譯者｜冉勁軒 北京師範大學本科
一審｜ LYJ NUS LLM
二審｜李正茂 香港大學普通法學碩士
編輯｜林 薇 西南政法大學本科
loca. 中國社會科學院大學碩士
責編｜林靖珊 中國政法大學碩士
How Effective Is the Defense of Sovereign Immunity by Nigeria?
奈及利亞以主權豁免作為抗辯理由的效果如何？[1]
目錄
一、引言
二、中山富誠工業投資有限公司訴奈及利亞案
三、中山富誠訴奈及利亞的投資條約仲裁案
四、中山富誠和奈及利亞在英格蘭商事法院的執行裁決
五、奈及利亞的主權豁免抗辯
六、奈及利亞以主權豁免作為抗辯理由的效果如何？
七、結論
INTRODUCTION
引言
Within a year after Nigeria’s famous and much-celebrated victory at the English High Court, wherein the country succeeded in moving the Court to annul an $11 billion arbitral award obtained by Process and Industrial Developments (“P&ID”) against the country, Nigeria has suffered a defeat in another arbitration matter at the English High Court. This time, a Chinese entity, Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment (“ZFII”), has successfully moved the English Commercial Court in London to recognise and enforce a $75 million investment treaty arbitral award against Nigeria. ZFII has also successfully moved the Court to grant final charging orders over two UK residential properties owned by Nigeria in satisfaction of the award sum despite Nigeria’s spirited sovereign immunity defence targeted at resisting the attachment. The two properties are estimated to be worth £1.7 million.
奈及利亞成功請求英格蘭高等法院撤銷了需要向Process and Industrial Developments（“P&ID公司”）支付110億美元的裁決[2]，這場著名的勝訴備受讚譽。一年後，奈及利亞在該法院另一起仲裁案件中敗訴[3]。這一次，中國企業中山市富誠工業投資有限公司（“中山富誠”）成功向位於倫敦的英格蘭商事法院申請承認和執行一項7500萬美元的投資條約仲裁裁決。儘管奈及利亞以主權豁免為由堅決抵制押記令（Charging Order[4]），中山富誠仍成功請求法院對奈及利亞擁有的兩處英國房產下達最終押記令，以達到裁決中的賠償金額。這兩處房產估價約170萬英鎊。
The underlying investment treaty arbitration which led to the current proceedings is in relation to a joint venture dispute between ZFII and Ogun State (a federating unit in Nigeria) to establish a free trade zone near Lagos in 2013. A ZFII subsidiary held a 60% stake in the project, but the government of Ogun State terminated its participation three years later. Nigeria is on the verge of losing two of its properties in the United Kingdom (“UK”) to ZFII in the settlement of a $75 million arbitral award against Nigeria, stemming from Nigeria’s act to terminate Zhongfu’s (an entity created by ZFII) appointment to manage a zone in the Ogun State Free Trade Zone in contravention of a Joint Venture Agreement signed between Zhongfu and Nigeria in 2013.
當前投資仲裁條約案件[5]源於2013年中山富誠（ZFII）和奧貢州（Ogun State）（奈及利亞的一個聯邦）為了在拉各斯（Lagos）附近建立自由貿易區而發生的的合資企業糾紛。中山富誠的一個子公司在該專案中持有60%的股份，但在三年後，奧貢州政府終止了其參與。因奈及利亞終止中富公司（中山富誠創立的實體）在奧貢州自由貿易區的管理，違反了中富公司和奈及利亞簽署的合資協議。目前，奈及利亞面臨7500萬美元的仲裁裁決判罰，需要將其在英國的兩套房產轉交給中山富誠。
ZFII commenced arbitration proceedings against Nigeria under the 2001 Bilateral Investment Treaty between the People’s Republic of China and Nigeria (“the China-Nigeria BIT”) seeking compensation and damages for Nigeria’s breach of its obligations under the China-Nigeria BIT. The arbitration found Nigeria in breach of its obligations and awarded the sum of $70 million as compensation to ZFII. In an enforcement action by ZFII before the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (“High Court”) against Nigeria, Nigeria’s attempt to rely on the defence of sovereign immunity failed as the High Court made the charging orders against two of Nigeria’s property in the UK final.
