ICSID Arbitration

El ensayo hace un estudio sobre los principios generales que rigen las facultades que tienen los comités ad hoc para anular los laudos dictados por tribunales CIADI; para posteriormente hacer un estudio particular de cada una de las causales por las cuales puede ser solicitada la anulación del laudo

In recent years, the landlocked former Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan has substantially improved its oil and gas prospects. Being a rich supplier of oil and gas serves to attract foreign direct investments, but the prospect of such investments is diminished by the government’s policy of confiscating the property of foreign direct investors to “protect its subsoil sector.” As a result of such expropriation, to date Kazakhstan has faced thirteen known investment arbitrations. Five proceedings are still pending, one has been discontinued pursuant to Rule 43, para.1 of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, three awards are confidential and not available to the public, and four awards are publicly available. These numbers demonstrate Kazakhstan’s efforts to maintain its economic and political integrity by avoiding transparency in its investment policies.
This article will analyze the investment laws of Kazakhstan, as well as give an overview of the awards that are publicly available. Finally, the article will outline the problems that foreign investors face in investment arbitrations against the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Purpose – This article aims to deal with international investment disputes, with a focus on the nature of the law applicable to the merits of such disputes. Design/methodology/approach – The procedure for determining the law applicable in investment disputes, the phases of determination and the impact thereof on the applicable law were analyzed. The diagonality of the disputes and its impact on the law applicable to the merits from the perspective of the interaction between national and international law were also analyzed. Further, the authors focused on the nature of the host state's breach of obligations towards the investor anchored in the investment treaty, and the effect thereof on the law applicable to the merits. In this respect, the notion of the investment itself was analyzed according to the relevant BITs and MITs. Finally, the authors analyzed the applicability of the Ordre Public concept to investment disputes. Findings – The study provided practical demonstrations ...

The subject of remedies in investment treaty arbitration is one of the issues that have not been elaborated extensively yet. This article aims to shrink this gap. To find out the remedies that are available in the investment arbitration mechanism and compatible with investment disputes, it first examines the systemic features of investment treaty arbitration (rules, policy considerations, parties’ interests) regarding applicable remedies. Then, it focuses on the scope of protection of different kinds of rights held by investors. It emphasizes that investment treaty undertakings do not trigger the application of the same remedies as property and contractual rights do. In the light of these findings, this article attempts to ascertain when remedies such as restitution, cessation of the wrongful act and specific performance are available in investment treaty arbitration.

Sumario: I. Introducción. II. El funcionamiento del régimen de protección de inversiones en el CIADI y otros foros. III. Demandas sensibles a los derechos humanos: el sector del agua potable y saneamiento y el caso argentino. IV. Reacciones y propuestas alternativas. V. Conclusión I. introDucción El derecho internacional público es un derecho que se encuentra fragmen-tado, y este fenómeno, lejos de minimizarse, se ha ido incrementando en las últimas décadas. Las ramificaciones que este derecho progresivamente ha ido adquiriendo se generan a riesgo de perder un diálogo de fuentes entre las nor-mas que se crean, lo cual puede resultar en casos de contradicción normativa. A partir de la década de 1990 hemos visto como dichas ramificaciones han al-canzado un peso cada vez mayor y como han empezado a solapar otras áreas del derecho, incluso aquellas que se entienden fundamentales para la comuni-dad internacional en su conjunto, como son los derechos humanos. Los derechos humanos no son tan solo un mero conjunto de normas formales. Son, como dijera el jurista argentino Carlos Nino, "el mejor in-vento del siglo XX", 1 y producto de la experiencia aberrante de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Más allá de su concepción formal, los derechos humanos * Doctor en Derecho y Abogado (UBA). Docente universitario (UBA, UNLZ, UADE).

En el presente escrito, se analiza desde una perspectiva jurídica, el arbitraje en materia de inversiones, y en concreto el funcionamiento del Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones, también conocido como CIADI.

International arbitration is a concept of international law. It endorses the
fragmentary nature of international law and, as a reflection of informal
international law-making, represents a challenge in terms of rules of
recognition. Yet, none of these characteristics can be invoked to deny the contribution of international arbitration to international law. International arbitration is an institution inherent to international law, and one that both enhances and enriches international law.

