Abaclat and Others (Case Formerly Known as Giovanna a Beccara and Others) v. Argentine Republic

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 364-423
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Foreign Investor ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Host State ◽  
Sovereign Bonds ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Made In

364Jurisdiction — Investment — Contract — Whether a dispute arising out of and in relation to sovereign bonds was an investment treaty dispute rather than a mere contractual dispute — Whether forum selection clauses influenced the place where the alleged investment was deemed to have been madeJurisdiction — Investment — Sovereign bonds — Contribution — Interpretation — Whether security entitlements derived from sovereign bonds constituted obligations or public securities within the definition of investment under the BIT — Whether the investors had made contributions leading to the creation of value that the contracting parties intended to protect under the BITJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Salini test — Contribution — Whether the Salini test was the right approach to determine whether an investment had been made — Whether protection of security entitlements derived from sovereign bonds was consistent with the spirit and aim of the ICSID Convention — Whether the ICSID Convention sets the outer limits of consent given under the BITJurisdiction — Investment — Sovereign bonds — Legality — Whether the investment was made in compliance with municipal lawJurisdiction — Investment — Sovereign bonds — Territory — Economic development — Whether the investment was made in the territory of the host State — Whether it was sufficient for the invested funds to have supported the host State’s economic development — Whether it was necessary for investments of a purely financial nature to be linked to a specific economic enterprise or operation taking place in the territory of the host StateJurisdiction — Foreign investor — Nationality — Timing — Whether the investors held the nationality of the home State — Whether natural and juridical persons met certain requirements prior to the registration of the request for arbitrationJurisdiction — Foreign investor — Mass claim — Burden of proof — Whether the investors bore the burden to prove each of them met the requirements of jurisdictionJurisdiction — Foreign investor — Sovereign bonds — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Whether a party that has purchased security entitlements derived from sovereign bonds through layers of intermediaries may still be classified as the party having made an investmentJurisdiction — Consent — Fraud — Whether the State may invoke the investor’s allegedly fraudulent consent to challenge the validity of the agreement to arbitrate the dispute365Jurisdiction — Consent — Mass claim — Procedure — Whether specific consent was required in regard to the procedure for arbitration in the form of collective proceedings or collective mass claimsJurisdiction — Consent — Prior consultation — Domestic litigation requirement — Whether prior consultation and domestic litigation requirements in the dispute resolution clause of a BIT were relevant to whether the host State consented to arbitrationAdmissibility — Mass claim — ICSID Convention — Denial of justice — Whether the mass aspect of a dispute was admissible under the current ICSID framework — Whether to deny the admissibility of mass claims would be a denial of justiceAdmissibility — Prior consultation — Domestic litigation requirement — Whether the failure to meet the requirements of prior consultation and domestic litigation rendered the claims inadmissible — Whether municipal courts would have resolved the dispute within 18 monthsProcedure — Mass claim — ICSID Convention — ICSID Arbitration Rules — Interpretation — Whether the silence of the ICSID framework in respect of collective proceedings was to be interpreted as a gap — Whether a tribunal may adapt the ICSID Arbitration Rules to enable the group examination of claims in accordance with the object and purpose of the ICSID Convention — Whether the claims of multiple claimants were identical or sufficiently homogeneous to allow for their group examination — Whether group examination would meet standards of due processProcedure — Withdrawal — Mass claim — ICSID Institution Rule 8 — Whether certain investors had withdrawn their consent prior to registration of the request for arbitrationProcedure — Discontinuance — Mass claim — ICSID Arbitration Rule 44 — Whether the request of certain investors for discontinuance should be granted — Whether discontinuance of some investors required the termination of the arbitrationAdmissibility — Abuse of rights — Agent — ICSID Arbitration Rule 18 — Whether the ulterior interests of a third party acting as agent in the arbitration constituted an abuse of rights by the investorsProcedure — Evidence — ICSID Arbitration Rule 25 — Request for arbitration — ICSID Convention, Article 36(2) — Whether updated annexes to the request for arbitration containing information related to each investor were admissible — Whether the introduction of evidence violated the requirements of the request for arbitration by unilaterally updating the identity of the parties366 Costs — Discontinuance — Whether investors who discontinued their participation in the proceeding should bear their own legal costs and a share of the arbitration costsInterpretation — ICSID Convention — Policy — Whether policy considerations were relevant to determine whether the tribunal had jurisdiction over claims arising from sovereign bonds — Whether policy considerations were relevant to determine whether mass claims were admissible

Mitchell v. Democratic Republic of the Congo

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 85-109
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Professional Services ◽  
The State ◽  
Relevant Factor ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Host State ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Significant Burden ◽  
Arbitration Proceeding ◽  
Republic Of The Congo

