A legal battle with global ramifications is now in the Supreme Court spotlight as two Mauritian mining companies challenge whether countries that submit to arbitration waive their sovereign immunity when foreign judgments seek enforcement.
Amaplat Mauritius Ltd. and Amari Nickel Holdings Zimbabwe Ltd. filed a certiorari petition on Dec. 12, asking the high court to review the D.C. Circuit’s decision that blocked their lawsuit to enforce an 11-year-old, $50 million arbitral award against Zimbabwe. The case has sparked a split among federal appellate courts.
Sovereign Immunity vs. Arbitration
The petition argues that the Second Circuit has long held that countries signing the New York Convention — the treaty governing recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards — implicitly waive immunity in actions enforcing foreign judgments that confirm awards.
Amaplat and Amari contend that the D.C. Circuit ignored this principle, rejecting the notion that Zimbabwe’s participation in arbitration triggers the implied waiver exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). They called the matter “of critical international importance.”
“Lower courts, other than the panel below, have uniformly reasoned that, by joining the New York Convention and submitting to arbitration in another New York Convention state, a member state impliedly waives its sovereign immunity under the FSIA in an action to enforce a foreign arbitral award,” the petition states.
