FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 29 OCTOBER 1 NOVEMBER 2015

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 29 OCTOBER 1 NOVEMBER 2015"

Transcription

1 TEAM AZEVEDO FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 29 OCTOBER 1 NOVEMBER 2015 ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF ARBITRATION OF THE LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION Vasiuki LLC (Claimant) v. The Republic of Barancasia (Respondent) MEMORIAL FOR CLAIMANT 19 September 2015

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF LEGAL SOURCES... iii LIST OF AUTHORITIES... viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS... x SUMMARY OF FACTS AND ARGUMENT... 1 I. THE TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CLAIMS AND THE CLAIMS ARE ADMISSIBLE... 5 II. A. Claimant s Projects Meet the BIT s Jurisdictional Requirements Claimant Meets the BIT s Definition of Investor Claimant s Projects Meet the BIT s Definition of Investment... 5 B. Claimant s Claims are Admissible... 7 C. The BIT Is in Force Between the Contracting Parties The Contracting Parties Accession to the EU Did Not Terminate the BIT Respondent Did Not Terminate the BIT Through Its Actions Claimant s Investments Are Protected Even if the BIT Was Terminated RESPONDENT S ACTIONS BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION TO ACCORD CLAIMANT S INVESTMENT FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT III. A. Respondent s Actions Violated the Legitimate Expectations that Formed the Basis of Claimant s Investments Respondent s Actions Violated Claimant s Reasonable and Legitimate Expectations of Stability and Predictability Respondent s Breach of the Stabilization Clause in the LRE Amounted to a FET Violation as a Matter of Law B. Respondent Did Not Accord Due Process to Claimant and Its Investments C. Respondent Acted Arbitrarily and Without Transparency THE DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY DOES NOT RELIEVE RESPONDENT OF ITS TREATY OBLIGATIONS A. The BIT s Necessity Defense Is Not Applicable The Situation in Barancasia Does Not Qualify as a State of Necessity Under the BIT The State of Necessity Clause in the BIT Is Not Self-Judging Even In a State of Necessity Under the BIT, Restitution or Just and Adequate Compensation is Required B. The Necessity Defense Under Customary International Law Does Not Apply C. There Is No Conflict With EU Law that Excuses Respondent From Its Obligations Under the BIT i

3 IV. THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD ORDER RESPONDENT TO COMPLY WITH ITS TREATY OBLIGATIONS A. This Tribunal Should Order Respondent to Rescind the LRE Amendment The Tribunal Has the Power to Order Rescission Ordering Rescission of the LRE Amendment Will Not Unduly Infringe on Respondent s Sovereignty B. Alternatively, This Tribunal Should Order Respondent to Pay Claimant the Pre-2013 Feed-In Tariff Rate for Twelve Years From the Date of Licensing V. CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO FULL COMPENSATION FOR ITS LOSSES RESULTING FROM RESPONDENT S BREACH OF THE BIT A. Claimant Is Entitled to the Net Present Value of the Profits Alfa and Beta Would Have Generated Under a 0.44EUR/kWh Tariff Use of the Income Approach Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Method Provides the Correct Valuation of Claimant s Losses for Alfa and Beta WACC Is the Correct Discount Rate B. Claimant Is Entitled to the Net Present Value of the Profits Its Twelve Additional Projects Would Have Generated Under a 0.44EUR/kWh tariff, or the Reliance Expenditures It Made on Land and Equipment Claimant Is Entitled to the Net Present Value of the Profits Its Twelve Additional Projects Would Have Generated Under a 0.44EUR/kWh Tariff Claimant Is Entitled to Compensation for the Reliance Expenditures It Made in Land and Equipment C. Claimant Is Entitled to the Fair Market Value of the Lost Business Opportunity for the Follow-On Solar Installations It Planned to Pursue Under the LRE REQUEST FOR RELIEF ii