中山富誠根據2001年簽署的《中華人民共和國政府和奈及利亞聯邦共和國政府相互促進和保護投資協定》[6]（“中尼雙邊投資條約”）對奈及利亞提起仲裁，要求奈及利亞為違反雙邊條約義務的行為提供損害性賠償。仲裁裁定奈及利亞違反了條約義務[7]，中山富誠獲得共計7000萬美元的賠償。在中山富誠向英格蘭和威爾士高等法院（“高等法院”）提起執行時[8]，奈及利亞試圖依據主權豁免[9]進行抗辯，但最終高等法院作出針對奈及利亞的兩處房產的押記令，抗辯宣告失敗。
This decision by the High Court sparks discussion as to how effective Nigeria’s defence of sovereign immunity is, bearing in mind previous legal battles on International Investment Treaty Agreements where the defence of sovereign immunity to resist enforcement has failed to vindicate Nigeria. The article seeks to briefly examine Nigeria’s sovereign immunity defence at the proceedings before the English Commercial Court, bearing in mind the fact that Nigeria has had mixed results in its previous attempt to rely on the defence of sovereign immunity to dislodge the enforcement of arbitral awards against the Country.
高等法院的這一裁決引發了人們對奈及利亞主權豁免抗辯效果的討論。考慮到此前奈及利亞在國際投資條約的法律糾紛中，多次以主權豁免為由抗辯執行仲裁裁決，但最終均以失敗告終。本文旨在簡要分析奈及利亞在英格蘭商事法庭訴訟中的主權豁免抗辯，考慮到此前多次試圖藉助主權豁免抗辯來阻止執行仲裁裁決而結果參差不齊。
Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment v. Nigeria
中山富城工業投資有限公司訴奈及利亞案
In 2010, Zhongshan, a subsidiary of Zhuhai Zhongfu Industrial Group Co Ltd (Zhuhai) acquired rights through a Deed between Zhuhai, Ogun State Free Trade Zone (OGFTZ), and Zhongshan to develop and operate Fucheng Park, within the Zone located in the southeast of Ogun State, Nigeria. In 2011, Zhongshan set up a local Nigerian entity, Zhongfu International Investment (NIG) FZE (Zhongfu), to manage the work on the ground in Nigeria.
2010年，作為珠海中富實業股份有限公司（Zhuhai）（“珠海公司”）的子公司，中山富誠透過珠海公司、奧貢州自由貿易區（OGFTZ）之間的協議，獲得了開發和經營位於奈及利亞奧貢州東南部的富誠工業園的權利。2011年，中山富誠成立了一家奈及利亞本地公司——中富國際投資（奈及利亞）有限公司（Zhongfu）（“中富公司”），負責管理尼日利亞當地的業務[10]。
In March 2012, the Ogun State Government appointed Zhongfu as interim manager of the Zone and not just the Fucheng Park. In September 2013, Zhongfu’s appointment was eventually made permanent in a Joint Venture Agreement (“the 2013 JVA”) between Zhongfu and the Ogun State Government (among others) under which Zhongfu also acquired a majority shareholding (60%) in OGFTZ. Zhuhai and Zhongfu carried out significant work at Fucheng Park, and this work consisted of developing infrastructure such as roads, sewerage, and power systems, marketing, and letting sites in Fucheng Park within the Zone.
