Investment Arbitration

The attitude of Venezuela towards international investment arbitration has been widely discussed in several different sets of arbitral proceedings before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). For example, in an award on jurisdiction rendered by the arbi- tral tribunal in Venezuela Holdings v Venezuela, the tribunal described the long history of Venezuela’s hostility towards arbitration. The tribunal dis- missed an argument by the claimant about the interpretation of article 22 of the Decree-Law on the Promotion and Protection of Investments of 1999 (LPPI) that sought to categorise this provision as a consent given by Venezuela to submit investment disputes to ICSID arbitration.

This article analyses the Egyptian Court's decisions regarding the Al-Kharafi USD 1 billion award in an investment dispute between Al-Kharafi, a Kuwaiti construction firm and the Libyan State, which was issued by an ad hoc arbitration panel under the auspices of the Unified Agreement for the Investment of Arab Capital in the Arab States. In particular, it focuses on the judicial debate between the Cairo Court of Appeals and the Egyptian Court of Cassation over the appropriateness of applying the articles of the Egyptian Arbitration Law, including the annulment proceedings, on an investment dispute 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

We can conclude that non-state rules may include both lex mercatoria, i.e. the law of international merchants, which is not perceived in any uniform way, and currently perhaps also selected rules of EU law, provided that no legal relations are involved that have no connection to the European area. Lex mercatoria can be defined as including international trade usages (such as INCOTERMS, which have become rather popular), generally recognised legal principles (for instance, pacta sunt servanda), and collections of principles governing international agreements (e.g. UNIDROIT Principles).

Lex mercatoria can be applied both in arbitration and in litigation based on four theoretical approaches. The first applicable method is subsidiary application, i.e. lex mercatoria is applied within the limits of binding provisions of applicable law – this method does not raise any problems in practice. Another possibility is application equivalent to national legal systems, i.e. based on the conflict-of-laws method. This method is currently considered controversial and is suitable for arbitration, rather than litigation. The third possibility is the preferential application of lex mercatoria – this is, however, a very extreme approach, even within international commercial arbitration, and requires the due assessment of all relevant circumstances. This category may also include negative choice of law, which postulates that the parties opted for lex mercatoria, because they did not choose any applicable law. This is, again, controversial doctrine, which may only be applied if we first take into consideration all of the circumstances of the case, and primarily the will of the parties. The fourth and last possibility is the ex post choice of law.

As concerns practical possibilities of application, the most frequently employed method is the application of non-state rules in connection with arbitration, where the courts control the proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Academics agree that the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award cannot be refused, should the sole grounds for refusal be the fact that the award is based on lex mercatoria. Another possibility of applying non-state rules in courts is application based on domestic laws. The third possibility is the application of non-state rules based on the parties’ choice, i.e. the parties may opt for non-state law. Even if some of the parties disagree, it is possible to envisage the application of non-state rules in litigation, though rather as soft law, i.e. a tool or inspiration for the resolution of the given case. This would be similar to the application of foreign law or foreign case law.

We can also imagine, subject to certain conditions, the application of non-state rules in domestic disputes: (i) if the parties agree to do so, in which case, again, non-state rules would be applied within the limits of binding rules of the applicable law, or (ii) at the court’s discretion. In such case, the court should have regard for any and all circumstances, such as the parties’ experience with international trade, as well as the method of application. The application of non-state rules as soft law can be accepted without objections. Both arbitral tribunals and courts have become more open to non-state rules – for instance, the fact that a decision or award is based on lex mercatoria is not eo ipso contrary to public policy (ordre public).
The application of non-state legal standards is intertwined with the irreplaceable role of a first-rate pre- and post-graduate system of education, and with interactions between extensive practice, on the one hand, and education and training, on the other. This is the reason why schools and other educational institutions must be addressed, and such quality of lectures and courses must be emphasised that will guarantee a high level of theoretical training and high-quality and solid incentives and information from practice. The reason is that this very requirement attains qualified dimensions in the case of trade and legal usages (international, as well as national and regional). The potential of cooperation between educational institutions and international organisations mostly remains untapped – and not only those that create and apply contract templates, unify recommendations, or formulate trade and legal principles, etc.

