the Settlement of Investment Disputes mechanisms seek a reasonable solution for international commercial transactions. In international commercial transactions, the parties to seek a reasonable and effective solution of the dispute is a matter of course, the investment parties of the dispute both have a responsibility, an obligation to respect and comply with the ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, hereafter referred to as ICSID for short) in accordance with the law concluded.Caused by a variety of investment disputes in the future will be increasingly cases to the Chinese government as the respondent’s ICSID arbitral awards. When sovereign states engaged in commercial activities, the usual public main identity is changed into a private main, and executed for the Commercial Properties behavior in the private property are made by the ICSID arbitration award is a inevitable result of the State and Its Property theoretical logic development. Sovereign immunity factors as an exception of the ICSID arbitral awards under way which making its arbitral awards obstacles. Sovereign state engaged in a commercial nature, acts as a private principal, while we are willing to resolve the dispute arbitration agreement signed with the private actors, on the other hand, we advocate absolute immunity in the enforcement of arbitral awards, it seems counterintuitive. ICSID arbitral awards in the implementation of the solution of the question of State immunity need times limit exemption on position.The existence of New York Convention makes the contract arbitration awards divided into recognition and enforcement of two completely different stages, a sovereign state may claim immunity from jurisdiction or immunity from execution, but the Washington Convention under the ICSID arbitral awards, lead to the exclusion of the waiver of sovereign states in the jurisdiction of arbitral awards recognize possible to claim the stage, only advocated the implementation phase of immunity from execution. This article’s point of view is different from the other point of view of the current academic area; the author argues that there is default provisions allow. By carefully reading the Washington Convention55found by default to confer sovereign states enjoy State immunity (immunity from execution) or imply that the country did not give up and so assert state immunity (immunity from execution), noting that the country of the recognition and enforcement of the State, the exemption rules entitled to prevail the effectiveness of the fact, this decision is left to domestic law of the Member States.This article is commenced in accordance with asking a question, analyzing the problem, solving the problem. Theoretical analysis of the problem comes after the empirical analysis, the combination of theoretical analysis and empirical analysis will make the analysis as rational and mature as possible. The first part puts forward the question of State immunity about the enforcement of ICSID arbitration judgments. The second part of the ICSID ruling the analysis of the enforcement of the question of State immunity, divided into empirical and theoretical analysis of two parts. in the empirical analysis to analyze what are the differences between ICSID arbitral award and the traditional International Commercial Arbitration, and some special problems about State immunity in the enforcement of the ICSID arbitral awards. The third part of China’s thinking on the basis of in-depth analysis of the problem in front of States and their property, how to use the exemption rules to protect the country and their property interests involved in the practice of ICSID arbitral awards. Finally summarizes the conclusion. The Problem of state immunity about ICSID is still in the process of continuous development. The Conclusion Part sums up the main contents of the dissertation. |
PDF Full Text Request