<![CDATA[The contemporary architecture of international investment law confronts an efficacy crisis during the execution phase of arbitral awards due to sovereign immunity abuses by host states. Adjudicative triumphs frequently become pyrrhic victories given the monumental barriers to attaching sovereign assets in foreign jurisdictions. This study critically analyzes the interpretative asymmetry between the ICSID Convention and the New York Convention regimes, which severely complicates the economic recovery of investors. Employing a normative juridical methodology with a comparative jurisprudence approach, this article dissects recent judicial decisions across the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Findings indicate that debtor nations aggressively weaponize separate entity limitations and public policy defenses as asset shielding instruments. This paper proposes a recalibration of restrictive immunity through the functional commerciality test. Systemic resolution demands preventive mechanisms standardizing explicit immunity waivers, alongside subsequent mechanisms harmonizing commercial property definitions to balance sovereign rights against transnational legal compliance imperatives comprehensively.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