This paper is focused on issues regarding contractual rights as investments in international investment law. The text is divided into three main parts. The first part examines the existing definitions of investments, stemming from various sources of investment law, and the role of contractual rights in those definitions. Following that, the author sets out a classification of issues concerning contractual rights into three groups – investor-State contracts, contracts usually recognized as investments, and sales contracts. This creates the structure for the discussion in further text. A short overview of these groups is then given.

The second part is focused on examining the most important contemporary issues regarding each of the three groups in more detail and suggesting possible solutions for certain problems. These issues mostly concern the treaty versus contract claims problems, the scope of umbrella clauses, the search for criteria for recognizing investments, and the status of sales contracts in international investment law. A special emphasis is put on suggesting the model for recognizing investments under the ICSID Convention which should promote predictability in recognizing contractual rights and also on arguing that sales contracts existing in the context of an overall recognized investment should be given investment protection themselves.

The final part of the paper contains concluding remarks regarding the topics dealt with in the work and also proposed guidelines for the future.

Climate Change Litigation.
Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law (EiPro), Hélène Ruiz Fabri (ed.), Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law, 2019, https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law-mpeipro/e3461.013.3461/law-mpeipro-e3461?rskey=G5tdCF&result=1&prd=MPIL .

Provisional measures have become a central issue in international arbitration. Indeed, a final award would not be worth much to the prevailing party if the counterparty has managed to dispose its assets or the object of the dispute while the arbitral proceedings are in progress. However, investor-State arbitral tribunals are very strict in establishing whether to grant interim protection, unless the applicant satisfies a test in which grey areas appear to endure. Indeed, even if a large number of awards, adopted under different sets of arbitral rules, have contributed in a fundamental way to the progressive interpretation and application of arbitration rules on provisional measures, caselaw still does not identifies a clear path for the issuance of these procedural orders. This study therefore analyzes the necessary requirements for the issuance of interim orders and identifies some typical provisional measures and their legal force, as recognized by the arbitral practice of tribunals constituted under the ICSID Rules, the ICSID AF Rules, the UNCITRAL Rules and under the rules of the principal arbitral institutions worldwide, in consideration also of the ongoing amendment process of the ICSID and ICSID AF Rules.

Şemsiye kloz (umbrella clause, clause de couverture), çok sayıda uluslararası yatırım sözleşmesinde özellikle de iki taraflı yatırım antlaş-malarında rastlanan bir hükümdür. Doğrudan yabancı yatırımların geniş ve güçlü güven talepleri sonucu uluslararası tahkim, yatırım uyuşmaz-lıklarının çözümünde ana ve en etkin araç haline gelmiştir. Bu süreçte, ICSID Tahkim Merkezi, devlet ile yabancı yatırımcılar arasındaki uyuşmazlıkların çözümünde ana kurum haline gelmiştir. Bu makalenin amacı yabancı yatırımcıların imtiyaz sözleşmeleri/şartlaşmalarından kaynaklanan uyuşmazlıklarını ICSID hakemlik mahkemesine taşımala-rında şemsiye klozların işlevini ve etkisini değerlendirmektir. Bu bağ-lamda, şemsiye klozların, ICSID hakem heyetlerinin yargı yetkisi üze-rindeki etkisiyle ilgili hakem kararları irdelenecektir.

Desde la intersección entre el derecho internacional y la economía política internacional, el presente trabajo tiene como objetivo realizar una relectura de los aportes de Susan Strange aplicándolos al régimen de solución de controversias inversor-Estado, tema no estudiado por la autora. Por consiguiente, se examina cómo impacta la retirada del Estado en el régimen de solución de controversias inversor-Estado, y de qué manera se expresa el poder estructural de las empresas transnacionales en casos concre-tos de controversias. El artículo cierra vinculando las ideas anteriores con la crisis de la pandemia de covid-19 y el retorno del Estado.

