scholarly journals Bear Creek V. Peru and the Legality of the Investment as a (Implied) Requirement for the Investment Arbitration Tribunal’s Exercise of Jurisdiction

2020 ◽  
pp. 447-455
Author(s):  
Andrés Talavera Cano
Keyword(s):  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Mining Company ◽  
Santa Ana ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Mining Project ◽  
Silver Mining ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Bear Creek ◽  
Made In

Concerns about inconsistency in the application of standards in arbitral awards are strongly present in investment treaty arbitration. In particular, tribunals can regularly exercise a varying scope of jurisdiction when they determine the legality requirement that demands foreign investments to be made in accordance with the law of the host state.In this paper, the author seeks to analyze the decision rendered by the tribunal in Bear Creek v. Peru, in which the Canadian mining company alleged that the Peruvian State breach, inter alia, expropriation protections under the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement in relation to its investment in the silver mining project of Santa Ana. In order to achieve this aim, in the first chapter, he addresses three key issues regarding the tribunal’s jurisdiction, the rights on which the company based its claim and the arguably prerequisite of legality or good faith for the tribunal’s exercise of jurisdiction. In the second chapter, he analyzes the validity of the tribunal’s interpretation on the legality requirement for investment as an implicit element in the relevant treaty to determine the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Expropriation in Transition: Evolving Chinese Investment Treaty Practices in Local and Global Contexts

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 579-604 ◽  
Author(s):  
SHEN WEI
Keyword(s):  
Trade Agreement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Chinese Investment ◽  
Cultural Concepts ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Role Of The State ◽  
The Republic

AbstractThe doctrine and case law on expropriation in international investment law is an unsettled area due to a variety of factors such as the diversity of interests between capital importing and exporting states, the divergence in legal, economic, and cultural concepts of property rights, and, more importantly, the regulatory role of the state in cross-border investment activities. Although China has been an active ‘treaty-maker’ in the universe of international investment arbitration, evidenced by its nearly 130 bilateral investment treaties (BITs), the notion of expropriation in these BITs is in a state of flux. This article scrutinizes the expropriation clauses in China's BITs, in particular, the Peru–China BIT and the Peru–China free trade agreement, by reference to the final award of Tza Yap Shum v. The Republic of Peru, the first Chinese BIT arbitration case. This article attempts, in a comparative context, to understand the underlying rationale for China's evolving stance on expropriation.

scholarly journals TRANSPARENCY AND CONFIDENTIALITY REQUIREMENTS IN INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATION

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 114-138
Author(s):  
Azhaham Perumal Perumal Saravanan ◽  
Subramanian Ramamurthy Subramanian
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
The North ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

he values of confidentiality and transparency are often invoked in the theory and practice of investment treaty arbitration. Transparency is considered to be one of the key aspects of good governance and corporate social responsibility. It includes the obligation of the host state to publish all the legal rules, regulations and other statutory requirements affecting investors. Confidentiality is considered the hallmark and unique feature of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism. However, it is difficult to balance these two values, in principle due to the difference in the various investment arbitration cases, as well as the high degree of public interest involved in such proceedings. The competing interests between transparency and confidentiality have significantly increased in the recent past, and the difficulty lies in drawing a medial line between them. There is also debate as to what extent non-disputing parties are allowed to participate in investment arbitration, and what the essential requirements are to admit them.It is in this connection that this article makes an in-depth analysis of how investment arbitration frameworks have approached the questions of transparency, confidentiality and amicus curiae participation over the years. The article assesses and explores similar issues within the International Convention on the settlement of investment disputes between States and nationals of other States, 1965 (ICSID), the North American Free Trade Agreement, 1994 (NAFTA) and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules, 1978. The study also makes a critical analysis of celebrated cases falling within each category. The article further elaborates the transparency requirements in the U.S. Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), 2012, and the recently adopted Indian Model BIT, 2015. The study is very significant because the United Nations has recently adopted the Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based InvestorState Arbitration, 2014 (Mauritius Convention), which ensures transparency and public accessibility to investor-state arbitration.

The New Gold Standard? Empirically Situating the Trans-Pacific Partnership in the Investment Treaty Universe

2016 ◽  
pp. 339-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Alschner ◽  
Dmitriy Skougarevskiy
Keyword(s):  
High Standard ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Brics Countries ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Investment Agreements

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been labeled a ‘new, high-standard trade agreement’. But just how ‘new’ and ‘high’ are the standards it sets? To answer that question we combine traditional legal analysis with computational text comparisons situating the TPP in the universe of international investment agreements (IIAs). We find that the TPP investment chapter offers few truly novel features — 81% of its text is taken from prior American treaties. Compared to the majority of IIAs, however, the TPP goes beyond existing practice: it sets high levels of investment protection, explicitly safeguards host state sovereignty and establishes a sophisticated investment arbitration architecture. Nevertheless, the TPP is unlikely to revolutionize the IIA universe. Its innovations are open to circumvention given that older treaties remain in force parallel to the TPP. Moreover, as disagreement persists with Europe and BRICS countries, the TPP is unlikely to serve as a template for future multilateralization.