2012年3月，奧貢州政府任命中富公司作為該自貿區的臨時管理者，而不僅僅是富誠工業園的管理者。2013年9月，中富公司的任命最終透過一份合資協議（“2013年合資協議”）與奧貢州政府及其他相關方正式確定。根據該協議，中富公司獲得了奧貢州自貿區60%的控股權。珠海公司和中富公司還在自貿區的富誠工業園開展了大量工作，包括基礎設施建設（如道路、汙水處理、電力系統開發等）、市場營銷以及園區用地的出租。
In July 2016, the Ogun State purported to terminate Zhongfu’s appointment (while immediately attempting to install a new manager for the Zone). This involved a series of actions allegedly aimed at driving Zhongfu out of Nigeria.
2016年7月，奧貢州政府聲稱要收回對中富公司的任命，並試圖立即為該自貿區任命新的管理者。這一舉措涉及一系列據稱旨在將中富公司驅逐出奈及利亞的行動。
（圖片來源於網路）
Zhongshan’s Investment Treaty Arbitration Against Nigeria
中山富誠訴奈及利亞的投資條約仲裁案[11]
Having lost at the proceedings to enforce the terms of the 2013 JVA in Nigerian Courts and international arbitration proceedings at the Singapore International Arbitration Court (“SIAC”), Zhongshan commenced a UNCITRAL International Investment Treaty Arbitration against Nigeria under the 2001 China-Nigeria bilateral investment treaty (BIT) in 2018. In 2021, the London-seated UNCITRAL tribunal found Nigeria liable for expropriation and other breaches of the China-Nigeria BIT and ordered it to pay US$55.6 million plus interest and costs. Nigeria challenged the award in the Commercial Court on jurisdictional grounds, contending the arbitration clause in the BIT was invalid. However, the State withdrew the challenge because ZFII filed an application requesting Nigeria to deposit security for the award and security for costs before Nigeria’s application to challenge the award could be heard.
在奈及利亞法院執行2013年合資協議條款和新加坡國際仲裁中心（“SIAC”）[12]的國際仲裁程式中都敗訴後，中山富誠於2018年依據中尼雙邊投資條約，在聯合國國際貿易法委員會（UNCITRAL）提起了國際投資條約仲裁。2021年，位於倫敦的國際貿易法委員會仲裁庭裁定，奈及利亞需對徵收行為以及其他違反中尼投資條約的行為承擔責任，並裁定其需支付5560萬美元的賠償金，外加利息和仲裁費。奈及利亞政府在英格蘭商事法院以管轄權為由對該裁決提出異議，其認為投資條約中的仲裁條款無效。然而，由於中山富誠申請要求奈及利亞對仲裁裁決的執行和費用提供擔保，奈及利亞最終撤回了管轄權異議。
The Decision of the English Commercial Court in the Action Between ZFII v Nigeria
中山富誠和奈及利亞在英格蘭商事法院的執行裁決[13]
As mentioned earlier, in the enforcement proceeding commenced by ZFII at the English Commercial Court, Nigeria relied on the defence of sovereign immunity to resist the attachment of its properties in the UK. Sovereign Immunity is a well-established doctrine of international law that is based on the principle of equality of States. It is a legal concept that makes a sovereign entity immune from any suit, be it civil or criminal before the courts of another sovereign entity.
如前所述，中山富誠在英格蘭商事法院提起的執行程式中，奈及利亞以主權豁免為由進行抗辯，試圖阻止其在英國的財產被扣押。主權豁免以主權平等原則為基礎，是一項被廣泛承認的國際法原則。該法律概念使一個主權實體在另一個主權實體的法院中免於任何民事或刑事訴訟。
Nigeria argued that the properties in which enforcement was sought were used for non-commercial but diplomatic purposes and based on this, the properties enjoyed sovereign immunity under the Sovereign Immunities Act of 1978 (“the Act”). ZFII’s position was that for the properties to enjoy sovereign immunity under the Act, it is the use of the properties at the time the Application for enforcement was brought and not the future intended use of the properties and that currently, the properties were being leased out to some occupants (who were not diplomats) at an annual rental fee for residential purposes. Nigeria’s position was that the “use” of the property is not the same as the “purpose” of the use, and because of the certificate, the properties are to be available for providing consular services, residences for Nigerian officials, and generally for events to cater to staff, and the rental is to ensure the properties are maintained and secured, and are at below market rent.
