📖 Reading time: 5 minutes
There’s something quietly remarkable about watching international law hold firm. Not in theory—in seminars or policy white papers—but in actual practice, with real consequences. You don’t often see state-backed entities face the music in foreign courts. And yet, in February 2025, that’s exactly what happened in Amsterdam.
A Dutch company, Mammoet Salvage B.V., won a hard-fought legal battle against Iraq’s state-owned Basra Oil Company (BOC). The Amsterdam Court of Appeal, in no uncertain terms, enforced a nearly $48 million arbitration award under the New York Convention.
For many, it might have sounded procedural, even a little arcane. But look closer—it was anything but.
This was a moment where law pushed back against power. Not to humiliate or punish, but to insist: a deal is a deal. Even when one side is a government.
A Sunken Ship and the Contract That Followed It
Let’s rewind. Back in 2013, Mammoet and BOC entered into a contract for the removal of a sunken vessel from Iraqi territorial waters. The agreement provided for arbitration under the ICC, with proceedings seated in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC).
But the project didn’t go to plan. There were delays. Allegations of interference by the Iraqi Navy surfaced. Payments stalled. By 2018, Mammoet had suspended operations and taken the matter to arbitration.
Three years later, in 2021, the ICC tribunal issued its award: BOC was to pay Mammoet approximately $85 million, with a deduction for partial counterclaims. Net result? Roughly $48 million owed to the Dutch firm (Daily Jus, 2025).
It could have ended there. It didn’t.
The Battle Moves to the Courts
BOC challenged the award before the DIFC courts, hoping to set it aside. That didn’t work. In January 2025, the DIFC Court of Appeal upheld the award, concluding that the tribunal had stayed within its mandate and respected the procedural rules both parties had signed up for (Jus Mundi, 2025).
Still undeterred, Mammoet then sought enforcement in the Netherlands—where, crucially, BOC was believed to have commercial assets. That step would trigger the ruling that’s now drawing international attention.
Three Defences, All Dismissed
On 11 February 2025, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal handed down its judgment. BOC had raised three objections—each well-trodden in international arbitration, but each, in this case, ultimately unsuccessful.
1. Excess of Jurisdiction
First, BOC claimed the tribunal had overstepped—especially in addressing military interference, which, they argued, fell squarely within sovereign prerogatives. But the Dutch court didn’t buy it. The arbitration, it said, dealt primarily with contractual obligations, not acts of state (Global Arbitration Review, 2025).
2. Public Policy
Next, BOC raised the ever-flexible shield of public policy. Allegations of corruption, procedural irregularities, and broader unfairness were all invoked. The court, however, pushed back—firmly.
Yes, public policy is a recognised ground under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention. But it’s also narrowly construed. Dutch courts, like many others in Europe, will only refuse enforcement if there’s a serious breach of fundamental fairness—not just an unsatisfying outcome (Daily Jus, 2025).
And here?
- The tribunal had already dealt with the allegations during the hearings.
- BOC had, in fact, partially succeeded in its counterclaims.
- No compelling evidence of procedural injustice was presented.
3. Sovereign Immunity
Finally, BOC turned to sovereign immunity. A more principled objection, at least on the surface. But again, the court was unmoved.
It applied the restrictive theory of state immunity: when states or their entities act commercially (jure gestionis), they are not shielded by sovereign protections. BOC had entered into a commercial contract. Immunity didn’t apply (Slaughter & May, 2025).
The New York Convention: A Framework Holds Firm
The ruling reflects the strength and clarity of the New York Convention (1958)—an international treaty that has endured for over six decades, and for good reason. Article V outlines limited, procedural grounds for refusing enforcement:
- Invalid arbitration agreement (Art. V(1)(a))
- Improper notice (Art. V(1)(b))
- Award exceeded scope (Art. V(1)(c))
- Tribunal not properly constituted (Art. V(1)(d))
- Award not binding or annulled (Art. V(1)(e))
- Violation of public policy (Art. V(2)(b))
But courts cannot review errors of law or fact. The Amsterdam Court respected this limit (Guide to New York Convention, 2023).
Why This Case Resonates
On the surface, Mammoet v BOC is about a sunken ship. But underneath, it’s about something larger: the accountability of state-linked actors in commercial disputes.
The decision matters because:
- Foreign investors often contract with state entities in high-risk environments.
- Enforcement of arbitral awards is critical to commercial confidence.
- Courts that stand firm on treaty principles signal legal reliability.
This ruling shows that arbitration isn’t a hollow promise. Not in Amsterdam, at least.
Public Policy: Not a Loophole for the Losing Party
There’s always a temptation—after losing an arbitration—to argue that something just didn’t feel right. That the tribunal misunderstood, or that procedural quirks made the outcome unjust. But courts are increasingly skeptical.
As this ruling shows, public policy defences require clear, specific evidence of fundamental unfairness, not vague dissatisfaction (Mondaq, 2024).
A Quiet Affirmation of Legal Order
What makes this case powerful is its normalcy. The court didn’t grandstand. It didn’t politicize. It applied treaty law, tested the objections, and ruled accordingly.
In doing so, it delivered a message:
State ownership does not equal immunity. A commercial contract is still a contract.
Conclusion: When Law Meets Sovereignty
The Mammoet ruling isn’t revolutionary. But it is important. It reinforces the idea that international arbitration still works, even when one party wears a sovereign badge.
Yes, enforcement paths can be uneven. But in rule-of-law jurisdictions, the road remains open. For investors, contractors, and practitioners alike, that offers a measure of certainty worth remembering.
References
-
Daily Jus (2025) ‘Amsterdam Court of Appeal Grants Enforcement of ICC Award Against Iraqi State Oil Company’, Arbitration Aftermath, 13 March. Available at (Accessed: 15 March 2025).
-
Global Arbitration Review (2025) ‘Dutch court enforces against Iraqi state entity’, 4 March. Available at (Accessed: 15 March 2025).
-
Guide to New York Convention (2023) Article V – Grounds to Refuse Recognition and Enforcement. Available at (Accessed: 15 March 2025).
-
Jus Mundi (2025) Mammoet Salvage BV v Basra Oil Company BOC – DIFC Court Appeal Decision, 27 January. Available at (Accessed: 15 March 2025).
-
Mondaq (2024) An Appraisal of the Defence of Sovereign Immunity in the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 15 May. Available at (Accessed: 15 March 2025).
-
Slaughter & May (2025) ‘Enforcement of Awards Against States: Exceptions to State Immunity’, 1 May. Available at (Accessed: 15 March 2025).
-
UNCITRAL (1958) Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York). Available at (Accessed: 15 March 2025).