Investment Arbitration

Guatemala, Investment Arbitration, Jurisdictional challenge, Latin America, Legality of the investment

(ECIJA) and / /Leave a comment

In investment arbitration, it is widely recognized that to benefit from the protection of an investment treaty, the investment must be legal. Tribunals assess this legality either because the treaty explicitly mandates it (e.g., Ecuador-Sweden BIT) or because the tribunal assumes this authority even if the treaty is silent (e.g., Worley v. Ecuador). In either…

Investment, Investment Arbitration, Investment Disputes, Investment law, Investment protection, Teaching International Investment Arbitration Series

(Duke University School of Law) and (White & Case LLP)/ /Leave a comment

One could be forgiven for thinking that teaching international economic law in the United States (“U.S.”) is challenging these days. The U.S. has disabled the World Trade Organization’s (“WTO”) Appellate Body. In the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”), the parties (following a transition period) eliminated Investor-State Dispute Settlement (“ISDS”) between the U.S. and Canada and curtailed…

Damages, Experts, Investment Arbitration

(Compass Lexecon)/ /3 Comments

Country Equity Risk Premium (CERP) represents the additional return equity investors require to compensate for the heightened risks of investing in a particular country. These risks may arise from political instability, economic volatility, currency fluctuations, expropriation threats, and weaknesses in the legal and regulatory framework. Each of these risk components can, in principle, be separately…

Expropriation, International Investment Arbitration, International Investment Law, Investment, Investment agreements, Investment Arbitration, Investment Disputes, Investment law, Investment protection, Investment Treaties, Investor-State arbitration, ISDS, Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, Jurisdictional challenge

/ /Leave a comment

The takeover of the Chinese-owned British Steel Limited by the UK Government under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2015 can lead to the submission of a dispute to investment treaty arbitration under the Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People’s Republic…

Investment Arbitration, Investment Disputes, Investor-State arbitration, ISDS, OECD, Tax, Taxation, UN

(HHP Chambers) and (WU (Vienna University of Economics and Business) - Institute for Accounting and Auditing)/ /Leave a comment

Recent amendments to the United Nations (“UN”) Model Tax Convention aim at banning the use of investor-State dispute settlement (“ISDS”) provisions for disputing tax measures, thereby attempting to deal a further blow to international investment agreements (IIAs). The UN Model Tax Convention is regularly updated and was drafted with the aim to cater for the…

DR-CAFTA, Exhaustion of Local Remedies, ICSID Arbitration, ICSID Convention, International Investment Arbitration, International Investment Law, Investment Arbitration, Investment Disputes, Investment law, Investment protection, Investor-State arbitration

(Lewis & Clark Law School)/ /Leave a comment

On February 26, 2025, the Tribunal in Honduras Próspera Inc., et al. v. Republic of Honduras rejected an unprecedented attempt to dismiss investment treaty claims for failure to exhaust local remedies. While respondent states have often contended that claimants should have pursued local remedies for one reason or another, Honduras advanced a novel argument in…

2025 PAW, Arbitrator Selection, Central Asia, Code of Conduct, Independence and Impartiality, Investment Arbitration, ISDS, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mediation and Dispute Management, Paris Arbitration Week, Procedure, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan

(Linklaters; KU Leuven), (Nyenrode University), and (CREDIMI – University of Burgundy)/ /Leave a comment

On Day 3 of the 2025 Paris Arbitration Week (“PAW”), Nyenrode University organized a comprehensive conference, hosted by Linklaters Paris, examining the future of investment arbitration in the five Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan). The event featured a keynote address by Anna Joubin-Bret (UNCITRAL) and welcome remarks from Roland…

Deep Sea Mining, Investment Arbitration, Investment law, UNCLOS

(Laborde Law)/ /Leave a comment

As the world races toward a greener future, demand for critical materials is surging. In this high-stakes hunt for resources, the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction (the “Area”) is increasingly seen as the next “El Dorado”. However, regulations governing its exploitation have yet to be finalized due to mounting environmental concerns, which prompted several stakeholders…

Commercial Arbitration, Contract Interpretation, Investment agreements, Investment Arbitration, Investment Disputes, Investment law, Investment Treaties, Investor-State arbitration, Treaty, Treaty Interpretation

