Investment arbitration under investment treaties between EU member states is a hot topic, in particular given the EU Commission’s strong views on the subject: As previously discussed here, the Commission has intervened in arbitrations in support of the position that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute. One such matter was Eureko v….

and Rapolas Kasparavičius, LAWIN An abundant number of agreements have been and will be concluded between states and investors operating under the bilateral investment regime and even a larger number of negotiations will fail before reaching the final stage of signature. An investor may spend large sums of money with the aim of concluding an…

Foreword For centuries people have searched for the formula which may give them more gold. It may turn out that some investors have found it. As it will be explained, indirect investments through a chain of intermediary companies hides the risk of multiplication of claims and double recovery. But not according to the tribunal in…

The recent Rompetrol Group NV v Romania award provides rare guidance as to the requirements to be satisfied for a successful treaty claim arising from State conduct against individual company officers rather than the claimant investor itself. The investor claimed, inter alia, that the arrest, detention, criminal investigations and wire-tapping of its directors constituted State-sponsored…

and Oleg Temnikov I. Bureau Veritas v. Republic of Paraguay In the recent Further decision on objections to jurisdiction dated October 9, 2012 the tribunal in Bureau Veritas, Inspection, Valuation, Assessment and Control, BIVAC B.V. v. Paraguay (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/9) dismissed BIVAC’s claim based on violation of the fair and equitable standard by reasoning…

In Part I it was argued that the proper law applicable in the investor-State disputes under Article 42 (1) ICSID Convention depends on the substantive grounds of the investor’s claim. In support of this, I have outlined three factual scenarios and types of claims with evidence from case law. Part I dealt with host State…

Rationalizing applicable law in investor-State disputes in absence of express choice of law under Article 42 (1) of ICSID Convention PART I Article 42 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention) determines the powers of an arbitral tribunal constituted under the ICSID Convention as…

and Oleg Temnikov There is a Taoist fable of the three stupid men who were traveling together from one village to the next. They rested for the night under a banyan tree. In the morning, it turned out that the travelers have forgotten whose shoes are whose. Because none of the three men was able…

On February 6, 2013, Achmea (a Dutch insurer, better known by its former name, Eureko) initiated UNCITRAL arbitration proceedings against the Slovak Republic on the basis of the Agreement on encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (the “Netherlands-Slovakia BIT“) [The Agreement on…

Akbar the Great once drew with his royal hand a line in the sand. He then told his wise men that if they wanted to keep their jobs, they must invent a way to make the line shorter without touching any part of it. Wise man after wise man approached the line and stood in…

In recent years, African states have taken several initiatives to increase the protection of and legal security offered to foreign investors. However, a lot of work is unfinished and some of it is even frustrated. Some examples. Bilateral Investment Treaties Bilateral investment treaties (‘BITs’) are critical to foreign investors considering investing in Africa. Such BITs…

by Inna Uchkunova and Oleg Temnikov Foreword “The whole exercise was great fun and for me, I was then 26 years old, a great eye-opener – I learned a lot.” – Sir Elihu Lauterpacht on his advice given to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. in 1954, on which occasion it emerged the idea that “any contract…

By Tai-Heng Cheng* & Lucas Bento** Introduction On October 5th, 2012, a split ICSID tribunal determined that the Republic of Ecuador had breached the US-Ecuador bilateral investment treaty (“BIT”), and awarded damages of US$1.77 billion (US$2.3 billion with interest applied), reportedly the largest award ever to have been issued by an ICSID tribunal. This award…

Two major events have taken place recently regarding the situation of Bilateral Investment Treaties concluded between European Member States (“Intra-EU BITs”) and Bilateral Investment Treaties concluded between an European Member State and a State not Member of the EU (“Extra-EU BITs”). The fate of these agreements was surrounded up until now by a veil of…

Whereas cases of direct expropriation have become relatively rare in international investment arbitration and claims of breach of fair and equitable treatment obligation or indirect expropriation are currently more common, the profile of respondents in ICSID arbitration proceedings has also changed. However, if both investors and host governments are likely to agree that States may…

The problem of the law applicable to State contracts (i.e. contracts concluded between a foreign national and a State or a state entity) as well as the responsibility of States for the breach of these contracts has entertained the minds of scholars and practitioners ever since the famous PCIJ dictum in the 1929 Serbian Loans…

“Research is formalized curiosity…” – Z. Hurston In what follows I have tried to gather information from publicly available sources regarding some of the questions which have troubled my mind lately. It is hoped that the results would be of interest to the readers. For me, this proved to be one of my most exciting…

In August 2011, the tribunal in Abaclat and others v Argentina decided (by a majority) that it had jurisdiction over claims brought by approximately 60,000 Italian investors, and that the claims were admissible.[1] The Italian investors claim that Argentina has breached its obligations under the Argentina-Italy bilateral investment treaty (BIT) when it defaulted on and…

The saga with Yukos Oil and its nationalization – and the effects on its various related entities – has been ongoing for quite some time. As reported in the news of late (see e.g. Business Wire.com and Cisarbitration.com), in late July an arbitral award was rendered under the auspices of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce….

With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009, control of foreign direct investment became an exclusive area of EU competence, or such is the view of the European Commission, a view which is not shared by all EU member States. Since that time, the Commission has embarked upon what it…

Investment treaty provisions that allow joint decisions by States Parties to override or control arbitral tribunals’ interpretations of investment treaty standards scarcely appear in international investment agreements. The recently released 2012 United States Model BIT is a rare example. The 2012 version carried over Article 30(3) of the 2004 United States Model BIT, enabling States…

I have just published an article in the Utah Law Review that I wanted to flag for our readers. For the international arbitration community the article is relevant because it compares and contrasts the self-judging WTO security exception with non-self-judging emergency exceptions in various BITs. The focus of the Article is on the WTO security…

After a review process that lasted three years, expectations ran high for the revised model U.S. bilateral investment treaty (“BIT”), which was released last month. Stakeholders from many parts of society — the U.S. Congress, environmental organizations, labor groups, business groups, trade associations, academia, the public, and investment experts — weighed in during the review…