В заключение можно сказать, что негосударственные правила могут включать в себя, во-первых, lex mercatoria, т. е. право участников международных коммерческих отношений, относительно понимания которого отсутствует единое мнение, во-вторых, в настоящее время, очевидно, и некоторые правовые нормы ЕС, при условии, что речь идет о правоотношениях, в которых отсутствует связь с европейским пространством. Составляющей lex mercatoria можно считать международные торговые обычаи (например, ИНКОТЕРМС, которые в значительной степени стали популярными), общепризнанные правовые принципы или основы (например, pacta sunt servanda) и свод принципов международных договоров (например, Принципы УНИДРУА).

Lex mercatoria может применяться как арбитражами, так и судами общей юрисдикции на основе четырех теоретических подходов. Первым является субсидиарное применение, когда lex mercatoria применяется в рамках когентных положений применяемого права – на практике данный способ применения не встречается с какими-либо проблемами. Вторым вариантом является применение, равноценное национальным правовым системам, т. е. на основании коллизионного метода. В настоящее время данный способ является спорным и применяется скорее арбитражными судами, чем судами общей юрисдикции. Третий вариант – это преимущественное применение lex mercatoria, которое, однако, является крайним случаем даже в контексте международного торгового арбитража, требующего рассмотрения всех существенных обстоятельств. Сюда также можно включить отрицательный выбор права (negative choice), когда предполагается, что стороны, не выбрав применимое право, выбрали именно lex mercatoria. И в данном случае речь снова идет о спорной доктрине, перед применением которой необходимо взвесить все обстоятельства дела и, прежде всего, учесть волеизъявление сторон. Четвертым и последним вариантом является дополнительный выбор права.

С точки зрения практического применения на первом месте (с учетом частоты применения) находится применение негосударственных правил в связи с арбитражным разбирательством, когда суды осуществляют контрольную функцию в ходе разбирательства о признании и приведении в исполнение иностранных арбитражных решений. В этом случае доктрина признает, что нельзя отказать в признании и приведении в исполнение решения иностранного суда только по той причине, что оно основано на lex mercatoria.  Следующим возможным применением негосударственных правил в судах общей юрисдикции является применение на основании национальных правовых норм. Третьим вариантом является применение негосударственных правил на основании выбора сторон, когда стороны могут выбрать негосударственное право. Даже если не все стороны согласны, можно рассматривать возможность применения негосударственных норм судами общей юрисдикции, однако, скорее как т. н. soft law, т. е. в качестве пособия или источника инспирации при рассмотрении и разрешении спора. Аналогично применяется иностранное право или иностранные документы судебной практики.

При определенных условиях также возможно применение негосударственных правил во внутригосударственных спорах. Это, прежде всего, споры, в которых стороны согласуют применение негосударственных правил в рамках когентных положений применяемого права, или по усмотрению суда. В данном случае суд должен рассмотреть все обстоятельства, например, опыт сторон с международной торговлей, а также способ применения. Против применения негосударственных правил как soft law нельзя возражать. В контексте наблюдается растущий интерес арбитражных судов, а также судов [общей юрисдикции/государственных] к негосударственным правилам, который проявляется, например, в том, что основание решения на lex mercatoria еще не означает противоречие публичному порядку.
В связи с применением негосударственных правовых норм важную роль играет качественная вузовская и послевузовская образовательная система и взаимодействие широкой практики с воспитанием и обучением. Поэтому необходимо обращать особое внимание на воспитательные и образовательные учреждения, а также на качество содержания обучения, гарантирующее как высокий уровень теоретической подготовки, так и качественные и обоснованные стимулы и сведения из практики. Именно это требование в торговых и правовых обычаях (международных, а также национальных и региональных) приобретает важность с точки зрения квалификации. В основном остается нереализованным потенциал в области сотрудничества между образовательными учреждениями и международными организациями, причем не только теми, которые занимаются созданием и применением образцов договоров, объединяющих рекомендаций, формулировок торговых и правовых принципов и т. п.

ICC Court president Alexis Mourre used a keynote speech to address the use and misuse of bifurcation in investment arbitration, arguing that it often results in increased delays and costs. Jaroslav Kudrna and Anna Bilanová of the Czech Ministry of Finance report.