85Jurisdiction — Investment — Professional services — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Whether legal services qualified as an investment — Whether a contribution to the economic development of the host State was required for there to be an investmentExpropriation — Measures tantamount to expropriation — Whether international law or national law was applied to determine whether an expropriation had occurred under the BIT — Whether measures resulting in the total loss of clients may constitute measures tantamount to expropriationRemedies — Damages — Expropriation — Fair market value — Capitalised earnings approach — Whether the investor was entitled to compensation based on a projection into the future of income from the previous years — Whether the investor was entitled to compensation including projected income on accounts held outside the host State — Whether the capitalisation rate was appropriate to the economic and political circumstances of the host State — Whether the period of future compensation reflected the claimant’s inability to return to the host StateCounterclaim — Nuisance — Reputational damage — Whether the host State was entitled to reputational damages resulting from an investment treaty claimAnnulment — Stay of enforcement — ICSID Convention, Article 52(5) — Whether potential difficulties for the State in recouping the amount of the Award in case of annulment were likely — Whether other State budgetary priorities are a relevant factor in deciding whether to grant a stay — Whether the lack of urgency of recovery of the award by an investor was a relevant factor in deciding whether to grant a stay — Whether the seriousness of the grounds invoked in the annulment proceedings is a relevant factor in deciding whether to grant a stayAnnulment — Stay of enforcement — ICSID Convention, Article 52(5) — Whether the posting of a bank guarantee in the amount of the award was a condition for a stay of enforcement — Whether the principle that the State was obliged to comply with its international obligations is a sufficient basis for deciding whether to require the posting of a guarantee as a condition for a stay of enforcement — Whether the State needed to prove that the posting of a guarantee would be a significant burden to avoid being required to post a guaranteeAnnulment — Manifest excess of powers — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(b) — Whether the tribunal exceeded its powers in accepting jurisdiction ratione materiae over professional services — Whether the tribunal exceeded its powers by failing to apply a provision of the BIT that was not specifically adduced in the arbitration proceeding86Annulment — Investment — Professional services — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Salini test — Whether the existence of a contribution to the economic development of the host State was an essential characteristic of an investmentAnnulment — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(e) — Whether the tribunal failed to state reasons in accepting jurisdiction ratione materiae over professional services — Whether the tribunal failed to state reasons with respect to its failure to apply certain provisions of the BIT that were not adduced in the arbitration proceeding — Whether the tribunal failed to state reasons with respect to the calculation of the compensation due to the claimant

Enkev Beheer BV (of the Netherlands) v. Republic of Poland

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 630-648
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
The State ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Waiting Period ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Just Compensation ◽  
Default Rules ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Almost All

630Procedure — Addition of a party — Conditional application — UNCITRAL Rules, Article 22 — UNCITRAL Rules, Article 17 — Whether the UNCITRAL Rules or lex loci arbitri allowed for applications to be made conditional on a tribunal’s future decision — Whether the application was consistent with the State’s procedural rights — Whether the amendment to a claim under Article 22 of the UNCITRAL Rules allowed for the addition of a third party as claimantJurisdiction — Investment — Shares — Whether an investor’s shares and rights derived from those shares were protected investments under the BITJurisdiction — Investment — Assets of subsidiary — Whether profits, goodwill or know-how of a local subsidiary constituted investments of the investor protected by the BITJurisdiction — Consent — Cooling-off period — Premature claims — Whether the investor had communicated its own claims rather than those of its local subsidiary — Whether the investor’s failure to comply with a waiting period of six months under the BIT required a tribunal to deny jurisdiction or admissibility — Whether the negotiation of a local subsidiary’s dispute in good faith was relevant to jurisdiction over a foreign investor’s claimsInterpretation — Cooling-off period — VCLT, Article 31 — Object and purpose — Whether the object and purpose of the BIT required a tribunal not to adopt a strict or formalistic interpretation of the waiting period of six monthsRemedies — Declaratory award — Interpretation — Just compensation — Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction under the BIT to make a declaratory award on the interpretation and application of the term “just compensation”Jurisdiction — Dispute — Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction under the BIT to advise the parties of an imminent disputeExpropriation — Direct deprivation — Shares — Rights derived from shares — Whether the State directly deprived the investor of its rights as a shareholder in its local subsidiaryExpropriation — Indirect deprivation — Shares — Rights derived from shares — Whether the shares had lost all or almost all significant commercial value — Whether the measures were adopted in the public interest — Whether due process had been followed — Whether there were any undertakings by the StateExpropriation — Interpretation — “Just compensation” — Whether there was any difference between the terms of the BIT and general international law — Whether the meaning of just compensation could be determined in the abstract631Fair and equitable treatment — Whether the impending expropriation constituted a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether the claim concerned the investor’s rights derived from sharesFull protection and security — Whether the State failed to protect an investment from expropriation by local authorities — Whether the claim concerned the investor’s rights derived from sharesUmbrella clause — Whether there was any assurance directed at the investor that created any legal obligations — Whether the claim concerned the investor’s rights derived from sharesCosts — Arbitration costs — Variation by agreement — UNCITRAL Rules — Whether the terms of the BIT varied the default rules for the allocation of arbitration costs