(University Paris Est Créteil, France)/ /Leave a comment

Dealing with parallel arbitrations can be very difficult, as it is caught between two conflicting constraints: on the one hand, the need to avoid any denial of justice and, on the other hand, the need to avoid two tribunals dealing with the same issue. This problem sometimes arises in treaty-based investment arbitration, particularly when the…

2025 PAW, Criminal law and arbitration, Investment Arbitration, Paris Arbitration Week

(ESSEC Business School; Paragon Advocacy)/ /Leave a comment

As part of Paris Arbitration Week 2025, ESSEC Business School hosted a roundtable discussion on “The Growing Influence of Criminal Law in International Arbitration.” The event was chaired by Veronika Korom (ESSEC Business School) and moderated by Geneviève Helleringer (ESSEC Business School). The panel brought together an exceptional group of ESSEC alumni active in the…

Australia, BIT, Commercial Reservation, Enforcement, From Jurisdiction, India, Investment Arbitration, Investor-State arbitration, New York Convention, Sovereign Immunity

, (Banco Chambers)/ /Leave a comment

In January 2025, a Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (“Full Court”) upheld a claim by the Republic of India (“India”) to foreign state immunity from proceedings brought by various Mauritian entities (the “Investors”) to enforce an arbitral award in the Australian courts. The Full Court upheld immunity on the basis of India’s…

Australia, BIT, Enforcement, India, Investment Arbitration, Investment Treaties, Investor-State arbitration, New York Convention, Sovereign Immunity

(AnchayilKumar)/ /Leave a comment

The Antrix-Devas saga continues to present twists and turns (see previous coverage on the Blog here, here and here). The latest is the recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (the “Full Court”) in Republic of India v. CCDM Holdings, LLC & Ors. [2025] FCAFC 2. This decision concerned the…

Abuse of Rights, Abusive Claims, Investment Arbitration, Investment Disputes, Investment Treaties, ISDS

, (Carleton University, Department of Law and Legal Studies)/ /Leave a comment

Investment tribunals are well-known to examine the abuse of rights doctrine in various contexts, including illegitimate corporate restructuring (Phillip Morris v Australia, para. 588; Lao Holdings v Laos I, para. 70; Alverley v Romania, para. 380), bad faith conduct (Phoenix v Czech Republic, paras.143-44; WCV World Capital Ventures Cyprus Ltd v Czech Republic, paras. 477-478),…

2024 in Review, ACICA, Arbitration Agreement, Australia, Australian Arbitration Week, Energy, Immunity, Investment Arbitration, Legislative amendment, Liability, New Zealand, Pacific Islands, Party autonomy, PCA, Public Policy, Standard of Proof

, , and (Munro Leys)/ /Leave a comment

Continuing with the trend of previous years, 2024 saw continued development throughout the region. In Australia, we saw an influx of meaningful, pro-arbitration court decisions, in the Pacific Islands, we saw the strengthening of legal frameworks, and in New Zealand, we saw a clarification of public policy considerations. We delve into these standout developments and…

Denial of Benefits, ECT Modernisation, ECT Withdrawal, Energy, Energy Charter Treaty, Energy Dispute, EU Law, European Commission, European Law, Intra-EU Investment Arbitration, Intra-EU ISDS, Investment, Investment agreements, Investment Arbitration, Investment Disputes, Investment law, Investment protection, Investor-State arbitration, ISDS, modernisation process

(Geneva Graduate Institute)/ /Leave a comment

2024 witnessed significant developments concerning the Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT”), ranging from a new wave of withdrawals to the adoption of the modernised ECT in December. This post reviews the key ECT-related developments of 2024 and highlights relevant contributions published on the Kluwer Arbitration Blog (“KAB”).   New Wave of Withdrawals from the ECT In…

Fair and Equitable Treatment, Investment Arbitration, Remedies

/ /Leave a comment

This post is concerned with the potential comparison between the fair and equitable (“FET”) standard and the rule against abuse of rights (“AR”), as regulated under municipal private law systems (mainly of continental origin).   A Fresh Take On FET Through the Prism of Comparative Law: A Role for AR? FET combines a wide array…

Environment, Environmental protection, Human Rights, Investment agreements, Investment Arbitration, Investment Disputes, Investment law, Investor-State arbitration, ISDS