Au Maroc, le principe du contradictoire domine la procédure arbitrale, toutefois, la rigueur du texte de loi prescrivant son nécessaire respect tout au long du processus arbitral se trouve contrebalancé par des exigences, failles et ambiguïtés après la fin de cette procédure surtout au niveau de la reconnaissance et d’exéquatur de la sentence arbitrale.
De même, s’il est vrai que l’arbitrage constitue aujourd’hui le mode privilégié de règlement des litiges commerciaux, l’excès que connaît le nombre de recours contre les sentences arbitrales est certainement intolérable de même qu’il donne une image défavorable de ce mode juridictionnel.
Face à cette argumentation, la solution est aujourd’hui entre les mains du législateur et particulièrement au niveau de la chambre des conseillers dans laquelle le projet de loi n° 95-17 sur l’arbitrage et la médiation conventionnelle est actuellement enterré. Les députés disposent ainsi du pouvoir de remanier aux insuffisances et points jugés critiques pour le développement de l’arbitrage comme mode privilégié de règlement de conflits par les différents opérateurs du commerce national et international.

This article treats main approaches to the term ‘investment’ under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention) and international investment treaties. Discussion of different trends does not only involve a purely theoretical question; it also creates practical consequences due to the role of investment in the determination of the jurisdiction of investment tribunals. After having analysed the method adopted by each approach, this article aims to find the most plausible definition for the term ‘investment’. It suggests that ‘investment’ is defined in investment arbitration as dedication of some assets (element of contribution) according to a plan (element of duration) in order to achieve some benefits (element of risk). This approach would fit to the ordinary economic meaning of the term.

The article addresses how the obligation not to frustrate legitimate expectations has been interpreted and applied in recent investment disputes arising out of amendments in domestic regimes in the renewable energies sector. The analysis will address cases against Czechia, Italy and Spain, the Countries currently facing the majority of disputes for alleged breaches of the Energy Charter Treaty. Jurisdictional issues related to the case law at hand, such as those stemming from intra-EU arbitration, will not be addressed. The contribution is divided in three parts, next to the introduction. First, the notion of legitimate expectations will be analysed. Second, the Czech, Italian and Spanish cases will be addressed, briefly sketching the respective domestic legal frameworks. As a conclusion, it will be suggested that tribunals have considered the fact that a State is exercising its regulatory power, and a potential lack of investors' due diligence, in diminishing the quantum of compensation, and that such case law adds to the establishment of general "interpretative elements" of FET.

Investor-State arbitration has literally boomed since the early 90's. This is mainly a consequence of the proliferation of bilateral investment treaties containing arbitration clauses. For the last few years has appeared and increased a trend of criticizing of this type of dispute settlement procedure. This has led many States to regulate more strictly the conditions under which a foreign investor may resort to international arbitration to resolve its investment disputes with the host State. Other fewer states have decided to exclude the possibility of investor-state arbitration of their most recent instruments. It is thus not exaggerated to consider that international investment law is facing a turning point.

The proposed model identifies the pattern hidden in the historical Stock Market data and predicts the future scope. The accuracy of the stock price prediction is affected by various factors. Generally the stock prices are affected by news feeds, supply demand, historical data etc. Here we have considered only one of the main criteria which affects the stock prices i.e., historical stock prices to predict the future outcome.

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.

The Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States is a founding legal instrument for the management of investment arbitrations supervised by ICSID. The merit of ICSID arbitral tribunals is conditioned on the expression of the consent of the host State and the foreign investor. While a consensus has emerged on how to consent to these types of arbitrations, the issue of consent survival is gaining momentum and the ongoing debate does not offer a common understanding. The renewed interest, which puts this issue at the center of the debate, is fueled by denunciations of bilateral investment treaties while investors under their protection continue to conduct their economic operations in the denouncing country. This analysis is aimed to contribute to the ongoing debate by examining the effects of these denunciations on the survival or not of the host state consent on investment arbitration. More importantly, the consent constitutes a key element without which the protection due to the admitted investments in the host territory would be defeated. Before turning to this issue, we first examine the different ways parties to the investment arbitration express their consent to the ICSID investment arbitration. Résumé La Convention pour le règlement des différends relatifs aux investissements entre États et ressortissants d'autres États constitue un texte fondateur pour la gestion des arbitrages d'investissement supervisés par le CIRDI. La compétence CIRDI pour ces conflits d'investissement est conditionnée à l'expression du consentement de l'Etat d'accueil et de l'investisseur étranger. Pendant qu'un consensus a émergé sur la façon de

Considering the importance of Foreign Direct Investment contribution in the global support the position of ICSID Arbitration to settle investment dispute. However, currently the Investor-State Dispute Resolution mechanism in a state of crisis. Many oppositions to the system are dissatisfied with its outcome. It allegedly that the investor-State regime is too much driven in favors of privates. The hybrid arbitration clauses appear to offer solutions to reform the procedure of investment arbitration in the ICSID. This writing examines the extent to which hybrid clause apply to advance investment dispute resolution regime by ICSID arbitration.

