scholarly journals Does Bilateral Investment Treaty Arbitration Have Any Value for Multinational Corporations?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josef C. Brada ◽  
Chunda Chen ◽  
Jingyi Jia ◽  
Ali M. Kutan
Keyword(s):  
Multinational Corporations ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

scholarly journals Notion of investment under the ICSID Arbitration: A jurisdictional dilemma between subjective and objective approaches

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-142
Author(s):  
Nasiruddeen Muhammad
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Exact Definition ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

The notion of Investment is one of the most controversial issues trailing the dispute settlement mechanism of International Center for Settlement of Investment Dispute (ICSID). One notable issue surrounding the controversy is identifying an exact definition of investment for the purposes of ICSID Jurisdiction. While some tribunals tend to give effect to the agreement of the parties contained in their contracts or the underlying bilateral investment treaty as giving rise to the ICSID jurisdiction by consent, others tend to subject parties consent into a filtering mechanism based on a certain developed criteria. The aim of the paper is to add clarity to the corpus juris of investment treaty arbitration and provide guidance to the  investment treaty tribunals regarding the determination of notion of investment.  In doing so, the paper typifies the problem with the notable case of MHS v Malaysia. It then analyzes the two approaches from subjective and objective perspectives. The paper concludes with the proposition that ICSID notion of investment may not necessary lie with either of the two approaches. Keyywords : Investment, treaties, jurisdiction

scholarly journals Bilateral Investment Treaty Negotiations between India and U.S: Problems and Prospects

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajesh Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Prime Minister ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Treaty Negotiations ◽  
Technology Control ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Control Regime ◽  
Australian Company ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

<p><em>Relationship between U.S. and India is at the best phase, especially after former unequivocal support in NSG (Nuclear Supply Group) and helping inclusion in MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime). The relationship between two oldest and biggest democracies has matured under the headship of Mr. Barak Obama as President and Mr. Nardendra Modi as prime minister. In the recent visit of Indian prime minister, the warm gesture shown by U.S. congress members have further cemented the strength of tie up between two nations. However, despite great chemistry between two nation and its leaders from last many years, both have failed to enter into Bilateral Investment Treaty. India is having Bilateral Investment treaty with more than 80 countries including U.K. and Russia, of which 72 treaties are operational. <a title="" href="file:///C:/Users/SPub/Desktop/July%202016%20IRA%20Issues/IRAJEMS/IRAJEMS1.docx#_ftn1">[1]</a>  U.S. is having Bilateral Investment treaties with more than 46  countries including Russia and Bangladesh.<a title="" href="file:///C:/Users/SPub/Desktop/July%202016%20IRA%20Issues/IRAJEMS/IRAJEMS1.docx#_ftn2">[2]</a> Since 2008, the two countries have been engaged in sporadic discussions to conclude the Investment treaty. Negotiations on its wording, based on each country’s revised model treaty texts, will begin soon. Both the leaders Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S President Barack Obama affirmed their mutual commitment to facilitating increased bilateral investment flows and fostering an open and predictable climate for investment many a times , But consensus has not been reached till today on certain term and conditions.   In the absence of BIT , the rights of investors of both the countries are at the stake. Further, MFN or nationality treatment clause cannot be invoked or granted in the event of any regulatory or other action. Obligations imposed by BIT to protect interest of foreign investors are absent. Further, after losing its first Investment Treaty Arbitration (ITA) claim in 2012 against White Industries, an Australian company and pending 17 cases, India has recently adopted new BIT in 2015 . It also has reflections of pending claims of Vodafone and other cases involving Intellectual Property Rights( Hereinafter refereed as IPR) and the cases of compulsory licences.   </em></p><div><br clear="all" /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div><p><em><a title="" href="file:///C:/Users/SPub/Desktop/July%202016%20IRA%20Issues/IRAJEMS/IRAJEMS1.docx#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Details Avaialble at <a href="http://www.finmin.nic.in/bipa/bipa_index.asp">http://www.finmin.nic.in/bipa/bipa_index.asp</a>.</em></p></div><div><p><em><a title="" href="file:///C:/Users/SPub/Desktop/July%202016%20IRA%20Issues/IRAJEMS/IRAJEMS1.docx#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Details Avialable at <a href="http://www.state.gov/e/eb/ifd/bit/117402.htm">http://www.state.gov/e/eb/ifd/bit/117402.htm</a>.</em></p></div></div>

A Game-Theoretical Model of Investment Treaty Arbitration

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Collins ◽  
Philip Thomas ◽  
Mark Broom ◽  
Trung Hieu Vu
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Model ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Game Theoretical Model ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document