4 LIST OF LEGAL SOURCES ARBITRAL DECISIONS ADC Al-Bahloul Amco Bayindir Biloune ADC Affiliate Limited and ADC & ADMC Management Limited v. The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/16, Award (2 October 2006). Mohammad Ammar Al-Bahloul v. Republic of Tajikistan, SCC Case No. V(064/2008), Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Liability (8 June 2010). Amco Asia Corporation, Pan American Development Limited, PT Amco Indonesia v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Second Award, (31 May 1990). Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29, Award (27 August 2009). Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd v. Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana, UNCITRAL, Award on Damages and Costs (30 June 1990). Binder Binder v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction (6 June 2007). CME CMS Continental Casualty Deutsche Bank Duke Energy CME Czech Republic B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, (13 September 2001). CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award (12 May 2005). Continental Casualty Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Award (5 September 2008). Deutsche Bank AG v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/02, Award (31 October 2012). Duke Energy Electroquil Partners & Electroquil S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/19, Award (18 August 2008). Eastern Sugar Eastern Sugar B.V. (Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic, SCC No. 088/2004, Partial Award (27 March 2007). EDF EDF (Services) Limited v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Award (8 October 2009). Enron, Annulment Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic (30 July 2010). iii

5 Enron, Jurisdiction EURAM Eureko Gemplus Himpurna Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Decision on Jurisdiction (14 January 2004). European American Investment Bank AG (Austria) [EURAM] v. The Slovak Republic, PCA Case No , Award on Jurisdiction (22 October 2012). Eureko B.V. v. The Slovak Republic, PCA Case No , Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension (26 October 2010). Gemplus S.A., SLP S.A., Gemplus Industrial S.A. de C.V. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/04/3, Award (16 June 2010). Himpurna California Energy Ltd. V. PT. PLN, UNCITRAL, Final Award (4 May 1999). Impregilo Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17, Award (21 June 2011). Lemire, Award Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, Award (28 March 2011). Lemire, Liability Joseph C. Lemire v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability (21 January 2010). LG&E LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp. and LG&E International Inc. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability (3 October 2006). Metalclad Metalclad Corporation v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, Award (30 August 2000). Metalpar Micula Middle East Cement Mondev MTD Murphy Oil Metalpar S.A. and Buen Aire S.A. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/05, Award on the Merits (6 June 2008). Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, S.C. European Food S.A., S.C. Starmill S.R.L. and S.C. Multipack S.R.L. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (24 September 2008). Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co. S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/6, Award (12 April 2002). Mondev International Ltd. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2, Final Award (11 October 2002). MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Award (25 May 2004). Murphy Exploration and Production Company International v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/4, Award on Jurisdiction (15 December 2010). iv

6 National Grid National Grid plc v. The Argentine Republic, UNCITRAL, Award (3 November 2008). Occidental Exploration Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No.UN3467, Final Award (1 July 2004). Occidental Petroleum Oostergetel Pantechniki Petrobart Philip Morris Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Award (5 October 2012). Jan Oostergetel and Theodora Laurentius v. The Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Decision on Jurisdiction (30 April 2010). Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers (Greece) v. The Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21, Award (30 July 2009). Petrobart Limited v. The Kyrgyz Republic, SCC Case No. 126/2003, Arbitral Award (29 March 2005). Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Decision on Jurisdiction (2 July 2013). Quiborax Quiborax S.A., Non Metallic Minerals S.A. and Allan Fosk Kaplun v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2, Decision on Jurisdiction (27 September 2012). Rumeli Telecom Rumeli Telekom A.S. and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, Award (29 July 2008). Saipem Salini Sapphire SAUR Saipem S.p.A. v. The People s Republic of Bangladesh, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/07, Decision on Jurisdiction and Recommendation on Provisional Measures (21 March 2007). Salini Construttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction (31 July 2001). Sapphire International Petroleums Ltd. v. National Iranian Oil Company, Award (15 March 1963). SAUR International S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability (6 June 2012). SD Myers SD Myers, Inc. v. Canada, UNCITRAL, Partial Award (13 November 2000). Sempra, Annulment Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Decision on the Argentine Republic s Application for Annulment of the Award (29 June 2010). v