The methodology of doctrinal research will be used in this dissertation. The vital components of the statutes and jurisprudence critically examined. In this writing, Arbitration Act 1996, ICSID Convention, and Bilateral Investment Treaties will be examined as well as precedents related to international investment arbitration and hybrid arbitration clause. Subsequently, all those elements that are applicable will be linked to establish an arguably correct and complete statement of the hybrid arbitration clauses in the investment dispute settlement. This writing is also using comparative law approach. The types of application of hybrid arbitration clauses will be compared, from the validation of its practice in different arbitration jurisdictions as well as the effectiveness of its enforcement.

This research finds that the hybrid arbitration clause is a valid clause for conducting arbitration procees under English and several jurisdictions. The clause can also be applies in investor-State dispute settlement. The application of hybrid arbitration clause in ICSID can balance the position of the investor and the host-State, due to both parties can combine the procedure of settling dispute to increase satisfaction on its arbitral award. Dissatisfaction of the outcome can be reduce by appliying hybrid arbitration, the parties would likely preserved the relationship. Therefore, the application of hybrid arbitration clauses not only can be declared valid, but its implementation is also effective.

This paper aims to analyze the functions of the effectiveness of investor-state arbitration in resolving disputes and, mainly, how the concept of fair and equitable treatment enshrined in the BITs has been treated. This paper shall analyze a number of case law by the ICSID and one case rules by the Permanent Court of Arbitration under the UNCITRAL rules. Case law will serve as the main source of findings in this paper.

The seat of arbitration has essential practical importance in arbitration, and it directly determines a number of issues: arbitrability, determination of governing law, whether substantive, or (mainly) procedural, and annulment of the arbitral award or its recognition and enforcement etc. Pursuant to author´s opinion the seat of arbitration is the main factor determining arbitration, while denationalization of arbitration seems to be a myth widely remote from international reality. The seat of arbitration need not be the place in which the individual procedural acts are conducted. From the seat of arbitration has to be distinguished also the place, where the arbitral award has been rendered and/or signed. Consequently, the place where the arbitral award is made usually determines whether the award is a domestic or a foreign award. The seat of arbitration can exceptionally be changed in course of arbitration, but not after an arbitral award has been rendered. International arbitration is usually subject to a two-tier control exercised by courts. The first control is exercised by the state of the seat of arbitration, and the second control is exercised by the state in which the parties seek recognition and enforcement. Consequently, if the parties internationalize their dispute (both parties from the same country agree on a seat of arbitration in a different country) and the arbitral award is rendered abroad (foreign arbitral award vis-à-vis the country of parties’ origin/domicile), the award has no effects in the country of parties´ origin/domicile until its recognition.

Disqualification challenges against international investment arbitrators are increasing. This poses a great challenge for the legitimacy of the international investment regime. The aim of the Article is to trace the source of this development and to propose ways for the future structuring of an international investment regime that is both transparent and effective. Legal literature understands arbitrator independence as a standard imposed by legal rules. This does not capture the reality of international investment arbitration, especially in the framework of the ICSID Convention, which seems to set a lower standard of independence for ICSID arbitrators.

This Article presents the latest trends in the challenge process based on an empirical study of the most recent ICSID tribunal decisions. The thesis of the Article is that arbitral independence in international investment arbitration is the result of a “process of communication” among different actors and prompted by the arbitration community itself. Arbitral independence is only partially a result of legal rules. It is also a consequence of the creation of a tightly connected community of international arbitrators that has been established over the years of arbitral practice and which has transposed their ethos and professional practices onto investment arbitration. This community has constructed a very high standard of independence for international investment arbitration, which is now set in motion by other actors involved in the field. The Article proposes finally the introduction of a new system of control in international investment arbitration that can address the peculiarities of the constructed process of the creation of investor-state arbitration: certification.