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

Fakes v. Republic of Turkey

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 279-302
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Host State ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
Heavy Burden ◽  
Legal Fees ◽  
Necessary And Sufficient

279Jurisdiction — Foreign investor — Nationality — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Dual nationality — Effective nationality — Whether an effective nationality test must be read into Article 25 of the ICSID Convention — Whether the explicit exclusion from jurisdiction of dual nationals who held the nationality of the host State was the only jurisdictional bar related to a natural person’s nationality under the ICSID ConventionApplicable law — Customary international law — Diplomatic protection — Effective nationality — ICSID Convention, Article 27(1) — Whether the rules of customary international law applicable in the context of diplomatic protection applied to determine nationality in investor–State arbitrationJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Salini test — Legality — Whether the four elements of the Salini test must necessarily be met to determine the existence of an investment — Whether the three objective criteria of contribution, duration and risk were both necessary and sufficient to define an investment within the framework of the ICSID Convention — Whether the applicable BIT imposed further limits on protected investments — Whether the investment fell within the scope of the requirement of legality under municipal lawJurisdiction — Investment — Shares — Evidence — Burden of proof — Whether the share certificates were valid under the law of the host State — Whether the heavy burden of proof of alleged impropriety was met — Whether the claimant held legal title over the share certificates said to constitute the investmentEvidence — Burden of proof — Impropriety — Whether the burden of proof of any allegations of impropriety was particularly heavyCosts — Frivolous proceedings — ICSID Convention, Article 61(2) — ICSID Arbitration Rule 28 — Whether an arbitral tribunal had discretion in frivolous proceedings to allocate the arbitration costs and the legal fees and expenses between the parties by ordering the losing party to bear in full the costs of the arbitration and the entirety of the legal fees and expenses incurred by both parties

Ambiente Ufficio SpA and Others v. Argentine Republic

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 506-609
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Portfolio Investment ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Investment Portfolio ◽  
Power Of Attorney ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Sovereign Bonds ◽  
Ordinary Meaning ◽  
Locus Standi ◽  
Domestic Courts

506Jurisdiction — Consent — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Multi-party proceedings — Interpretation — Whether multi-party proceedings were compatible with the ICSID system and the BIT — Whether original submission of a multi-party proceeding required an act of consent on the part of the respondent beyond the general jurisdictional requirement of written consent — Whether the number of claimants affected the scope of the respondent’s consent to arbitration — Whether contractually unrelated persons could bring a claim together — Whether the number of claimants would prevent the tribunal from conducting the proceedings in accordance with the principles of fairness and due processJurisdiction — Consent — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — ICSID Convention, Article 36 — Due authorisation — Power of attorney — Whether the request for arbitration should have been signed by the claimants themselves — Whether the power of attorney in favour of counsel was validly executed — Whether the power of attorney empowered counsel to file the request for arbitration on behalf of the claimantsJurisdiction — Nationality — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — ICSID Convention, Article 43 — Burden of proof — Whether the burden of proof fell on the respondent to disprove that the claimants were not Italian nationals — Whether the evidentiary burden was satisfied through the identity documents submitted by the claimantsJurisdiction — Standing — Portfolio investment — Sovereign bonds — Domestic litigation — Whether the claimants lacked locus standi because of their remote connection with the underlying bonds — Whether certain claims brought before domestic courts against the issuers of security entitlement deprived the claimants of their locus standi in international arbitrationJurisdiction — Investment — Portfolio investment — Sovereign bonds — Territorial requirement — Interpretation — Whether security entitlements related to sovereign bonds were investments covered by the BITJurisdiction — Investment — Portfolio investment — Sovereign bonds — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — VCLT, Article 31 — Ordinary meaning — VCLT, Article 32 — Supplementary means — Whether the tribunal must interpret the meaning of investment in accordance with its ordinary meaning — Whether the tribunal must interpret the meaning of investment using supplementary meansJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Salini test — Whether the four elements of the Salini test expressed mandatory jurisdictional requirements — Whether security entitlements issued in respect of sovereign bonds met the Salini test507 Jurisdiction — Sovereign acts — Whether the impugned measures were sovereign acts constituting prima facie breaches of the BITJurisdiction — Domestic litigation requirement — Consultation — Effective redress — Whether the provisions under the BIT laid down mandatory jurisdictional requirements — Whether the duty to consult was satisfied by the claimants — Whether the claimants violated the requirement to have recourse to the domestic courts prior to their request for international arbitration

