Editing Sovereign immunity (section)

=== China ===
{{Update section|date=February 2024|reason=Major policy change upon the [[zh:中华人民共和国外国国家豁免法|Foreign state immunity law of the People's Republic of China]]|inaccurate=yes}}
China has consistently claimed that a basic principle of international law is for states and their property to have absolute sovereign immunity. China objects to restrictive sovereign immunity. It is held that a state can waive its immunity by voluntarily stating so, but that should a government intervene in a suit (e.g. to make protests), it should not be viewed as waiver of immunity.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://article.chinalawinfo.com/ArticleFullText.aspx?ArticleId=94477|title=主权豁免的中国立场|last=何|first=志鹏}}</ref> Chinese state-owned companies considered instrumental to the state have claimed sovereign immunity in lawsuits brought against them in foreign courts before. China's view is that sovereign immunity is a lawful right and interest that their enterprises are entitled to protect.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2511_665403/t1362394.shtml|title=Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang's Regular Press Conference on May 11, 2016|website=Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China}}</ref> Some examples of Chinese state-owned companies that have claimed sovereign immunity in foreign lawsuits are the [[Aviation Industry Corporation of China|Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC)]] and [[China National Building Material]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-12/chinese-state-owned-firms-claim-sovereign-immunity-in-us-court/7408514|title=Chinese state-owned firms claim 'sovereign immunity' in US courts with foreign ministry's backing|newspaper=ABC News|date=12 May 2016}}</ref>

In 2023, China's national legislature – the [[Standing Committee of the National People's Congress]] – passed the Foreign State Immunity Law, which changed China's sovereign immunity regime to a restrictive one.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title=The Law of the People's Republic of China on Foreign State Immunity |url=http://en.npc.gov.cn.cdurl.cn/2023-09/01/c_924629.htm |access-date=2024-12-19 |website=en.npc.gov.cn.cdurl.cn}}</ref>

==== Hong Kong ====
In 2011, the [[Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal]] ruled that absolute sovereign immunity applies in Hong Kong, as the Court found that Hong Kong, as a [[Special administrative regions of China|Special Administrative Region]] of China, could not have policies on state immunity that were inconsistent with China. The ruling was an outcome of the ''Democratic Republic of the Congo v FG Hemisphere Associates'' case in 2011.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.legalbusinessonline.com/news-analysis/case-analysis-democratic-republic-congo-and-ors-v-fg-hemisphere-associates-llc/64049|title=Case analysis: Democratic Republic of Congo and Ors v FG Hemisphere Associates LLC|last=Crossley|first=Kathryn|date=17 June 2011}}</ref> 

In 2023, China's national legislature – the [[Standing Committee of the National People's Congress]] – passed the Foreign State Immunity Law, which changed China's sovereign immunity regime to a restrictive one.<ref name=":1" /> In accordance with the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal's decision in ''Congo'' and the NPCSC's corresponding interpretation of the Basic Law in 2011, the new national law applies in Hong Kong, even though it has yet to be formally applied to Hong Kong through Annex III of the Basic Law. As such, restrictive immunity applies in Hong Kong.<ref>{{Cite web |title=A New Era: Foreign State Immunity in the PRC and Hong Kong |url=https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/insights/reports/inside-arbitration/a-new-era-foreign-state-immunity-in-the-prc-and-hong-kong |access-date=2024-12-19 |website=Herbert Smith Freehills {{!}} Global law firm |language=en}}</ref>

===== ''Democratic Republic of the Congo v FG Hemisphere Associates'' (2011) =====
The Democratic Republic of the Congo and its state-owned electricity company {{lang|fr|[[Société nationale d'électricité]]}} (SNEL) defaulted on payments of a debt owed to an energy company, [[Energoinvest]]. During arbitration, Energoinvest was awarded damages against the Congolese government and SNEL. This was reassigned by Energoinvest to FG Hemisphere Associates LLC.

FG Hemisphere subsequently learned that the Congolese government entered into a separate joint venture with Chinese companies later, in which the Congolese government would be paid US$221 million in mining entry fees. As a result, FG Hemisphere applied to collect these fees in order to enforce the earlier arbitral award. The Congolese government asserted sovereign immunity in the legal proceedings. This was eventually brought to the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, when the Congolese government fought to overturn an earlier Court of Appeal decision which had ruled that:
* as restrictive sovereign immunity applied in Hong Kong, the Congolese government had no immunity in commercial proceedings. 
* if absolute sovereign immunity had applied in Hong Kong, the Congolese government had waived their sovereign immunity rights in this case.

The [[Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal]] ruled 3:2 that the Congolese government had not waived its immunity in the Hong Kong courts, and that as a Special Administrative Region of China, Hong Kong could not have policies on state immunity that were inconsistent with China's. Therefore, the doctrine of sovereign immunity applied in Hong Kong should be absolute, and may be invoked when jurisdiction is sought in the foreign court in relation to an application to enforce a foreign judgment or arbitral award, or when execution is sought against assets in the foreign state. This means that sovereign states are absolutely immune to the jurisdiction of Hong Kong courts, including in commercial claims, unless the state waives its immunity. In order to waive immunity, there must be express, unequivocal submission to the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong courts "in the face of the court". Claimants should establish that the state party has waived their entitlement to immunity at the relevant stage, before proceedings can occur in court.