Enforcement abroad, exposure at home — four research notes
Working research · verify all citations before filing
Four connected but distinct questions. The first asks whether an ICSID award can actually be turned into money — assets seized or frozen — against a recalcitrant State, across national immunity regimes. The second is the detailed casebook on Energy Charter Treaty awards against Spain, Italy and Romania, and why confirmation has not yet produced payment. The third turns the lens round: Ireland as respondent — its first treaty claim, the twenty-year sunset tail, and what section 25A does and does not protect against. The fourth goes to the root of section 25A: whether ratifying CETA breaches the Constitution at all, argued both ways from Costello.
Can a creditor holding an ICSID award actually take a State's assets abroad — seize or freeze them — rather than merely have the award recognised? A cross-jurisdiction survey of the law that permits seizure and the cases where seizure or freezing actually happened.
Organised by jurisdiction — United States, United Kingdom and France, then Belgium, Germany and Sweden, with Switzerland and Hong Kong. Built around the recognition/execution distinction and the four routes by which seizure has actually succeeded: the commercial-use exception, the State’s consent, alter-ego attachment, and freezing a commercial payment channel.
Open note 01 ›The detailed casebook: eighteen intra-EU ICSID awards under the Energy Charter Treaty against Spain, Italy and Romania — recognition granted everywhere outside the EU, yet no creditor paid by Spain or Italy.
Judgment and execution summaries, the Why Enforcement Failed analysis, the RDL 17/2019 settlement route, Ireland's emerging exposure (Lansdowne, ARB/26/21), and the 12 May 2026 authorisation of execution against Spain.
Open note 02 ›The State on the receiving end: Ireland's first-ever investment-treaty claim (Lansdowne, ARB/26/21), three undisclosed ECT notices, and why withdrawal from the Treaty starts a twenty-year tail rather than ending exposure.
Section 25A's double edge after Costello — a shield built for the wrong threat that places Ireland on the Luxembourg side of the Art 54 conflict — and where a creditor would look, including the Eurocontrol route that bites harder on Ireland than on Spain.
Open note 03 ›Does ratifying the EU–Canada agreement breach the Irish Constitution? Costello v Government of Ireland [2022] IESC 44 argued both ways, with paragraph pinpoints to all seven judgments: the case that it does, and the case that it does not.
How the Court split on each question, what the Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2026 does and does not cure, and a short assessment of where the balance now lies — with the residual risks ranked.
Open note 04 ›