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

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

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

Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Agreements

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roland Kläger
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Due Process ◽  
International Investment ◽  
General Character ◽  
Minimum Standard ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Investment Agreements

Fair and equitable treatment is a central norm in international investment law. This norm is contained in the vast majority of international investment agreements as one of the main standards for the protection of foreign investors. Historically, international investment agreements contained short and general clauses of fair and equitable treatment, which were formulated either as free-standing provisions with a reference to general international law, or to the international minimum standard of customary international law. Especially since the first decade of the 21st century, drafting approaches to fair and equitable treatment became increasingly diverse and generated complex and elaborate clauses seeking to address the different elements of the norm that have developed over time. The drafting approaches reflect the long-standing controversies with regard to fair and equitable treatment and the question of whether this concept is to be constructed in accordance with the international minimum standard or as an independent and self-contained standard possibly exceeding customary international law. Both concepts have remained vague and have created difficulties in the interpretation of fair and equitable treatment, which due to its general character became a prominent cause of action in investor-state arbitration proceedings. The evolution of arbitral jurisprudence stimulated the emergence of different elements of fair and equitable treatment, including the protection of the investor’s legitimate expectations, the protection against discrimination and arbitrary treatments, and the principles of due process, denial of justice, and transparency. The increasing number of cases on the basis of fair and equitable treatment also led to concerns and criticism that a far-reaching concept of the norm would threaten the host states’ sovereignty and their right to regulate, as well as the principle of sustainable development. These concerns and the fact that a growing number of investment disputes were brought against developed countries motivated first the North American Free Trade Agreement member states and subsequently other states and the European Union to adapt their international investment agreements in order to try to concretize the concept of fair and equitable treatment and to limit the discretion of arbitrators. The concept of fair and equitable treatment has also received considerable attention by scholars who propose a variety of different approaches to the interpretation of the norm and the balancing of the conflicting private and public interests at stake.

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

Bilcon et al. v. Canada

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (04) ◽  
pp. 730-732
Author(s):  
Jonathan Chevry
Keyword(s):  
Minimum Standard ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Nafta Chapter 11 ◽  
Minimum Standard Of Treatment

InBilcon et al.v.Canada, a NAFTA Chapter 11 dispute, the tribunal's majority held Canada liable for breaches of NAFTA Articles 1102 (National Treatment) and 1105 (Minimum Standard of Treatment). Pr. D. McRae – Canada's appointed arbitrator – dissented from both findings.

Too Low a Threshold: Bilcon v Canada and the International Minimum Standard of Treatment

2016 ◽  
Vol 53 ◽  
pp. 244-277
Author(s):  
MICHAEL CARFAGNINI
Keyword(s):  
Trade Agreement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Minimum Standard ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Low Threshold ◽  
Government Of Canada ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Minimum Standard Of Treatment

AbstractTreaty obligations to afford foreign investors a minimum standard of treatment (MST) and/or fair and equitable treatment (FET) are hallmarks of international investment law. However, the relationship between such treaty-based obligations and customary international law has been the subject of considerable debate. In the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) context, the majority tribunal decision and dissenting opinion in Clayton and Bilcon of Delaware Inc. v Government of Canada (Bilcon) reflect ongoing disagreement regarding the threshold for breach of the MST under NAFTA Article 1105. This article charts NAFTA investment tribunals’ decisions regarding FET claims under Article 1105 and the development of the customary international MST on which that provision is based, in particular, the prohibition on arbitrary treatment. It argues that the majority in Bilcon applied an inappropriately low threshold in finding a breach of Article 1105, which could represent a new and unwelcome direction in NAFTA Chapter 11 jurisprudence.

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

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.

scholarly journals Examining the accounts of oil spills crises in Nigeria through sensegiving and defensive behaviours

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 2053-2076 ◽  
Author(s):  
Osamuyimen Egbon ◽  
Chijoke Oscar Mgbame
Keyword(s):  
Policy Implication ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Oil Spills ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Multinational Companies ◽  
External Factors ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Political Dynamics ◽  
Defensive Behaviours ◽  
Practical Implications

PurposeThe paper examines how oil multinational companies (MNCs) in Nigeria framed accounts to dissociate themselves from causing oil spills.Design/methodology/approachThe authors utilised data from relevant corporate reports, external accounts and interviews, and used sensegiving with defensive behaviours theoretical framing to explore corporate narratives aimed at altering stakeholders' perceptions.FindingsThe corporations gave sense to their audience by invoking scapegoating blame avoidance narrative in attributing the cause of most oil spills in Nigeria to outsiders (sabotage), despite potentially misclassifying the sabotage-corrosion dichotomy. Corporate stance was reinforced through justifying narrative, which suggested that multi-stakeholders jointly determined the causes of oil spills, thus portraying corporate accounts as transparent, credible and objective.Research limitations/implicationsThe socio-political dynamics in an empirical setting affect corporate accounts and how those accounts appear persuasive, implying that such contextual factors merit consideration when evaluating corporate accounts. For example, despite contradictions in corporate accounts, corporate attribution of oil spills to external factors appeared persuasive due to the inherently complicated socio-political dynamics.Practical implicationsWith compensation to oil spills' victims only legally permitted for non-sabotage-induced spills alongside the burden of proof on the victims, the MNCs are incentivised to attribute most oil spills to sabotage. On policy implication, accountability would be best served when the MNCs are tasked both with the burden of proof and a responsibility to demonstrate their transparency in preventing oil spills, including those caused by sabotage.Originality/valueCrisis situations generate multiple and competing perspectives, but sensegiving and defensive behaviours lenses enrich our understanding of how crisis-ridden companies frame narratives to alter stakeholders' perceptions. Accounts-giving therefore partly satisfies accountability demands, and acts as sensegiving signals aimed at reframing/redefining existing perceptions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document