Sovereign immunity of central bank assets

Sovereign immunity of central-bank assets is the legal protection that can prevent foreign central-bank property from being attached or executed against in another state's courts. It is central to the debate over immobilised Russian reserves, but immunity is only one part of that debate. Jurisdiction, property title, sanctions authority, countermeasures, international obligations and the distinction between principal and generated revenue must be analysed separately.

Legal structure

Immunity from adjudication and immunity from execution are distinct, with execution commonly receiving stronger protection. Section 1611(b)(1) of the United States Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act protects property of a foreign central bank or monetary authority held for its own account from attachment and execution, subject to specified waiver. Section 14(4) of the United Kingdom State Immunity Act 1978 treats central-bank property as non-commercial for Part I of that Act.

Article 21(1)(c) of the 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities lists central-bank property among categories not treated as property specifically in use or intended for commercial purposes for post-judgment constraint. The Convention had not entered into force by 29 July 2026. Its provisions can inform arguments about customary law, but their customary status and exact scope must be established rather than assumed.

Freezing, revenues and confiscation

Sanctions immobilisation generally prevents transactions while leaving title with the owner. Confiscation, vesting or execution transfers or applies property and raises a different legal question. A further distinction separates the underlying central-bank assets from extraordinary revenues arising in central securities depositories because of immobilisation.

The European Union first required relevant depositories to separate extraordinary cash balances and net profits, then channelled specified net profits to support Ukraine. In December 2025 it adopted a temporary prohibition on transferring immobilised Central Bank of Russia assets back to Russia. These measures do not amount to a general EU confiscation of the reserve principal.

Litigation and uncertainty

In Bank Markazi v Peterson (2016), the United States Supreme Court upheld a specific federal statute making identified assets available to satisfy judgments. The case does not establish a universal exception for central-bank property. In Certain Iranian Assets (2023), the International Court of Justice held that Bank Markazi was not a protected company for the relevant Treaty of Amity claims. It did not decide the separate customary immunity question.

The unresolved policy issue is whether and how a legislature or executive may override, avoid or answer immunity objections outside ordinary court execution. Reserve-system effects also matter. Weakening protection may create immediate funding options while encouraging diversification of custody, currency and settlement exposure.

Claims must identify the asset, owner, custodian, governing law and proposed act. Blocking a transaction, segregating a cash balance, taxing or contributing a depository's profit, pledging revenue to service a loan, attaching principal for a creditor and vesting title in the state are not interchangeable. Each engages a different chain of property, immunity and public-law questions.

See also

Central-bank reserve immobilisation and confiscation · Coalition immobilisation of Central Bank of Russia reserves (2022-present) · Third-party countermeasures · ICJ Certain Iranian Assets (2023) · Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (United States, 1976) · Euroclear

Sources

1. United States Code, 28 USC 1611, checked 29 July 2026.
2. United Kingdom, State Immunity Act 1978, section 14, checked 29 July 2026.
3. United Nations, Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 2 December 2004, Article 21.
4. United States Supreme Court, *Bank Markazi v Peterson*, 578 US 212 (2016), United States Reports text hosted by the Library of Congress.
5. International Court of Justice, *Certain Iranian Assets*, judgment, 30 March 2023.
6. Council Regulation (EU) 2024/1469, Official Journal text, 21 May 2024, governing separate cash balances and the contribution made from specified net profits of central securities depositories.
7. Council Regulation (EU) 2025/2600, Official Journal text, 12 December 2025, imposing a temporary prohibition on transfers of immobilised Central Bank of Russia assets back to Russia.