奈及利亞辯稱，申請執行的這些房產並非用於商業目的，而是用於外交目的。根據英國1978年頒佈的《國家豁免法》[14]，這些房產享有國家主權豁免。中山富誠則認為，要使這些財產享有主權豁免，應考慮申請執行時財產的實際使用情況，而不是未來的預期用途。目前，這些房產以年租金的方式出租給一些非外交人員居住。奈及利亞回應稱，房產的“用途”不同於“目的”，根據房產證書，這些房產是為提供領事服務、為奈及利亞官員或公民提供住所以及用於使館的活動而建立。租賃房屋是為了確保房產的維護和安全性，其租金也低於市場價格。
In making the charging orders final against Nigeria, the Court held that:
在作出對奈及利亞釋出押記令時，法院認為[15]：
1、The test under the Act applies as at the date of the issue of process of execution against the property in question: the words “for the time being” make this clear. The use or intended use of property may change over time.
1、根據《國家豁免法》的規定，檢驗標準自針對相關財產發出執行令之日起適用：“暫時”（for the time being）一詞明確了這一點。財產的用途或預期用途可能會隨著時間的推移而改變。
2、Contrary to the purpose stated on the certificate that the properties were to be available for consular services, they have not in fact been in use for any of the matters set out in the certificate for the last 34 years.
2、 儘管房產證書上明確指出這些房產應用於領事服務，但在過去的34年中，這些財產實際上並未用於證書中列出的任何事項。
3、A commercial transaction is a transaction or activity (whether of commercial, industrial, financial, professional, or other similar character) into which a State enters or in which it engages otherwise than in the exercise of sovereign authority, hence, accepting rents below the current market value does not reduce the commercial nature to which the properties were put.
3、商業交易是指一國不依據主權權利而參與或從事的交易或活動（無論是商業、工業、金融、專業或其他類似性質的活動）。因此，接受低於當前市場價的租金並不會減損這些房產的商業性質。
4、The properties are currently used for leases to residential tenants unconnected with Nigeria and its Mission. Those are commercial purposes under Section 13(4) of the State Immunities Act (SIA) and therefore the enforcement against the properties is not barred by State immunity.
4、這些房產目前用於出租給與奈及利亞及其使團無關的住戶。根據《國家豁免法》（SIA）第13條第（4）款，[16]這屬於商業用途，因此對這些房產的執行並不受國家豁免的限制。
Nigeria’s Defence of Sovereign Immunity
奈及利亞的主權豁免抗辯
Nigeria is not a stranger to the defence of sovereign immunity in courts and arbitral award enforcement proceedings. The country has deployed the arsenal of sovereign immunity to resist enforcement in several enforcement proceedings, albeit with mixed results.
奈及利亞對在法庭和仲裁裁決執行程式中捍衛主權豁免並不陌生。該國已在多起執行程式中動用主權豁免手段來抵制執行，儘管結果參差不齊。
In the case of Trendtex Trading Corp. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, (1977) 2 W.L.R. 356, 1 All E.R. 881 (United Kingdom), the first reported arbitration-related case in which Nigeria relied on the defence of sovereign immunity; Nigeria relied on this defence to defeat the claims brought by different companies to obtain payments based on letters of credit issued by its Central Bank. However, in dismissing Nigeria’s defence, Lord Denning held that firstly, the Central Bank cannot enjoy sovereign immunity because the Bank which had been created as a separate legal entity with no clear expression of intent that it should have governmental status, was not an emanation, arm, alter ego, or department of the State of Nigeria and was therefore not entitled to immunity from the suit. Secondly, even if it was decided that the Bank was a department of State, the suit was purely a claim for the letters of credit which is a contractual transaction for which immunity has been waived.