7 Sempra, Award Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Award (28 September 2007). Siemens Siemens A.G. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Award (17 January 2007). Sistem Suez Tecmed Texaco Total Vivendi I Vivendi II Sistem Mühendislik Inşaat Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. v. Kyrgyz Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/06/1, Award (9 September 2009). Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Decision on Liability (30 July 2010). Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, Award (29 May 2003). Texaco Overseas Petroleum and California Asiatic Oil Company v. Libyan Arab Republic, Award on the Merits, 17 I.L.M. 1 (1978). Total S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/01, Decision on Liability (27 December 2010). Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Award (21 November 2000). Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Award (20 August 2007). INTERNATIONAL COURT CASES Amoco Arrest Warrant Chorzów Factory, Jurisdiction Amoco Int l Fin. Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No , Iran-US Claims Tribunal (24 July 1987). Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment, 2002 I.C.J. 3 (14 February). Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów (Germany v. Poland), Decision on Jurisdiction, 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 9 (26 July). Chorzów Factory, Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów (Germany v. Poland), Judgment, 1928 Merits P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 17 (13 September). Nicaragua Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. U.S.), 1986 I.C.J. 14 (27 June). Preah Vihear Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), 1962, I.C.J. 6 (15 June). vi

8 Rainbow Warrior Case concerning the differences between New Zealand and France concerning the interpretation or application of two agreements, concluded on 9 July 1986 between the two states and which related to the problems arising from the Rainbow Warrior Affair, 30 April 1990, 20 R.I.A.A TREATIES Argentina-U.S. BIT Argentina-United States Bilateral Investment Treaty (20 October 1994). ICJ United Nations, Statute of the International Court of Justice, 18 April ICSID Convention Convention on the Settlement of Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, opened for signature 18 March 1965 (entered into force 14 October 1966). VCLT Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature 23 May 1969 (entered into force 27 January 1980). MISCELLANEOUS ICSID Rules ICSID Regulations and Rules (as amended effective 10 April 2006). ILC Articles International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries (2001). LCIA Rules LCIA Arbitration Rules (as revised in 2014). UNCITRAL Rules UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (as revised in 2010), G.A. Res. 65/22. vii

9 LIST OF AUTHORITIES BOOKS Dolzer & Schreuer Gray Kinnear Sabahi Rudolf Dolzer & Christoph Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law (2008). Christine Gray, The Different Forms of Reparation: Restitution, in The Law of International Responsibility (eds. James Crawford, Alain Pellet, and Simon Olleson, 2010). Meg Kinnear, Damages in Investment Arbitration, in Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements (ed. Katia Yannaca-Small, Oxford Press 2010). Borzu Sabahi, Compensation and Restitution in Investor-State Arbitration: Principles and Practice (2011). Schreuer, ICSID Christoph Schreuer et al, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (2009). Ripinsky Sergey Ripinsky and Kevin Williams, Damages in International Investment Law (2008). ARTICLES Abdala & Spiller Hanson Martinez Manuel A. Abdala, Pablo T. Spiller, Chorzów s Standard Rejuvenated: Assessing Damages in Investment Treaty Arbitrations, 25 JOURNAL OF INT L ARB. 1 (2008). Kenneth Hanson et al, The Dabhol Power Project Settlement, INFRASTRUCTURE JOURNAL (December 2005), Elizabeth A. Martinez, Understanding the Debate Over Necessity: Unanswered Questions and Future Implications of Annulments in the Argentine Gas Cases, 23 DUKE J. OF COMP. & INT L LAW 149 (2012). Schreuer, FET Christoph Schreuer, Fair and Equitable Treatment in Arbitral Practice, 6 J. WORLD INV. & TRADE 357 (2005). Schreuer, Remedies Christoph Schreuer, Non-Pecuniary Remedies in ICSID Arbitration, 20 ARB. INT L 325 (2004). viii