Foreign direct investment is currently one the fastest growing parts of international law. It has increased due to the proliferation of bilateral investment treaties (BIT). The contribution of the BITs has ensured the protection of foreign investors and investment. In other words, in cases where there is a dispute, the investor will settle the dispute before the impartial and independent arbitration tribunal instead of the courts of the host state. Thus, BITs limit the host states' sovereignty by providing arbitration method. Although the introduction of arbitration method is considered to be a big step after the Second World War, it cannot be said that it solves the fundamental problem over the time. Before the war, when an investment dispute arose, the investor was used to go to the court of the host state and see the sovereignty power. After the war, investor has been encountered the same effect in the execution of the arbitral award in the host state. Therefore, the focus of the article will be on the history of international investment law based on dispute settlement systems of BITs compared with historical investment dispute settlement systems. In addition, it is argued that the application to arbitration does not change the result of state sovereignty. It may signal future problems in this field since it causes revisiting to the court system. The most obvious example of this is the efforts to establish a multilateral investment court.

The complex nature of construction projects and the involvement of a large number of unpredictable correlated factors make them susceptible to disputes. Although a wide range of dispute resolution mechanisms exists, experts in the construction industry favor arbitration over litigation when legally binding dispute resolution mechanisms are concerned. Because initiating a litigation or arbitration case against a business partner often severs the business relationship between them, predicting the arbitrator’s decision becomes valuable to the arbitrating parties. Because arbitration has been extensively treated as a game, and because the proposed approach relies on the wealth maximization concept, which is in turn dependent on the sum of utility sources of a firm, modeling arbitration is best achieved as a game with disputing parties’ utility profiles that would have an agreement zone. A construction-specific utility framework for the disputing parties arbitrating before a single arbitrator is proposed based on the additive expected utility theory. The proposed additive utility framework preserves the industry practicality and, most importantly, considers direct short-term factors and indirect long-term factors that would address factual disputes related to claim entitlement and quantification. It is expected that such a framework could then be used to identify utility equilibrium points between the disputing parties, which would serve the purpose of predicting the arbitration outcome.

“In the context of international investments, the concept of fair and equitable treatment (FET) towards host countries is not only vague but also created more uncertainty as to what to be expected of private foreign investors (TNC) than resolve them”.
Examine critically the validity of this statement by referring to the most important cases decided by International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunals.

The decision of the ad hoc Committee in the case Tulip Real Estate v. Turkey of 2015 represents a new development in the methods applied by ICSID tribunals to ascertain their own jurisdiction when the acts giving rise to the investor's claim have been undertaken by a State-owned entity. Indeed, prior to this case, different views and trends had arisen over the years: some tribunals have addressed this matter by narrowing their field of analysis to the formal requirements of the claim, while others have focused on the issue of implicit designation. Lastly, there has been a growing trend, starting in 2009 with the case Toto Costruzioni v. Lebanon, where arbitrators have applied the rules on attribution at the jurisdictional stage. This last group of cases suggests that those arbitrators were developing an approach closer to that of general international law. The Tulip Real Estate v. Turkey Committee was the first annulment panel to comment on this latest development , although they commented without expressing much enthusiasm for it. The present article will focus on the issue of establishing an ICSID tribunal's jurisdiction when a State entity is involved in the proceedings, in order to cast some light on the rules that a tribunal should apply when deciding whether a dispute between the foreign investor and a State entity falls within its remit.

Hancomb Intercontinental have established an international task force to support its clients in the construction, engineering and shipbuilding industries following the Coronavirus COV-19 outbreak being declared a pandemic by the World Health Organisation. Experts are drawn from a number of disciplines including legal, medical, engineering, planning, contract, commercial, accounting and will be able to provide expert advice and expert witness services to clients to protect their position and succeed in prosecuting  or defending claims for time and money arising out of the crisis. Indeed our quantum and delay experts will be able to play a key role in helping you record and gather information needed in order to succeed in securing entitlements.
Our teams are able to work remotely using the latest technology and software  and our plans provide for business continuity no matter how worse the national and global situation becomes.
Whilst every client and contract will have different facts; we have set out some common issues and information by jurisdiction but would confirm that this does not constitute legal advice and  that you contact our team or a legal firm for legal advice based on the actual facts of your specific and unique case. Our dedicated email address for the COV-19 is being monitored 24 hours a day and we have teams across the world’s time zones.
COV-19@hanscombintercontinental.com