(Georgetown Law) and (Columbia Law School)/ /Leave a comment

This is the sixth consecutive year that we, either together or separately, have reported on trends at the intersection of human rights and international investment arbitration from the prior year (see prior Blog coverage, here, here, here, here, and here). As we emphasized last year, developments at this intersection continue directional trends from prior years. In particular, the continued reliance…

2024 in Review, Advisory Centre, Dispute Settlement, Investment Arbitration, Investment Disputes, Investor-State arbitration, ISDS, ISDS Reform, UNCITRAL WG III Series, UNCITRAL WG3 Series, Working Group III

/ /Leave a comment

2024 appeared to be one of the busiest years for investor-State dispute settlement (“ISDS”) reform, with significant advances in the United Nations Commission on Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”) Working Group III discussions and the adoption of the modernized Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT”). This post exclusively focuses on Working Group III’s key milestones in 2024 and relevant…

2024 in Review, Brazil, Brazil, International arbitration, Investment Arbitration, Latin America

(Herbert Smith Freehills), (BakerHostetler), and (Barbosa, Müssnich & Aragão Advogados – BMA)/ /Leave a comment

Latin America continues to be a hotspot for investment arbitration. In 2024, investment arbitration in Latin America saw significant activity and notable developments. In addition to seeing a steady increment in arbitration cases, 2024 witnessed important legal reforms and evolving trends that are reshaping the region’s approach to investment and investor-State dispute settlement (“ISDS”). This…

Africa, Investment, Investment agreements, Investment Arbitration, Investment Disputes, Investment law, Investment protection

(Tilburg Law School)/ /Leave a comment

The Patel Engineering Limited (“PEL”) v the Republic of Mozambique tribunal, constituted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, dealt with pre-investment expenditures and whether such expenditures constitute a protected investment. Investors frequently make expenditures in the preparatory phase of an investment, such as environmental impact assessments, scientific surveys, or financial advice. When are these expenditures considered…

Access to Justice, Achmea, Europe, European Convention on Human Rights, German Federal Constitutional Court, Germany, Intra-EU Investment Arbitration, Intra-EU ISDS, Investment Arbitration, Investor-State arbitration, ISDS

, (Fietta LLP)/ /Leave a comment

On 13 September 2024, the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, “BVG” or “the Court”) published two judgments dated 23 July 2024 (available here and here, both in German), accompanied by a press release (here), rejecting as inadmissible two constitutional complaints brought by the claimant in the Eureko (later Achmea) v Slovakia (1) arbitration (“BVG Judgments”).  While other commentators…

Conference, Denial of Benefits, Investment Arbitration, UNCITRAL WG III Series

, (KNOETZL)/ /Leave a comment
Institute for Transnational Arbitration (ITA)

On 23 September 2024, the third ITA Roundtable at an UNCITRAL Working Group III (“UNCITRAL WG III”) session took place at the offices of KNOETZL. Anna Joubin-Bret, Secretary of UNCITRAL, and Jurgita Petkute, Partner at KNOETZL, gave introductory remarks. Dr. Crina Baltag from Stockholm University moderated the discussion of the panel consisting of Lorena Fatás…

Ecuador, Investment Arbitration, Investment Disputes, ISDS, Latin America

(FWO - Ghent University)/ /Leave a comment

On March 27, 2024, an arbitration tribunal issued its Phase II award in the EcuadorTLC v. Ecuador II case (“EcuadorTLC II”), a decision that has flown under the radar of systemic analysis. This case is one of a number of new Ecuadorian arbitration cases (here, here) that have come into the public eye in the…

Achmea, EU Law, German Federal Constitutional Court, International Investment Arbitration, International Investment Law, Intra-EU BITs, Intra-EU Investment Arbitration, Intra-EU ISDS, Investment Arbitration, ISDS

(Schellenberg Wittmer)/ /Leave a comment

On March 6, 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) delivered its (in)famous Achmea judgment (Case C-284/16), which subsequently became synonymous with the demise of investor-state arbitration in bilateral investment treaties between Member States of the European Union (“intra-EU BITs”). In this decision, the CJEU concluded that investor-state arbitration clauses in intra-EU…