Contributory Fault under International Law: A Gateway for Human Rights in ISDS?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farouk El-Hosseny ◽  
Patrick Devine
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Multinational Enterprises ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Government ◽  
Bear Creek ◽  
Shed Light

Abstract The intersection between foreign investment and human rights is gaining attention, as is evident from an increasing number of investment treaty awards analysing legal issues relating to human rights. In the recent International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitration of Bear Creek v Peru, Philippe Sands QC posited, in a dissenting opinion, that the investor’s contribution to events—ie protests against its allegedly adverse environmental impact and disregard of indigenous rights, namely resulting from its ‘inability to obtain a “social licence”’—which led to the unlawful expropriation of its investment, was ‘significant and material’. He further noted that the investor’s ‘responsibilities are no less than those of the government’ and found that damages should thus be reduced. Last year, the Netherlands adopted a new model bilateral investment treaty (BIT), which allows tribunals to ‘take into account non-compliance by the investor with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises’ when assessing damages. These recent developments shed light on how states and tribunals, as part of their decision-making process, can take into account human rights in practice, and crucially in respect of damages analyses. By first dissecting the concept of contributory fault, then shedding light on the intersection of investment treaty law and human rights, as elucidated in recent jurisprudence, this article questions whether there now exists a gateway for human rights obligations (soft or hard) in the investment treaty arbitration realm through the concept of contributory fault.

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

THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS AND INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATION: A LIMITED RELATIONSHIP

2015 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 905-933
Author(s):  
Jarrod Hepburn
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

AbstractThe UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts have appeared in a small but steady trickle of investment treaty arbitrations over the last decade. This article considers the use of the Principles by investment tribunals on questions of both domestic law and international law. It suggests that reference to the Principles can play an important legitimating role on questions of domestic law, but that this should not replace reference to the applicable law. On questions of international law, reference to the Principles may be justified by resort to the general principles of law. However, the article contends that there is only a limited role for the UNIDROIT Principles where the primary and secondary rules of investment protection are already found in treaties and custom. In addition, while general principles have historically been drawn from domestic private law, there is increasing recognition that general principles of public law are more relevant to investment arbitration. Given this, arbitrators resolving questions of international law must be cautious in references to the UNIDROIT Principles, a quintessentially private law instrument.

Legitimacy of Investor-State Arbitration

2020 ◽  
pp. 164-178
Author(s):  
Jamal Seifi
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽  
Vital Importance ◽  
Social Legitimacy ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
The Cold War

Due to insufficient concretization of international norms, it is of vital importance to have broadly representative international courts and tribunals. Since the end of the Cold War, the most significant divisions among States are those between developing and developed countries, whose economic and other interests differ greatly. In this context, any normative or social legitimacy debate inevitably has a development focus. For example, investment arbitration awards have been found to be correlated with arbitrators’ policy preferences whereby the development bias was most prominent. Moreover, the predominantly commercial background and outlook of investment arbitrators has resulted in expansionist trends in interpreting the jurisdictional and substantive protection provisions of the Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), undermining the legitimacy of the investment arbitration system. The recent North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) reform reinforces the old perception that the institution of investment arbitration is predominantly designed to address north-south disputes.

scholarly journals Lassa Fever: Viral Replication, Disease Pathogenesis, and Host Immune Modulations

Pathogens ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 437
Author(s):  
Hinh Ly
Keyword(s):  
Lassa Fever ◽  
West African ◽  
Host Factors ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Disease Pathogenesis ◽  
Virus Life Cycle ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Made In

Despite major discoveries made in the last few decades about Lassa fever, there are still many unresolved key issues that hamper the development of effective vaccines and therapies against this deadly disease that is endemic in several West African countries. Some of these issues include the lack of a detailed understanding of the viral and participating host factors in completing the virus life cycle, in mediating disease pathogenesis or protection from disease, and in activating or suppressing host innate and cellular immunity against virus infection, as well as of the animal models required for testing vaccines and therapeutics. This Special Issue is devoted to understanding some of these important issues and to exploring the current status of the research and development in combating Lassa fever.

Challenge and Disqualification of Arbitrators in International Investment Arbitration: An Overview

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federica Cristani
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Conflicts Of Interests ◽  
Institutional Rules ◽  
Ethical Codes ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Significant Case

A significantly small spectrum of arbitrators – i.e. 15 – have sat on the panels making up 55 percent of the 518 investment treaty disputes known today. This has produced considerable, real or perceived, conflicts of interests, whether personal, professional or case- or issue-related. This article addresses the requirements of independence and impartiality of arbitrators under the institutional rules and the relevant ethical codes, together with a survey of the most significant case law on the matter.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document