Interpretation, Revision and Annulment of the Award
(1) Either party may request annulment of the award by an application in writing addressed to the Secretary General on one or more of the following grounds:
(a) that the Tribunal was not properly constituted:
(b) that the Tribunal has manifestly exceeded its powers:
(c) that there was corruption on the part of a member of the Tribunal;
(d) that there has been a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure; or
(e) that the award has failed to state the reasons on which it is based.
(3) On receipt of the request the Chairman shall forthw ith appoint from the Panel of Arbitrators an ad hoc Committee of three persons.... The Committee shall have the authority to annul the award or any part thereof on any of the grounds set forth in paragraph (1).
(5) The Committee may, if it considers that the circumstances so require, stay enforcement of the award pending its decision. If the applicant requests a stay of enforcement of the aw ard in his application, enforcement shall be stayed provisionally until the Committee rules on such request.
Recognition and Enforcement of the Award
(1) The aw ard shall be binding on the parties and shall not be subject to any appeal or to any other remedy except those provided for in this Convention. Each party shall abide by and comply with the terms of the award except to the extent that enforcement shall have been stayed pursuant to the relevant provisions of this Convention.
(2) For the purposes of this Section, "award" shall include any decision interpreting, revising or annulling such aw ard pursuant to Articles 50, 51 or 52.
(1) Each Contracting State shall recognize an award rendered pursuant to this Convention as binding and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award within its territories as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State. A Contracting State with a federal constitution may enforce such an aw ard in or through its federal courts and may provide that such courts shall treat the award as if it were a final judgment of the courts of a constituent state.
Nothing in Article 54 shall be construed as derogating from the law in force in any Contracting State relating to immunity of that State or of any foreign State from execution.
9 General immunity from jurisdiction
Except as provided by or under this Act, a foreign State is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of Australia in a proceeding.
10 Submission to jurisdiction
(1) A foreign State is not immune in a proceeding in which it has submitted to the jurisdiction in accordance with this section.
(6) Subject to subsections (7), (8) and (9), a foreign State may submit to the jurisdiction in a proceeding by:
(a) instituting the proceeding; or
(b) intervening in, or taking a step as a party to, the proceeding.
(7) A foreign State shall not be taken to have submitted to the jurisdiction in a proceeding by reason only that:
(a) it has made an application for costs; or
(b) it has intervened, or has taken a step, in the proceeding for the purpose or in the course of asserting immunity.
38 Power to set aside process etc.
Where, on the application of a foreign State or a separate entity of a foreign State, a court is satisfied that a judgment, order or process of the court made or issued in a proceeding with respect to the foreign State or entity is inconsistent with an immunity conferred by or under this Act, the court shall set aside the judgment, order or process so far as it is so inconsistent.
... in s 9 and elsewhere in the Act the term "jurisdiction" is used not to identify the subject matter of a proceeding, but the amenability of a defendant to the process of Australian courts. The notion expressed by the term "immunity" is that the Australian courts are not to implead the foreign State, that is to say, will not by their process make the foreign State against its will a party to a legal proceeding. Thus, the immunity may be understood as a freedom from liability to the imposition of duties by the process of Australian courts.
 If the foreign State or separate entity has appeared and waived any immunity, or has asserted its immunity, the issue of immunity will have either disappeared or fallen for adjudication. If there is no appearance, then it will be for the court to be satisfied under s 27 as to the absence of immunity before entry of any default judgment which is sought. It is not a correct construction of the Act that even without an application under s 38 to set aside service, or an application under s 27 for a default judgment, the court must of its own motion satisfy itself that the defendant could not establish immunity.
 In my opinion, s 9 is intended to have effect prior to the purported exercise of a jurisdiction to which it is addressed. In the usual case, the issue of jurisdiction should be detennined as a preliminary matter. (See [...])
 Where s 9 applies a court is deprived of jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. Section 9 has effect prior to any "judgment, order or process of the court". Section 9 is, as the Attorney submitted, self-executing.
 Nothing in s 38 impliedly, let alone expressly, suggests that it is the sole mechanism for dealing with the issue of jurisdiction. In its terms, s 38 indicates that it is not. It applies only when there has been a "judgment, order or process" which is "inconsistent with an immunity" under the Act. The peremptory terms of s 9. and the whole of Pt II of the Act, suggest that the protection of s 9 is intended to apply in limine and not only after a "judgment, order or process" has issued from the court.
 This conclusion is, in my opinion, reinforced by a purpose of the legislative scheme, one of which is to prevent foreign states from being subject to the necessity to participate in proceedings at any stage. That is one reason why s 9 is directed to the jurisdiction of the courts, rather than to the powers of the courts. Imposing a necessity on a foreign state to contest the issue of immunity in all circumstances is inconsistent with the attainment of that object.
 A further, alternative, reason for rejecting the appellant’s contentions is that there is a long line of authority that a court must satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction, whether or not a jurisdictional issue is raised by a party.
Already registered ?