在第一起奈及利亞主張主權豁免的仲裁案——Trendtex Trading Corp.v. Central Bank of Nigeria, (1977) 2 WLR 356, 1 All ER 881 (United Kindom)[17]中，奈及利亞以此抗辯不同公司基於其中央銀行出具的信用證提出的付款請求。然而，在駁回奈及利亞的辯護時，丹寧勳爵（Lord Denning）指出：首先，中央銀行不享有主權豁免。因為作為獨立法人實體成立的中央銀行，並沒有明確表明其具備政府地位，不能被視為是奈及利亞的國家機構、分支機構或部門，因此無權享受豁免。其次，即便中央銀行被視為國家的一個部門，該訴訟也純粹是針對信用證的索賠，屬於合同交易，主權豁免在此情況下已被放棄。
In fact, in the proceedings commenced by one of the companies in Germany ——Youssef M. Nada Establishment v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 16 Int’l Legal Mat. 501 (1977) (Dist. Ct., Frankfurt/Main, Aug. 25, 1976) (West Germany), the Commercial Court of Frankfurt dismissed the Central Bank’s sovereign immunity defence when it held that “a foreign state may be granted immunity from German jurisdiction only in respect of its sovereign activity (acta jure imperii) but not in respect of its non-sovereign activity (acta jure gestionis) because no general rule of public international law exists under which the domestic jurisdiction for actions against a foreign state in relation to its non-sovereign activity is precluded.”
實際上，在另一起由德國公司提起的訴訟中——Youssef M. Nada Establishment v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 16 Int'l Legal Mat. 501 (1977) (Dist. Ct., Frankfurt/Main, Aug. 25, 1976) (West Germany)[18]，法蘭克福商事法院駁回了對中央銀行的主權豁免抗辯，認為“外國只能就其主權活動（acta jure imperii）獲得德國司法管轄豁免，而不能就其非主權活動（acta jure gestionis）獲得豁免，因為目前不存在任何國際公法的一般規則可以排除針對他國非主權活動的國內司法管轄權。”
Similarly, in Ipitrade Intl S.A. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1978) 465 F. Supp. 824, a case where enforcement proceedings were sought in the United States (the “US”) based on a written commercial contract between Nigeria and Ipitrade for the purchase and sale of cement, Nigeria refused to participate both in the arbitration proceedings and the enforcement proceedings commenced at the District Court, relying on the legal defence of sovereign immunity. The District Court, in recognising and enforcing the award, stated that Nigeria’s agreement to adjudicate all disputes arising under the contract in accordance with Swiss law and by arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce Rules constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity under the Sovereign Immunities Act.
同樣地，在Ipitrade Intl S.A. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1978) 465 F. Supp. 824[19]中，基於奈及利亞與Ipitrade公司之間關於水泥購銷的商業合同，奈及利亞尋求在美國提起執行程式。然而，奈及利亞以主權豁免為由進行抗辯，拒絕參與仲裁程式和在地區法院啟動的執行程式。地區法院在承認並執行仲裁裁決時指出，奈及利亞同意在仲裁中根據瑞士法律和國際商會規則[20]解決合同下的所有爭議，已經構成了對《主權豁免法》下主權豁免的放棄。
Most recently, Nigeria succeeded in a defence of sovereign immunity in one of the enforcement proceedings in the P&ID case before the US Court of Appeal. However, Nigeria’s sovereign immunity defence, in this case, was upheld because the now-annulled arbitral award that P&ID was seeking to rely on had been set aside in Nigeria and had been stayed in London.
最近，奈及利亞在美國上訴法院審理的P&ID案的其中一項執行程式中[21]，成功以主權豁免權進行了抗辯。然而，由於P&ID試圖依賴仲裁裁決在奈及利亞已被撤銷，並在倫敦被暫停執行，因此本案中奈及利亞的主權豁免抗辯結果得以維持。
（圖片來源於網路）
How Effective Is the Defence of Sovereign Immunity by Nigeria?