Bayview Irrigation District et al. v. United Mexican States

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 168-182
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Investment ◽  
Water Rights ◽  
Irrigation District ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Foreign Investor ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Home State ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Made In

168Jurisdiction — Foreign investor — NAFTA, Article 1101(a) — Interpretation — Territorial jurisdiction — Whether NAFTA protected domestic investors who made investments in their home State from measures adopted by another State — Whether there was a legally significant connection between the measures and the claimantsInterpretation — Travaux préparatoires — Jurisdiction — Investment — Foreign investor — Whether the drafters intended for NAFTA to protect domestic or only foreign investmentJurisdiction — Investment — NAFTA, Article 1139 — Interpretation — Territorial jurisdiction — Whether a protected investment must be made in a foreign territory rather than the investor’s home StateJurisdiction — Investment — NAFTA, Article 1139(g) — Interpretation — Other property — Water rights — Whether investment in the form of legal rights to extract water was within the definition of other property — Whether rights included water while it was in another State

Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 649-689
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Effective Means ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Minimum Standard ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Minimum Standard Of Treatment

649Procedure — Amicus curiae — ICSID Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rules, Article 41(3) — Whether the non-disputing party’s submission provided assistance to the tribunal — Whether the non-disputing party’s submission addressed matters within the scope of the dispute — Whether the non-disputing party had a significant interest in the arbitration — Whether there was public interest in the subject matter of the arbitration — Whether the non-disputing party’s submission created disruption, burden or prejudice affecting the disputing parties — Whether the non-disputing party complied with disclosure requirementsProcedure — Seat of arbitration — Lex loci arbitri — Whether the tribunal was bound to select a seat of arbitration in the State of either party — Whether the tribunal should consider laws of the proposed seat of arbitration regarding arbitrator immunity or quorum requirements — Whether municipal law regarding deference to executive interpretation of treaty law in the event of judicial review of an arbitral award weighed against a proposed seat of arbitrationJurisdiction — Investment — Foreign investor — Meaning of “relating to” — NAFTA, Article 1101 — NAFTA, Article 1116 — NAFTA, Article 1117 — NAFTA, Article 1139 — Whether the challenged measure related to an investment or an investor — Whether “relating to” required a legally significant connection under municipal law or merely an effect in fact — Whether the claimants’ ability to sell other products was relevant to assessment of jurisdictionJurisdiction — Investment — Applicable law — Res judicata — NAFTA, Article 1139 — NAFTA, Article 1136(1) — Whether the concept of res judicata was applicable to NAFTA arbitrations — Whether the conditions were met for res judicata — Whether res judicata could create issue estoppel based on the reasoning of a prior award or only the operative parts of the prior award — Whether distinctions existed between the investment at issue in the prior award and the present arbitrationJurisdiction — Investment — NAFTA, Article 1139 — Intangible property — Whether a marketing authorisation was an investment made in the territory of the host StateEvidence — Burden of proof — Most-favoured-nation treatment — National treatment — Document production — Whether the evidential burden of proof can shift from the claimant to the respondent due to limited document productionNational treatment — NAFTA, Article 1102 — Whether the domestic comparators had been afforded more favourable treatment — Whether the domestic comparators were in like circumstances to the claimants650Most-favoured-nation treatment — NAFTA, Article 1103 — Whether foreign comparators had been afforded more favourable treatment — Whether foreign comparators were in like circumstances — Whether the claimants had been targeted by authorities for political reasons — Whether the conduct of the claimants distinguished their circumstances from foreign comparatorsMinimum standard of treatment — NAFTA, Article 1105 — Customary international law — Public health — Due process — Whether the minimum standard of treatment under customary international law required regulatory due process — Whether there was evidence of State practice in favour of regulatory due process forming part of the minimum standard of treatment — Whether an international tribunal should defer to regulatory bodies responsible for protecting public health — Whether regulatory conduct met the required threshold of severity and gravityMost-favoured-nation treatment — NAFTA, Article 1103 — Minimum standard of treatment — NAFTA, Article 1105 — Non-impairment — Effective means of protection — Whether importing standards of non-impairment and effective means of protection from a BIT would provide more favourable protection than the minimum standard of treatment — Whether a standard of non-impairment would have produced a different outcome for the claimants — Whether the standard of effective means of protection in judicial proceedings applied to a regulatory contextCosts — Loser pays — Whether the tribunal should apply the principle that the loser pays — Whether any party had increased costs by proposing or resisting bifurcation

