Sovereignty Cannot Become a License to Defy Arbitration -By Fransiscus Nanga Roka

When a state, owned corporation signs a commercial contract, loses an international arbitration and then invokes sovereignty to resist payment, the dispute stops being merely contractual. It becomes a test of whether international law restrains state power or merely decorates it.

That is the significance of Devas Multimedia v. Antrix Corporation, a satellite dispute now worth more than $1 billion with accumulated interest.

The who involves Devas, an Indian multimedia company backed by foreign investors, and Antrix, the commercial arm of India’s space agency, ISRO. The what is enforcement of a $562.5 million International Chamber of Commerce award. The when began with a 2005 satellite agreement, collapsed after its 2011 termination and reached a decisive American appellate stage on August 12, 2026. The where spans India, arbitral proceedings and US federal courts. The why is Antrix’s cancellation of a deal granting Devas S-band satellite capacity. The how now concerns the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the New York Convention and the hunt for commercial assets.

India characterized the cancellation as compelled by national policy and security considerations. The arbitral tribunal rejected Antrix’s contractual justification and awarded Devas $562.5 million in 2015. India later liquidated Devas for alleged fraud, while Indian courts set aside the award. What followed was not ordinary enforcement—it was transnational legal warfare.

Antrix argued that American courts lacked personal jurisdiction because this overwhelmingly Indian dispute had insufficient US “minimum contacts.” In June 2025, the US Supreme Court unanimously demolished that argument: when an FSIA exception applies and service is proper, the statute does not impose an additional minimum-contacts requirement.

On remand, the Ninth Circuit went further. It held that the FSIA’s arbitration exception supplied jurisdiction and that exercising jurisdiction was constitutionally reasonable. Antrix was a sophisticated state-owned commercial actor; India had joined the New York Convention; and the contract contemplated entry of an award in any competent court.

Most significantly, the court rejected forum non conveniens. Article V of the New York Convention lists the grounds for refusing enforcement; geographic inconvenience is not among them. Allowing judges to invent an additional escape hatch would transform a binding treaty into optional diplomacy. The decision aligns the Ninth Circuit with the DC Circuit but conflicts with the Second Circuit’s more permissive approach, inviting strategic forum selection until the Supreme Court or Congress resolves the division.

But triumphalism would be premature. Jurisdiction to confirm an award is not automatic permission to seize every sovereign asset. FSIA execution immunity remains separate: only qualifying commercial property within the United States may potentially be attached. Diplomatic, military and other protected sovereign assets remain insulated.

Nor did the Ninth Circuit erase India’s annulment decisions. It affirmed confirmation and registration for Devas Multimedia America, but remanded questions concerning shareholder standing and the effect of the Indian set-aside proceedings. The central legitimacy conflict therefore survives: should enforcement courts defer to annulment at the arbitral seat when that annulment allegedly reflects state retaliation or compromised justice?

Three reforms are imperative. Congress should clarify the constitutional status of state-owned enterprises under the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court should eliminate the circuit split over forum non conveniens. Courts should also adopt a transparent test for foreign annulments, examining judicial independence, due process, fraud evidence and international public policy not practicing mechanical deference.

States cannot demand that investors trust arbitration, then nationalize the meaning of justice after losing. Sovereignty protects legitimate public authority. It must never become a corporate escape tunnel from freely assumed commercial obligations.

Fransiscus Nanga Roka

Faculty of Law University 17 August 1945 Surabaya and Managing Partner Law Firm Victorious Indonesia