English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The enforcement of arbitral awards against foreign States normally faces two sorts of difficulties. The first one concerns the recognition of the award by national courts, which implies an internal control of its validity. The second difficulty is to pursue the collection of the State’s assets: it is common that national legislations grant the foreign State immunity from execution. These two issues are treated differently by the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) and by the Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (1965). This article compares both conventions and includes case law.

A Execução de Sentenças Arbitrais Contra Estados Estrangeiros Segundo a Convenção de Nova York de 1958 e a Convenção de Washington de 1965