DORALEH CONTAINER TERMINAL SA v. REPUBLIC OF DJIBOUTI, 656 F.Supp.3d 223

Background

DCT is a joint venture (Port de Djibouti SA and DP World) formed by statute to operate the Doraleh container terminal under a 2006 Concession Agreement granting exclusivity and LCIA arbitration for disputes.
Djibouti initiated LCIA arbitration in 2014 seeking rescission for alleged corruption; the tribunal in 2017 rejected rescission and awarded costs; further counterclaims by DCT were stayed and later heard in 2018–2019.
Djibouti enacted a 2017 law to renegotiate/terminate "strategic" contracts; the President issued decrees purporting to terminate the Concession and Djibouti seized the terminal; Djiboutian courts appointed a provisional administrator for DCT.
The LCIA tribunal proceeded in November 2018 without Djibouti’s appearance, rejected a stay request, and issued Third and Fourth Partial Awards in 2019 awarding DCT roughly $486 million (exclusive of some interest).
DCT filed to confirm the awards in D.D.C. in 2020; Djibouti contested jurisdiction and raised Article V defenses under the New York Convention; the Court heard argument January 26, 2023 and confirmed the awards.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject‑matter jurisdiction under FSIA/FAA	DCT: Court has jurisdiction because New York Convention (9 U.S.C. §203) supplies federal-question jurisdiction and Djibouti waived immunity by litigating.	Djibouti: §207 limits confirmation to a “party to the arbitration” and DCT lacked authority/standing; sovereign immunity blocks jurisdiction.	Court: Jurisdiction exists—Djibouti impliedly waived FSIA immunity by participating; New York Convention supplies jurisdiction; DCT was a party to the arbitration.
Whether §207/party status/standing bars confirmation	DCT: It was a named party in the arbitration and thus may petition under §207; it has standing.	Djibouti: Provisional administrator lacked approval; DCT not a proper “party to the arbitration” so §207/jurisdiction and standing fail.	Court: §207 is not a jurisdictional bar here; DCT participated and was represented in arbitration, so it meets §207/standing.
Article V(1)(b) — lack of proper notice to Djibouti	DCT: Djibouti had actual notice and opportunities to participate; counsel contacted tribunal and failed to engage.	Djibouti: Tribunal resumed proceedings and heard counterclaims without notifying Djibouti, denying due process.	Court: Rejected — Djibouti had actual notice, chose not to participate, and had opportunities to be heard; any forfeiture was self‑inflicted.
Article V(2)(b) — U.S. public policy bar	DCT: Award is purely monetary compensation for breach and does not threaten U.S. public policy.	Djibouti: Enforcement would interfere with sovereignty/control over port and thus violate public policy.	Court: Rejected — narrow public‑policy defense in D.C. Circuit applies only to fundamental notions of justice; monetary relief does not violate U.S. public policy.

Key Cases Cited

Diag Human, S.E. v. Czech Republic–Ministry of Health, 824 F.3d 131 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (framework requiring both enforcement basis and no sovereign immunity for jurisdiction over foreign‑state award enforcement)
Foremost–McKesson, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 905 F.2d 438 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (implied waiver of sovereign immunity by a foreign state participating in litigation)
Verlinden B.V. v. Cent. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480 (U.S. 1983) (court must ensure an FSIA exception applies before exercising jurisdiction over a foreign state)
Tatneft v. Ukraine, 21 F.4th 829 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (New York Convention generally requires U.S. courts to enforce international arbitral awards)
TermoRio S.A. E.S.P. v. Electranta S.P., 487 F.3d 928 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (courts may refuse enforcement only on narrow Article V grounds)
United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (U.S. 2010) (actual notice satisfies due‑process notice requirements)
Kurke v. Oscar Gruss & Son, Inc., 454 F.3d 350 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (judicial review of arbitral awards is extremely limited)