In this essay the author analyses the ISDS mechanism envisaged by the CETA
and the proposal for a Multilateral Investment Court and/or an Appellate Body envisaged
in the recent working papers issued by the Geneva Centre for International
Dispute Settlement upon commissioning by UNCITRAL. The paper tries to assess
whether the newly proposed ISDS mechanisms are able to reach the goals that their
drafters had in mind and further discusses whether the current investment arbitration
system is putting into place certain self-adjustment mechanisms which could, alone,
address the criticisms that ISDS attracted. In conclusion, the author maintains that –
prior to putting into place a reform that will let us lose all the undeniable advantages
that investment arbitration has – an in-depth reflection is required.

A partir del análisis de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema norteamericana y del Tribunal Constitucional peruano, así como de nuestro marco normativo, el autor analiza los diversos criterios para determinar cuando estamos frente un supuesto de expropiación indirecta, tales como a magnitud de la medida, la expectativa razonable, el beneficio del Estado, la inviabilidad económica del bien, entre otros. Finalmente, luego de identificada la expropiación indirecta, señala los remedios procesales posibles con la finalidad de salvaguardar el derecho de la propiedad, siendo fundamental en el derecho internacional de inversiones.

Since 2007, many investors have sought international protection against the effects of sovereign defaults, especially when States try to resolve financial distress through restructurings and, in particular, through compulsory or semi-compulsory restructurings.
After the well-known Abaclat award, other arbitrators and international courts were asked to rule on haircuts and to establish if there were any international treaties that protect investors’ properties and prevent any interference in these properties without the agreement of all the bondholders involved.
Even though many of the claims have been rejected, today investors have the right to sue States or other Supranational Institutions to demand protection of their financial properties. According to final rulings, on the one hand, the broad protection given to property rights, regulated by the general principles of law, includes also bonds issued by the States. On the other hand, the protection of private properties ends when it conflicts with some public interests.
While the protection of sovereign bondholders is controversial under 1965 Washington Convention and many BITs, the CETA allows expressly bondholders to file claims before the CETA arbitral panel to be indemnified. The CETA text is substantial because, on the one hand, it confirms that sovereign bondholders can be protected by bilateral/multilateral investment treaties as well as, on the other hand, that this protection is not absolute, but should be subordinated to some circumstances. It is interesting to discuss the rationale of these circumstances and if that CETA provision is adequate to reach an equitable balance between private and public interests.
In sum, the case law of the last ten years suggests that there is a trend to strengthen sovereign bondholders’ protection, if issuers default. But, considering that investors aren’t worthy of an absolute protection of their financial properties, the written rules should subordinate that protection to the fulfilment of several circumstances according to the general interest.

Starting from the recent Philip Morris v. Uruguay Award, this Article tries to analyse the current status in investment arbitration of certain doctrines (and/or principles) which are adopted by arbitral tribunals in order to give due weight to state interests. The reference applies to the doctrines of the right to regulate and of the margin of appreciation as well as to the principle of proportionality. It will be argued that the right to regulate - which is today receiving growing attention by arbitrators, scholars and treaty drafters - still does not have the customary status which would entitle tribunals to apply it in the lack of a normative basis. Also the margin of appreciation, as technically developed by the European Court of Human Rights, cannot find a place in investor-State disputes, due to the very different framework in which arbitral tribunals operate if compared to the ECtHR. However, the principle of proportionality – being a general principle of international law – can perfectly offer to arbitrators a legal tool entitling them to pay due deference with regard to state sovereignty.

"General Principles of Law and International Due Process: Principles and Norms Applicable in Transnational Disputes" by Charles T. Kotuby and Luke A. Sobota is timely and a go-to-resource on general principles of law, as codified in Article 38, paragraph 1(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice ("ICJ Statute"), in the context of international arbitration. Kotuby's and Sobota's study provides a much-needed update on a range of general principles that have already been identified by Bin Cheng in his seminal 1953 work General Principles of Law recognized by Civilized Nations as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals.  By referring to recent awards and case-law in the field of international arbitration, Kotuby and Sobota outline the changing content and functions of this source of international law since the publication of Bin Cheng's work.  Their contribution to the topic of general principles provides a significant step towards the international community's fuller understanding of the basic building blocks that construct international law.