Resumen: En primer lugar, este artículo describe las características de la solución de controversias inversor-Estado como un régimen internacional, dentro de un espacio mayor: la protección de inversiones extranjeras. En segundo lugar, el trabajo se focaliza en el examen del régimen a la luz del modelo institucional de las relaciones internacionales, e identifica tres instancias de resistencia del modelo relacional: el retiro del CIADI – Bolivia, Ecuador y Venezuela-, el planteo de alternativas a los mecanismos de resolución de disputas actuales –sistema de tribunales de inversiones propuesto por la Unión Europea-, y la recuperación de la competencia de resolver en los tribunales locales aquellos conflictos jurídicos surgidos con inversores extranjeros –Sudáfrica-.

Los Tratados Bilaterales de Promoción y Protección Recíproca de Inversiones constituyen instrumentos internacionales a través de los cuales los Estados se han comprometido a garantizar al inversor extranjero un "estándar" de tratamiento y protección reconocido a nivel internacional, que consiste en abstenerse de perturbar o interferir en la gestión económica de la inversión a través de medidas discriminatorias o arbitrarias, de nacionalizar o expropiar sino bajo determinadas condiciones. Sin embargo, lo que el corriente de la población no comprende cuando la firma de los acuerdos se ve plasmada en las noticas de los medios de comunicación, es que la signatura de los mismos no intenta establecer únicamente garantías mínimas de protección hacia la inversión en un Estado extranjero sino que presenta la intrusión de cláusulas específicamente elaboradas para limitar el accionar de los Gobiernos autárquicos, buscando obtener los mayores beneficios posibles. Dichas cláusulas y condiciones que se encuentran en ellos, cabe destacar, resultan no solamente anticonstitucionales sino que además se revelan como altamente violatorias de los Derechos Humanos.

ICSID provides an invaluable service to global transnational commercial trade by facilitating a means of reconciliation between host nations and foreign investors that are engaged in a conflict over contractual disputes. This paper will critique the effectiveness of the ICSID dispute resolution mechanism in comparison to alternative methods, and provide a keen insight into the benefits of the process from both the host nation and investor's perspective.

Este trabajo analiza las características particulares del sistema legal internacional de solución de controversias inversor-Estado, con especial foco en los tratados bilaterales de inversión (TBI) en vigor en América del Sur, salvo excepciones. En este marco, aplicando la teoría de los regímenes internacionales (Krasner), se examinan las tres posiciones de los Estados de la región en torno al tema: 1) no ratificar TBI ni ser miembro del Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias relativas a Inversiones (CIADI) (Brasil); 2) denunciar los TBI en vigor y abandonar el CIADI (Bolivia, Ecuador y Venezuela); 3) mantener los TBI en vigor y permanecer en los foros de solución de controversias actuales (Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Guyana, Paraguay, Perú, Surinam y Uruguay)

The judgment of the International Court of Justice on preliminary exceptions in the Diallo case shows that the venerable institution of diplomatic protection (and by ricochet the Court that implements it), while conserving its original shape and outline, has incontrovertibly evolved to reflect the structural changes affecting international society. The paper first analyses change within continuity. It also shows that this change is however limited: in the field of protection foreign investment, the Court is reiterating the solutions it came up with in 1970 in Barcelona Traction, thus ensuring continuity without change.

Partiendo del arbitraje inversor-Estado como expresión del Derecho Administrativo global, en primer lugar, este trabajo analiza la evolución de la protección de inversiones en los miembros fundadores del MERCOSUR, particularmente la solución de controversias. En segundo lugar, examina cómo se ha manifestado dicha evolución en el acervo normativo mercosuriano: Protocolo de Colonia para la promoción y protección recíproca de inversiones en el MERCOSUR (1994) y Protocolo de cooperación y facilitación de inversiones intra-MERCOSUR (2017). Del estudio se desprende que, siguiendo a Brasil, la normativa regional ha evolucionado hacia la exclusión del arbitraje inversor-Estado como forma de proteger los actos realizados en ejercicio de la soberanía estatal.