奈及利亞以主權豁免作為抗辯理由的效果如何？
The defence of sovereign immunity has, over the years, been a hard rock for Nigeria to crack, especially within the realm of international arbitration enforcement proceedings. From the 1975 case against the Central Bank of Nigeria in England and Germany to Ipitrade’s case, and now to ZFII, the defence of sovereign immunity has not been a potent weapon in arbitration-related enforcement proceedings against Nigeria. Moreover, given the fact that the English Court of Appeal in London has refused to allow Nigeria to bring a late challenge to the recognition and enforcement of the underlying investment treaty award, finding that Nigeria is out of time to file such a challenge, it remains to be seen if Nigeria can turn the tide as it did in the P&ID enforcement proceedings before the US Court of Appeal.
多年來，尤其是在國際仲裁執行程式中，主權豁免抗辯一直是奈及利亞的棘手難題。從1975年在英國和德國起訴奈及利亞中央銀行的案件，到Ipitrade公司案，再到現在的中山富誠案，主權豁免的抗辯在針對奈及利亞的仲裁相關執行程式中一直未能成為有效的武器。此外，鑑於位於倫敦的英格蘭上訴法院拒絕奈及利亞對基礎投資條約裁決的承認和執行提出逾期異議，認為奈及利亞已經超過提出異議的時限，未來奈及利亞是否能像在P&ID案的執行程式中那樣扭轉局勢，仍有待觀察。
CONCLUSION
結論
The effectiveness of Nigeria’s sovereign immunity defence in international arbitration cases has been mixed. In some cases, Nigeria has succeeded, such as in the P&ID case before the US Court of Appeals. On the other hand, the Country has often faced challenges, as seen in the cases involving Trendtex and Ipitrade, and more recently with Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment. This underscores the complexity of sovereign immunity in arbitration enforcement. The nuanced balance between respecting sovereign immunity and upholding arbitral awards is crucial and should be carefully considered in each case.
在國際仲裁案件中，奈及利亞主權豁免抗辯的效果參差不齊。在某些案件中，奈及利亞成功進行了抗辯，例如此前在美國上訴法院審理的P&ID案。另一方面，奈及利亞在抗辯時也面臨諸多挑戰，如Trendtex公司案，Ipitrade公司案，以及最近的中山富誠工業投資仲裁案。這凸顯了主權豁免在仲裁執行中的複雜性。尊重國家主權豁免與維護仲裁裁決之間的微妙平衡至關重要，對此在每個案件中都應謹慎考慮。
參考資料【向上滑動閱覽】
[1] 【原文連結】How Effective is the Defense of Sovereign Immunity by Nigeria, 9 August 2024：https://dailyjus.com/world/2024/08/how-effective-is-the-defense-of-sovereign-immunity-by-nigeria。
[2] Judgment of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales [2023] EWHC 2638, https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-process-and-industrial-developments-ltd-v-the-ministry-of-petroleum-resources-of-the-federal-republic-of-nigeria-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2023-ewhc-2638-monday-23rd-october-2023#decision_55471。
[3] Judgment of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales [2024] EWHC 1503，https://jusmundi.com/fr/document/decision/en-zhongshan-fucheng-industrial-investment-co-ltd-v-federal-republic-of-nigeria-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2024-ewhc-1503-friday-14th-june-2024#decision_65594。
[4]A charging order is when the court places a ‘charge’ on the debtor’s property, such as a house or piece of land. The charge will be the amount you are owed. The charging order does not normally mean you get your money straight away, but it may protect your money for the future. If the debtor owns stocks or shares, or has a fund or money in court, the court can also put a charge on these. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/third-party-debt-orders-and-charging-orders-ex325/apply-for-a-charging-order。
[5] Final Award between ZHONGDHSN FUCHENG INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CO. LTD. And THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, https://jusmundi.com/fr/document/decision/en-zhongshan-fucheng-industrial-investment-co-ltd-v-federal-republic-of-nigeria-final-award-monday-1st-march-2021#decision_17721。
[6] Agreement Between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments，https://jusmundi.com/fr/document/treaty/en-china-nigeria-bit-2001-china-nigeria-bit-2001-monday-27th-august-2001。中華人民共和國政府和奈及利亞聯邦共和國政府相互促進和保護投資協定，http://tfs.mofcom.gov.cn/sbtzbhxd/fz/art/2010/art_fdbfd1be29f84ad38d4ddbae580e42b1.html。