When Ukraine introduced the green tariff in 2008, it did not expect that a boom, like the one in the recent years with unprecedent growth in the renewables energy generation sector leading to investments amounting to ca. 3 billion USD and 5.2 GW of power generation capacity, would occur. Together with the introduction of the green tariff in 2008 in the Law of Ukraine “On the Electric Power Industry”, the government also provided for an obligation to maintain the green tariff until the end of 2029 and reinforced its aims in the subsequent Laws of Ukraine “On Alternative Sources of Energy” and “On the Energy Market.” Yet, last year, the Ukrainian government, making an U-turn, stated that under the current circumstances the green tariff had become financially challenging to maintain and commenced negotiations with renewable energy producers on possible decreases of the green tariff. Upon the announcement of the Ukrainian government, several foreign investors threatened that they would initiate investment treaty claims under the Energy Charter Treaty leading to mediation proceedings and the signing of the 10 June 2020 Memorandum of Understanding. Nevertheless, on 21 July 2020, the Parliament of Ukraine passed the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine on Improving the Conditions for Supporting the Production of Electricity from Alternative Energy Sources” which might have a negative impact on investors in the renewables energy sector and increases the chances of claims under the Energy Charter Treaty against the State. This article therefore discusses the recent changes in the Ukrainian green tariff regulations and the potential of investor-State arbitrations against the Ukrainian State due to these changes.

It seemed that Court of Justice of the European Union wanted to make it short and sweet: It took the Grand Chamber in its Achmea judgement less than fifteen pages to conclude that Investor-State dispute settlement in an intra-EU context is incompatible with EU law.

The Judgement is noteworthy in terms of both the conceptualisation as well as the application of the principle of autonomy of EU law. In terms of conceptualisation of the principle, what we witness in Achmea, read in conjunction with another decision, could be a first subtle attempt to enrich the principle with notions of the rule of law. In terms of application, the Court further strengthens legal equality, its judicial monopoly, and – perhaps even more importantly – the role of the Member States' courts, understood as " traditional permanent State courts " , in the judicial dialogue.

The fact that a state is a party to arbitration does not give the arbitrators the status of public officers or subjects of public law, let alone [public] international law. Arbitration is, above all, a universal procedural mechanism. The principal specifics of investment arbitration become especially apparent in connection with the application of substantive standards.

Confidentiality and publicity/privacy are predominantly procedural issues. Opinions that argue that there exists any global, internationally recognized principle of confidentiality as an intrinsic feature to arbitration are illusory. Standards of confidentiality are subject to important territorial differences that depend on the seat of arbitration. The only universally accepted principle is probably the principle of confidentiality of hearings and the obligation of confidentiality binding on the arbitrators. This applies not only to international commercial arbitration, but also to investment disputes. Even in investment disputes, the parties enjoy a high standard of autonomy when it comes to confidentiality and the disclosure of information. Although we cannot deny the existence of a qualified public interest in investment disputes, this aspect should not influence confidentiality, publicity or the disclosure of information, because the ultimate interest in the disclosure of information in investment protection cases principally benefits the nationals of the host state. The author is of the opinion that these nationals could demand the disclosure of information regarding a particular dispute directly upon the host state and according to the mechanisms that the particular state employs for the purpose of the disclosure of information by the state (legislation regulating access to information, etc.). The author has serious doubts as to the power and the entitlement or authorization of arbitrators to make broad decisions on the disclosure of information concerning the particular proceedings by one of the parties. They cannot assess the interests of a third party (a person who is not a party to the proceedings). This does not apply in exceptional cases where the arbitrators restrict the right of the parties to disclose a specific piece of information in procedural situations that could jeopardize the course and the purpose of the proceedings. This is the only aspect within the power of arbitrators as concerns publicity. Nonetheless, such measures ought to be exceptional and adopted only in cases of specific and imminent danger.