En este artículo abordamos los mecanismos de revisión contra los laudos CIADI, desde la simple solicitud de ampliación o rectificación de errores que puede resolver el propio tribunal arbitral, pasando por las solicitudes de aclaración y revisión, hasta enfocarnos en las solicitudes de anulación que son decididas por unas Comisiones ad hoc, algunas veces criticadas por falta de coherencia y uniformidad. Mucho se ha debatido sobre la naturaleza de esa anulación, aunque el propio Convenio CIADI aclara que no se trata de una apelación y el artículo 52 contempla unas causales de anulación específicas. Esto último permite calificar el mecanismo de anulación como un recurso extraordinario, distinto de la apelación, lo que no significa que las Comisiones ad hoc no puedan revisar —aunque sea en forma restringida— el fondo de los laudos; lo que no pueden hacer es modificarlos, pues deben limitarse a declarar o no la nulidad. Por otra parte, no pueden existir nulidades automáticas, pero tampoco la discrecionalidad que algunas Comisiones ad hoc se han atribuido para decidir. Es necesario, pues, ponderar los motivos de nulidad para evitar excesos, y que las decisiones sean dictadas conforme a las tendencias procesales más modernas. De ello podría depender en buena medida, la credibilidad del sistema CIADI en el futuro.

Bolivia, Ecuador y Venezuela son los primeros Estados en América del Sur, y el mundo, en abandonar el Centro de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones (CIADI), notificando la denuncia al Convenio de Washington sobre arreglo de diferencias relativas a inversiones entre Estados y nacionales de otros Estados (CW), el 1 de mayo de 2007, el 2 de julio de 2009 y el 24 de enero de 2012 respectivamente. Asimismo, Bolivia y Ecuador inician un proceso de no renovación o denuncia de los tratados bilaterales de inversión (TBI) en vigor, que aun con diferente grado de avance, han evidenciado quiebres en el tradicional sistema legal internacional de inversiones.
En este marco, el presente trabajo busca aportar al análisis de la situación de Bolivia, Ecuador y Venezuela en relación al sistema legal internacional de inversiones, en particular lo que refiere a los TBI y el CW, desde una perspectivo jurídico – política sin perder de vista la conformación de intereses e instituciones regionales comunes.

Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions provide legal frameworks and safeguards for signatory parties to a trade agreement. The task of the present work is to examine the consequences of ISDS lawsuits on domestic public health and environmental policies in order to determine their ultimate devaluation of human rights. Trade is critical to the economic functionality of all states, as it provides for economic growth through the exchange of goods, services and ideas. However, rather recently, free trade agreements (FTAs), bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and international investment agreements (IIAs) have become increasingly invasive to national-level legislation and policy. Many of these trade and investment agreements are endowed with a legal ISDS mechanism, which serves to protect foreign investors’ ability to function and incur profits through independent arbitration courts. In many cases, this effectively undermines domestic regulations intended to protect civilians’ well being, as well as that of the environment.

This article summarises the developments in Turkish
legislation on international arbitration which coupled with
the struggles to attract FDI inflow in the 1980s. In this
context, this article examines the place and force of ICSID
Convention in Turkish law, as well as it analyses the
jurisdiction of the Centre with regard to investment
disputes whose one party being Turkey.

Current US immigration law appears to be in widespread violation of bilateral international agreements on trade and investment. The US is party to a number of treaties for investment or trade that include terms on issuing temporary immigration visas, "treaty trader" visas (E-1 visa) or "treaty investor" visas (E-2 visa). These treaties include the older Friendship, Commerce and Navigation treaties (FCNs); Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and the more modern Free-Trade Agreements (FTAs). Rather than apply the immigration terms under each treaty, US immigration law imposes its own requirements, which in many cases are at odds with the terms under the treaties. This paper compares the various treaties to which the US is party and identifies their differences. It then contrasts the practice that the treaties require with US immigration law, further identifying where US immigration law may not be in compliance with the treaties.

