Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

Qatar National Bank v. South Sudan and Bank of South Sudan, Memorandum Opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, July 22, 2026

22 Jul 2026
Qatar National Bank (Q.P.S.C.) v. Republic of South Sudan and Bank of South Sudan, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/40
View case details
Memorandum Opinion of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Memorandum Opinion of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Timothy J. Kelly
Claimant's counsel
Jovana Crncevic
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Entities
South Sudan, Bank of South Sudan
Country
United States
Print reporter
Document Summary
Memorandum Opinion of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Posture

This Memorandum Opinion, issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, addresses cross-motions in a proceeding initiated by Qatar National Bank (QNB) to enforce a May 2024 ICSID arbitral award against the Republic of South Sudan and the Bank of South Sudan (BOSS). Following South Sudan’s failure to appear, QNB moved for default judgment against the State, while simultaneously moving for summary judgment against BOSS. BOSS cross-moved for summary judgment, challenging the enforceability of the award on jurisdictional and public policy grounds.

Jurisdiction and the FSIA

The Court first confirmed its subject-matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Applying the arbitral award exception (28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6)), the Court held that South Sudan and BOSS were not entitled to sovereign immunity because the award was rendered pursuant to the ICSID Convention, a treaty in force for the United States that expressly calls for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. The Court further confirmed personal jurisdiction, finding that QNB had strictly adhered to the service requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1608 by effectuating service via DHL to the respective foreign ministries and agencies.

Scope of Review and Tribunal's Jurisdiction

In evaluating BOSS’s defenses, the Court emphasized the exceptionally narrow scope of judicial review afforded to ICSID awards under the implementing legislation (22 U.S.C. § 1650a). BOSS argued that the ICSID tribunal lacked jurisdiction, asserting that QNB functioned as a state entity rather than a national of a Contracting State, and that BOSS had not been properly designated to ICSID. The Court rejected these collateral attacks, finding that the tribunal had fully and fairly litigated its own jurisdiction over a comprehensive briefing and hearing process. Relying on principles of jurisdictional finality and res judicata, the Court declined to disturb the tribunal's 107-page jurisdictional determination.

Decision and Operative Relief

The Court also dismissed BOSS’s allegations of corruption, ruling that such claims must be addressed through ICSID’s internal annulment procedures rather than during domestic enforcement proceedings. Concluding that the award was authentic and binding, the Court granted QNB’s motions for default judgment against South Sudan and summary judgment against BOSS, thereby enforcing the pecuniary obligations of the ICSID award.