There are various constructions of the ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment’ (FET) clauses in investment treaties.  Many of them have combined the FET standard with other investment protection standards in the same clause. A simplistic interpretation of these clauses might lead to an understanding that the FET standard are synonymous with other standards prescribed by the particular investment treaties largely due to the flexibility and generality of the standard.  This article will closely scrutinize this interrelation between the FET standard with some other investment protection standards. The demarcation line between and among these interaction is so thin that it becomes difficult to distinguish one standard from another.  This article will discuss that the FET is indeed an overarching principle and despite some conceptual similarities with other investment protection standards the FET standard is unique and distinct in its own free standing in the international investment law regime and combining the standard with other investment protection standards is simply a stylistic matter and not a matter of substance to its content.

The handbook on Investment Arbitration in India has been prepared by the team at the Centre for Arbitration and Research of Maharashtra National Law University Mumbai to create a reliable and accessible resource for the students, lawyers and practitioners. The handbook discusses the history, nature and fundamental concepts of investment arbitration. It also examines the investment arbitration cases involving India as a party, how investment arbitration awards are enforced in India and the recent debates and trends for the reforms in the investor-state dispute mechanisms. The handbook charts out various career options in this field.

Contracts are designed to govern the relations between business partners and allocate risk among them, yet they cannot mitigate all risks; hence, dispute resolution mechanisms have been developed to assist. According to research, arbitration is considered one of the most efficient legally binding dispute resolution mechanisms. Since initiating an arbitration case against business partners often severs the business relationship between them, predicting the arbitrator's decision becomes valuable to the arbitrating parties. To do so, arbitration prediction models are suggested in this paper through modeling the arbitrator's award in two stages: evidence admissibility and evidence evaluation. While arbitrators currently admit evidence in a relatively unsystematic way, this proposed admissibility framework systemizes the current practice by preserving its subjectivity, yet aligning it with the widely deployed rules of arbitration. This research further proposes an evidence evaluation model, providing a rapid answer to the famous commercial arbitration battle, discovery. While the current arbitrators' practice in allowing discovery is not systematic, the proposed optimization model is a tool that could systematically assist arbitrators trading between the arbitration key characteristic, efficiency, and justice. This is achieved by assigning weights to evidence parameters such as sufficiency and credibility, which in turn provide numerical measures to reduce the decision's subjectivity.

Arbitration is a popular dispute resolution method. It is distinct from a typical proceeding in that it is a consensual procedure in which the parties select individuals or institutions to render a judgment in a dispute. Thus, parties enjoy a certain level of autonomy in the arbitral settlement proceedings. arbitration is preferable in international commerce because it enables parties to avoid the risk of different national legal cultures that might prevent them from transacting with one another.

When a dispute arises, in the light of the complex nature of international trade, question may arise as to whether a dispute is an international or national one. But this is a secondary point. The more critical issue is that an arbitral award is enforceable in different jurisdictions.
For a long period, the lack of public interest and lack of a strong judicial enforceability kept international arbitration unpopular and thus negatively impacted international commerce. To promote arbitration and thus international commerce, the international community began ratifying international conventions to improve arbitration perception. In that regard, a watershed moment was the adoption of The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), which took a pro-enforcement stand. Many countries adopted the New York Convention. This in turn created predictability in the enforcement of arbitral awards, which in turn began to engender more and more confidence in international arbitration.

But the New York Convention did provide a framework for national courts to refuse enforcement of arbitral awards based on “irregularities” related to the status of the award, the conduct of the arbitral proceedings, and validity of the arbitration agreement.
Public policy is also one of the irregularities that the New York Convention lists as a manner of denying the enforcement of arbitral awards. It allows national courts not to give effect to an award that contradicts the fundamental principles of the forum state’s legal system. The public policy exception is the focus of this study.

Since the New York Convention entered into force, national courts have formulated wide- ranging interpretations of public policy. The public policy exception presents a safety zone in which the national courts can decide whether an arbitral award and its recognition or enforcement is contrary to the public policy of the forum State where its enforcement is being sought. The New York Convention’s language allows state courts to enjoy wide discretion on the application of public policy. Public policy is subject to moral, cultural, economic and social essentials of each state. However, as social construction of nations has inevitably changed extremely in the last century, the criteria of public policy is subject to the same progressive manner. But the realities of today’s international transaction require a fully functional arbitration system and the finality of an arbitral awards. The more ambiguity there is in the ability to enforce an award based on various states’ public policy, it creates the more uncertainty it pertains to the law.