This practice is particularly problematic because some of the treaties for investment or trade include complaint mechanisms. Certainly a state would have grounds for complaining that the US is not living up to its treaty obligations, but there may be many reasons why a state party would not want to disturb its bilateral relationship by making such a complaint. However, many of these treaties also include a right for individuals or coporations to bring their own complaints directly against the US under mandatory investment dispute settlement. Thus, current US immigration law on treaty traders and investors is not only in violation of the underlying treaties, but the violations present a real risk of enforcement.

Argentina es el país más demandado ante el Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias sobre Inversiones (CIADI) y uno de los que más Tratados Bilaterales de Inversión (TBI) ha firmado (58 en total, 55 vigentes). La mayoría de esas demandas fueron presentadas por empresas transnacionales (ETN) por la crisis de 2001-2002 y se refirieron a sectores económicos relacionados con recursos naturales. El 20% de esas demandas se vincula con el sector de agua potable y saneamiento, lo que también convierte a Argentina en el país más demandado en el CIADI por este sector. Son casos de alta conflictividad social y en los que se evidencia el rol del Estado como regulador frente al reclamo por parte de las ETN de protección de la propiedad privada, en los que resalta una asimetría jurídica que favorece la protección de las inversiones sobre el resguardo de los derechos humanos, en particular del derecho humano al agua reconocido por la Organización de Naciones Unidas, ONU, en 2010. Tomando el caso argentino como testigo, esta ponencia expondrá esa asimetría que contraviene las bases más elementales del derecho internacional, para evidenciar la necesidad de revisar el régimen internacional de protección de inversiones y su adecuación a los derechos humanos como obligaciones erga omnes.

The Continuous Nationality Rule that played a major role in the case of Loewen v. United States is a traditional rule of diplomatic protection concerning the nationality of claims. The Continuous Nationality Rule says that the State seeking to protect a person must show proper interest in such protection and that the claim must have been continuously owned by a person of the same nationality from the date of the injury to the date of judgment or award.

https://jusmundi.com/en/document/wiki/en-continuous-nationality-rule

The specter of communism that was once lingering over the Europe has long faded away, and the alliance, one of the biggest socialist experiments in the history of mankind, that stood to safeguard and promote its ideals has failed. In 1991 out of the remains of the Soviet Union emerged five independent Central Asian states. The current legal system of Turkmenistan is primarily rooted into the one the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic (" Turkmenistan, " 2017) used to have. Up until recently international arbitration was a novel concept to the region and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (ADR) as means for settling disputes between two private parties was an alien idea (Rubins & Sur, 2008). Consequently, the most widely used mechanism for dispute resolution was the judiciary (Knieper & Ziyaeva, 2017). The judiciary has been supplemented by state-organized arbitration courts which are attached to the ordinary civil courts of general jurisdiction, with the exception of the Arbitration Court of the City of Ashgabat, with jurisdiction over disputes between corporations and other commercial disputes (Knieper & Ziyaeva, 2017). Turkmenistan is a civil law country, which is to a great extent based on the legal system and institutions from the Soviet era. The judiciary of Turkmenistan represents a three-tier system: local trial courts; regional appeal courts; and the Supreme Court. However, according to Article 32 (2) of the Law on the Judicial System and the Status of Judges of Turkmenistan arbitration courts of the country act as the first instance for settlement of commercial disputes with the Supreme Court acting as the court of appeals. The Supreme Court of Turkmenistan can review appeals against the court and arbitral awards. Sources of Arbitration Law There are a number of sources that form the body of arbitration law in Turkmenistan. According to Article 3 (1) of the Arbitral Procedural Code, the arbitral proceedings in Turkmenistan are based on the Constitution of Turkmenistan, the Law on the Judicial System and the Status of Judges of Turkmenistan and the Arbitral Code of Turkmenistan. The law allows not only the nationals but also foreign natural and juridical persons to bring their claims before the arbitration courts of the country. International commercial arbitration is governed by the International Commercial Arbitration Law (ICA) and other relevant domestic laws of the country. In 2016 the government of Turkmenistan adopted the ICA, which in a number of ways follows the UNCITRAL Model Law. For instance, it allows ad hoc arbitration, recognizes the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz, as opposed to domestic law on arbitration which sets rather stringent requirements (see Article 4 of Annex 1 to the Civil Procedural Code (CPC)), the ICA grants the parties to a dispute the