3. H Bagner “Article I”, in H Kronke, P Nacimiento et al, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A Global Commentary on the New York Convention, Wolters Kluwer, 2010, at p. 27.
4. Jurisdictional Immunities case, at para. 113.
5. Ibid.
6. I Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, OUP, Fifth Edition, p. 340.
7. J Crawford, “Execution of Judgments and Foreign Sovereign Immunity”, (1981) 75 AJIL 820, at 860.
8. I Brownlie, op cit at p. 342.
9. Ibid., p. 343.
10. G Dealume, op cit, p. 815.
11. Ibid.
12. Svenska Petroleum Exploration AB v Government of the Republic of Lithuania and another (No 2) [2006] EWCA Civ 1529.
13. Jurisdictional Immunities case, op cit, para.130. Emphasis added.
14. Gold Reserve Inc and Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/09/1.
15. Section 12 of the 1978 State Immunity Act reads: Procedure 12 (1) Any writ or other document required to be served for instituting proceedings against a State shall be served by being transmitted through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State and service shall be deemed to have been effected when the writ or document is received at the Ministry. […]
16. § 71.
17. § 72
18. § 74.
19. § 76.
20. § 91.
21. § 91.
22. § 19.
23. § 37.
24. § 46.
25. Recent developments in the US show that in other common law jurisdictions, the non-permissibility of ex parte proceedings in the context of enforcement of awards against foreign States is gaining support. See, for example, a recent US government Amicus Curiae intervention before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dated 30 March 2016 in Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
26. GAR, “ Venezuela settles with Gold Reserve”, 25 February 2016.