Part III Guide to Key Jurisdictional Issues, 11 The Meaning of ‘Investment’ in Investment Treaty Arbitration

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yannaca-Small Katia ◽  
Katsikis Dimitrios
Keyword(s):  
International Investment ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽  
Host State ◽  
Subjective Approach ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
Made In ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration ◽  
The Way

Despite the growing number of investor-state arbitrations and resulting jurisprudence, there is still no consensus on the criteria of investment. This chapter first examines the way ‘investment’ is ‘defined’ in bilateral investment treaties and other international investment agreements, as well as the meaning of investment in the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Dispute (ICSID) Convention. It then considers aspects of the arbitral jurisprudence on certain types of assets constituting an investment; the ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ approach to interpreting definitions of ‘investment’; the characteristics that have been considered to be criteria of an investment; and the requirements that, to be protected, an ‘investment’ must be (i) made in accordance with the host State’s law and (ii) in the territory of the host State.

Alltech FEI World Equestrian Games

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-103
Author(s):  
Simon Medcalfe ◽  
Caroliegh Frentzel
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Economic Impact ◽  
Local Economic Development ◽  
Regional Economics ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Sporting Events ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Mega Events ◽  
Impact Studies ◽  
The Impact

Synopsis This case requires students to analyze the economic impact of a sporting mega-event. Mega-events are defined as infrequent events (maybe spread over several days) that attract a large crowd of visitors. Economic impact studies are becoming ubiquitous in analyzing the impact of sporting events, universities and other businesses. Properly constructed these reports can be valuable tools for decision makers. Unfortunately, many impact studies are not constructed accurately and may mislead and misrepresent information. This case raises these issues so that students may be better placed to critically analyze the impact of mega-events. Research methodology There are a number of academic articles that have analyzed these types of events and they are referred to in this case and instructor’s manual. The academic articles are complemented by one of the author’s firsthand knowledge of the event through working at the World Equestrian Games, a third-party economic impact study and media reports. Relevant courses and levels The case would be appropriate for a variety of undergraduate courses including upper-level economics (particularly regional economics or local economic development), marketing, sport management as well as some finance courses such as public finance. Outside of business courses, it would be well suited to a course in political economy or public policy. The case could potentially be used in a graduate course in sports management or a course in local economic development (in an MBA or MPA program).

Micula and Others v. Romania

2021 ◽  
Vol 196 ◽  
pp. 1-492
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Equitable Treatment

1Economics, trade and finance — Investment protection — Fair and equitable treatment — Sweden–Romania Bilateral Investment Treaty, 2002 — Article 2(3) — Whether Romania breaching fair and equitable treatment protection under Treaty — Whether Romania breaching investors’ legitimate expectations — Whether Romania acting reasonably with respect to investors’ investment — Whether Romania affording investors adequate levels of transparency — Article 2(4) — Umbrella clause — Whether Romania breaching umbrella clause protection under TreatyArbitration — Jurisdiction — Investment protection — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Distinction between objection to jurisdiction and objection to admissibility — Factual findings — Burden of proof — Jurisdiction ratione personae — Jurisdiction ratione materiae — Jurisdiction ratione temporis — Temporal application of bilateral investment treaty — Whether applicable to acts occurring before entry into force if dispute arose after entry into forceArbitration — Remedies — Standard for bringing a claim for lost profits — Sufficient certainty — Whether investors would have made profits but for the international wrong — Whether trend among investment tribunals to award compound rather than simple interest — Whether a tribunal having power to issue definitive injunctive relief — Res judicata effectArbitration — Enforceability of Award — Whether appropriate for Tribunal to base its decisions on matters of EU law applying after Award rendered — ICSID Convention, 1965, Articles 53 and 54Nationality — Individuals — Claimants renouncing nationality of respondent State and acquiring new nationality — Whether new nationality purely a matter for national law — Whether role for international law — Whether new nationality opposable to State of former nationality — Whether “genuine link” with State of new nationality required — Standing to being investment claim under bilateral investment treatyTreaties — Interpretation — Sweden–Romania Bilateral Investment Treaty, 2002 — Treaties established under European Union law to which Romania and Sweden parties — Whether conflict of treaties — Whether EU law having role in interpretation of BIT — Whether EU law applying after Award rendered relevant to Tribunal’s decision making — ICSID Convention, 1965, Articles 53 and 54

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document