This study preliminary focuses on the concept of public policy, whether its application has contravened the New York Convention’s pro-enforcement stance, and how the exception has impacted international arbitration and international commerce. This paper also looks into whether there is a standardized application of the public policy globally.

Las relaciones comerciales modernas han ido complejizando su dinámica a través de los años y hacen del arbitraje el medio de solución de controversias por excelencia. Uno de los cambios más complejos ha sido el agregado de elementos en los convenios arbitrales en el ámbito nacional e internacional que deben analizarse. Es, además, de relevancia
fundamental definir quiénes son las partes que intervienen en el  arbitraje, tanto las partes involucradas como los no-signatarios.
En este artículo, el autor analiza la figura de los terceros que no hayan suscrito el convenio arbitral a la luz de la Ley Arbitral Peruana, además de proponer soluciones para su mejor regulación.

The enforceability of decisions is a central pillar of any dispute resolution mechanism, whether of internal or international nature. This chapter aims to explain the rules for enforcement under the two main enforcement systems that are currently in force in the realm of investment arbitration: the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, and the 1965 Washington Convention (the “ICSID Convention”). In particular, Section 2 analyses the scheme for enforcement under the New York Convention, and assesses the obligations of the states parties; Section 3 examines the scheme for enforcement under the ICSID Convention along with the related obligations of states parties. In both cases, we will shortly introduce a linkage to the threat that sovereign immunity for execution of awards poses to the function of the investor-state arbitration regime. Some conclusions on the relationship between the two Conventions will be attempted. In such a context we will finally propose some reflections on an issue related to the enforcement and recognition of arbitral awards which could assume particular relevance in the very near future: the proposed investment court system (ICS) and multilateral investment court (MIC). We thus briefly address the main doubts that have been raised concerning the enforcement and recognition of decisions by the ICS/MIC.

This article uses an analytical approach in order to dissect the major legal issues concerning the enforcement of intra-EU awards post-Brexit. The outcomes of the enforcement cases will depend on the country where enforcement is sought (EU Member States, the UK, and other third countries), the applicable legal regime pursuant to which enforcement is sought (the New York Convention or the ICSID Convention), various temporal factors (whether certain key moments in the arbitral proceedings occurred before or after the end of the Brexit transition period), and whether the intra-EU cases are based on intra-EU BITs or the ECT, or both. Due to this complexity, there is no easy answer as to how the various issues arising from the post-Brexit enforcement of intra-EU awards should be solved. This is most unfortunate as it creates uncertainty for investors, host States, and national courts of enforcement alike.

La résiliation des TBI intra-européens, annoncée depuis des années et encouragée par la décision Achmea de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne est en passe de se réaliser avec la conclusion le 5 mai 2020 entre 23 États membres d'un accord de résiliation. Celui-ci pose de nombreuses questions. Si la résiliation elle-même est sans surprise, les effets que les États membres entendent lui faire produire peuvent être discutés. Il en va particulièrement ainsi de la neutralisation des clauses de survie ainsi que du régime applicable aux procédures arbitrales initiées sur le fondement de ces TBI appelés à disparaître.
The termination of intra-European BITs, announced for years and encouraged by the Achmea decision of the European Court of Justice, is on track to be achieved with the conclusion by 23 Member States, on May 5, 2020 of the Agreement for the termination of bilateral investment treaties between the Member States of the European Union. This agreement poses many questions. If the termination itself is not surprising, the effects which the member states intend to attach to it can be discussed. This is especially the case with regard to the sunset clauses as well as the arbitral proceedings legaly based on these BITs.

Resumen: El acuerdo de arbitraje impone a las partes la obligación de someter actuales o futuras controversias a la decisión de árbitros. Siendo el acuerdo de arbitraje un contrato, estrictamente hablando, el estudio de las obligaciones que de él dimanan puede ser analizado desde los principios del derecho de los contratos. Su incumplimiento legitima a la parte cumplidora a reclamar los daños y consecuencias derivadas de su incumplimiento. En los últimos años, esta ha sido la tendencia seguida por tribunales arbitrales y estatales que no han dudado en pronunciar condenas en este sentido. El incumplimiento de un acuerdo de arbitraje abre un amplio panorama en la resolución de controversias y este artículo orienta su estudio de la materia desde una perspectiva crítico-reflexiva. Palabras claves: acuerdo de arbitraje, incumplimiento de contrato, remedios.