[7] Final Award between ZHONGDHSN FUCHENG INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CO. LTD. And THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA，https://jusmundi.com/fr/document/decision/en-zhongshan-fucheng-industrial-investment-co-ltd-v-federal-republic-of-nigeria-final-award-monday-1st-march-2021#decision_17721。
[8] https://jusmundi.com/fr/document/decision/en-zhongshan-fucheng-industrial-investment-co-ltd-v-federal-republic-of-nigeria-ex-parte-enforcement-order-of-the-commercial-court-of-england-and-wales-tuesday-21st-december-2021#decision_52973。
[9] Sovereign Immunity from Execution (in Enforcement)，https://jusmundi.com/en/document/publication/en-sovereign-inmunity-from-execution-in-enforcement?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3Dsovereign%2520immunity%26page%3D1%26lang%3Den%26document-types%5B0%5D%3Dpublication&contents%5b0%5d=en。
[10] 注：“中山富誠”為“珠海公司”子公司，“中富公司”為“中山富誠”在奈及利亞創立的當地企業。
[11] Final Award between ZHONGDHSN FUCHENG INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CO. LTD. And THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA，https://jusmundi.com/fr/document/decision/en-zhongshan-fucheng-industrial-investment-co-ltd-v-federal-republic-of-nigeria-final-award-monday-1st-march-2021#decision_17721。
[12] 新加坡國際仲裁中心，https://jusconnect.com/en/d/profile/institution/en-siac-singapore-international-arbitration-centre。
[13] Judgment of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales [2024] EWHC 1503，https://jusmundi.com/fr/document/decision/en-zhongshan-fucheng-industrial-investment-co-ltd-v-federal-republic-of-nigeria-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2024-ewhc-1503-friday-14th-june-2024#decision_65594。
[14] State Immunity Act 1978，https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/33。
[15] Judgment of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales [2024] EWHC 1503，[paras.38-56]，https://jusmundi.com/fr/document/decision/en-zhongshan-fucheng-industrial-investment-co-ltd-v-federal-republic-of-nigeria-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-justice-of-england-and-wales-2024-ewhc-1503-friday-14th-june-2024#decision_65594。
[16] State Immunity Act 1978, Article 13.4, Other procedural privileges, “(4)Subsection (2)(b) above does not prevent the issue of any process in respect of property which is for the time being in use or intended for use for commercial purposes; but, in a case not falling within section 10 above, this subsection applies to property of a State party to the European Convention on State Immunity only if—(a)the process is for enforcing a judgment which is final within the meaning of section 18(1)(b) below and the State has made a declaration under Article 24 of the Convention; or (b)the process is for enforcing an arbitration award.” https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/33。
[17] TRENDTEX TRADING CORPORATION v. CENTRAL RANK OF NIGERIA，[1977] 2 W.L.R. 356,
https://uniset.ca/other/css/19772WLR356.html。
[18] NAT. AM. CORP. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 420 F. Supp. 954 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)，https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/420/954/1738924/
[19] IPITRADE INTERN. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 465 F. Supp. 824 (D.D.C. 1978)，https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/465/824/1420686/。
[20] https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/。
[21] Decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit，https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-process-and-industrial-developments-ltd-v-the-ministry-of-petroleum-resources-of-the-federal-republic-of-nigeria-decision-of-the-united-states-court-of-appeals-for-the-district-of-columbia-circuit-friday-19th-june-2020#decision_11628。