The ‘fair and equitable treatment’ standard and the circumstances of the host State

2011 ◽  
pp. 223-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick Gallus
Keyword(s):  
Host State ◽  
Treatment Standard ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Equitable Treatment

scholarly journals FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT STANDARD IN NTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Sefriani .
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Host State ◽  
Legitimate Expectation ◽  
Treatment Standard ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Investment Agreements

<pre><span lang="EN-US">In the last five years, the number of investors who suit against host state in the international arbitration forum increased significantly. Almost all lawsuits used fair and equitable treatment (FET) standard which has been violated by the host state. Most of international investment agreements including those that were made by Indonesia contain FET standard clauses. However, there are no definitions related to this standard. This condition potentially raises a very wide interpretation of the standard. The problem formulations in this article are how the history of FET is, where its position in international investment law is and what elements of FET standard are. The results show that the FET standard has existed since Havana Charter followed by various FCN, BIT and other international investment agreements. FET standard can be categorized as customary international, legally binding on all countries regardless their national law. Although there is no universal approval regarding the scope of FET standard, the writings which have been published and the arbitral tribunal decision mentions that those elements are legitimate expectation; due process; denial of justice; rule of law; non-discrimination; transparency; consistency, good faith, and reasonableness.</span></pre><pre><span lang="EN-US"> </span></pre>

The Prohibition against Arbitrary Conduct and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard under NAFTA Article 1105

2014 ◽  
pp. 117-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Dumberry
Keyword(s):  
High Threshold ◽  
Minimum Standard ◽  
Host State ◽  
Treatment Standard ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Minimum Standard Of Treatment

This article examines how NAFTA tribunals have interpreted and applied the prohibition against arbitrary conduct in the context of claims of breach of the fair and equitable treatment standard under Article 1105. Tribunals have come to the conclusion that this prohibition is a stand-alone element under this provision and that it should also be considered as part of the minimum standard of treatment under custom. This position is no longer denied by NAFTA Parties. NAFTA tribunals have also consistently applied a high threshold of severity requiring that conduct be manifestly arbitrary to conclude that the host State has breached Article 1105. Based on this high threshold, NAFTA tribunals have held that a State conduct in violation of its own municipal law (or a contract) does not breach Article 1105. Thus, “something more” than simple illegality is required to constitute a violation of this provision. This article explains what that “something more” is.

Introductory Note

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
August Reinisch
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Treatment Standard ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Introductory Note ◽  
Equitable Treatment

In 2015, the jurisprudence of International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunals and ad hoc committees largely followed established lines. However, the awards on jurisdiction in the Poštová banka and the Ping An cases evidenced very restrictive approaches to what is required in order to uphold jurisdiction over ICSID claims. On the substance of claims, the tribunals in Tidewater and in Quiborax reaffirmed the legality requirements of expropriations, a string of cases clarified the contours of the fair and equitable treatment standard, while the ad hoc committees in the Daimler and the Kılıç cases continued to diverge on the scope of most-favoured nation (MFN) clauses.

Deutsche Bank AG v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 446-484
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Responsibility Attribution ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Host State ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Debt Recovery

446Jurisdiction — Investment — Derivative transactions — Interpretation — Claims to money used to create an economic value — Claims to money associated with an investment — Whether a hedging agreement constituted an investment under the BITJurisdiction — Investment — Territorial requirement — Derivative transactions — Whether a hedging agreement satisfied the condition of territorial nexus to the host StateJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Derivative transactions — Salini test — Contribution to economic development — Regularity of profit and return — Whether a hedging agreement constituted an investment — Whether all five elements of the Salini test were legal criteria for an investment under ICSID jurisdictionJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Derivative transactions — Ordinary commercial transaction — Contingent liability — Whether a hedging agreement was an ordinary commercial transaction or a contingent liabilityJurisdiction — Contract — State-owned entity — Municipal law — Whether a hedging agreement was void because the transaction was outside a State-owned entity’s statutory authorityState responsibility — Attribution — Judicial acts — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — Whether a superior court was an organ of the host StateState responsibility — Attribution — Central bank — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — Whether a central bank was an organ of the host StateState responsibility — Attribution — State-owned entity — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 — Whether a State-owned entity was an organ of the State — Whether actions of a State-owned entity were attributable to the State as an exercise of governmental authority — Whether a State-owned entity was acting under instructions or the direction and control of the StateFair and equitable treatment — Judicial acts — Due process — Interim order — Political motive — Whether court orders violated the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether public statements of a senior judge evidenced the political motive of court ordersFair and equitable treatment — Autonomous standard — Interpretation — Minimum standard of treatment — Whether the standard of fair and equitable treatment was materially different from customary international law447Fair and equitable treatment — Government investigation — Due process — Bad faith — Transparency — Whether a central bank’s investigation violated the standard of fair and equitable treatmentExpropriation — Indirect expropriation — Contract — Derivative transaction — Substantial deprivation — Debt recovery — Municipal law — Whether the subsistence of a contractual debt and the possibility to claim under the chosen law of a third State prevented a finding of expropriation — Whether the possibility of recovery in a third State was to be assessed as a prerequisite in the cause of action of expropriation or as a matter of causation and quantumExpropriation — Indirect expropriation — Contract — Substantial deprivation — Legitimate regulatory authority — Proportionality — Whether an interference with contractual rights was an exercise of the host State’s legitimate regulatory authority — Whether the regulatory measures were proportionateRemedies — Damages — Causation — Contract — Debt recovery — Whether the claimant suffered damages if it had the possibility to recover a contractual debt in the courts of a third StateCosts — Indemnity — Egregious breach — Bad faith — Whether the egregious nature of the host State’s breaches of its international obligations meant the claimant was entitled to full recovery of its costs, legal fees and expenses

Legitimate Expectations and Fair-and-Equitable-Treatment under the Energy Charter Treaty

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niclas Landmann
Keyword(s):  
Renewable Energy ◽  
Energy Sector ◽  
Comprehensive Analysis ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
The Past ◽  
Treatment Standard ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Energy Charter Treaty ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
Equitable Treatment

A recent tide of ISDS cases in the renewable energy sector has generated a large number of arbitral awards that turn of the notion of legitimate expectations. The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard (FET) and the notion of legitimate expectations has been highly undetermined in the past. This work contains a comprehensive analysis of the renewable energy awards and the interpretation of the notion of legitimate expectations therein. In particular, it is examined whether arbitral jurisprudence formed a cohesive body of caw-law. The author analyses which aspects with regard to commitment by the states, due diligence of the investors, and level of impact were considered a violation of the FET Standard by recent arbitral tribunals.

3 Fair And Equitable Treatment

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gallagher Norah ◽  
Shan Wenhua
Keyword(s):  
Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Standard Format ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
Host State ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Full Protection

Like other bilateral investment treaties (BITs), Chinese BITs establish a set of general standards of treatment accorded to foreign investors by the host state. The most commonly found general standards of treatment include fair and equitable treatment (FET), (full) protection and security (PNS), most favoured nation treatment (MFN), and national treatment (NT). The first two belong to the group of non-contingent standards (or so-called “absolute standard of treatment”), whilst the latter two are forms of contingent standards (or “relative standards of treatment”). Absolute standards do not depend on treatment granted to other investors. In contrast, the relative standards are contingent on treatment given to other categories of investors, nationals of the host state in the case of NT and investors from third states for the MFN. This chapter begins with an examination of the FET standard, focusing on the different approaches of interpretations that have been developed in theory and in arbitration practice. It then analyzes the standard under Chinese BITs and assesses the implications of its standard format and any variations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document