10 Thomson Douglas Thomson, EDF Wins Claim Against Hungary, GLOBAL ARBITRATION REVIEW (December 2014), MISCELLANEOUS EC Press Release Commission asks Member States to terminate their intra-eu bilateral investment treaties, European Commission Press Release (18 June 2005), europa.eu/rapid/press-release_ip _en.htm. UNIDROIT Principles UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS (2010). World Bank Guidelines Guidelines on the Treatment of Foreign Direct Investment in World Bank, Legal Framework for the Treatment of Foreign Investment: Report to the Development Committee and Guidelines on the Treatment of Foreign Direct Investment, Volume II (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1992). ix

11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS / Paragraph(s) Facts Uncontested Facts ICJ International Court of Justice ICSID International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ILC International Law Commission p. / pp. Page / Pages PCA Permanent Court of Arbitration PCIJ Permanent Court of International Justice PO Procedural Order R Record RA Request for Arbitration UNCITRAL United National Commission on International Trade Law x

12 SUMMARY OF FACTS AND ARGUMENT 1. The present dispute arises from an Agreement for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (the BIT ) entered into on 31 December 1998 between the Republic of Barancasia ( Barancasia or Respondent ) and the Federal Republic of Cogitatia ( Cogitatia ). 1 Respondent concluded the BIT to attract foreign investment, but breached it by failing to honor its obligation to accord fair and equitable treatment to Vasiuki LLC ( Vasiuki or Claimant ), a Cogitatian energy company that made extensive investments in Respondent s territory Claimant qualifies as an investor under the terms of the BIT and its renewable energy projects in Barancasia are qualified investments. Although Respondent suggests otherwise, the BIT remains in effect. It was guaranteed to be in effect until 1 August 2012, and was not terminated with the required written notice after that date. 3 Nor did either Party s subsequent accession to the European Union ( EU ) terminate the BIT. Regardless, Claimant s investments are protected under the BIT until 2023, ten years after the earliest possible date of termination In 2004, Respondent acceded to the EU. In May 2010, Respondent adopted the Law on Renewable Energy ( LRE ) to encourage the development of renewable energy technology and improve the security of the energy supply in Respondent s territory. 5 The LRE provided that feed-in tariffs for licensees would be calculated using a multitude of factors, including variable costs of operation... [and] their variation over the useful life of power plants, 6 and fixed for a period of 12 years. 7 On 1 July 2010, Respondent s national energy regulator, the Barancasia Energy Authority ( BEA ) announced publicly the twelve-year fixed feed-in tariff of 0.44EUR/kWh From 2007 onwards, Claimant developed renewable energy projects in Respondent s territory while monitoring the regulatory environment. 9 In May 2009, Claimant launched its first 1 Facts 1, R BIT Preamble, R BIT Art. 13(2), R BIT Art. 13(3), R Facts 14, R Annex 3 Art. 2(5), R Facts 16 17, R Facts 21, R Facts 8, R-21. 1

13 solar project, Alfa, which was connected to Respondent s electrical grid on 1 January In reliance on the LRE s guaranteed twelve-year fixed feed-in tariff of 0.44EUR/kWH, Claimant decided to continue investing in Respondent s renewable energy sector. On 25 August 2010, Claimant applied for a BEA license for the Alfa project, which was arbitrarily denied. 11 On that same date, Claimant was granted a BEA license with the guaranteed 0.44EUR/kWh feed-in tariff for its second solar project, Beta. 12 Beta became operational on 30 January In furtherance of its investment, Claimant borrowed substantial sums of money, bought land plots in Barancasia, and invested heavily in new equipment In 2011, new technology emerged that reduced manufacturing and development costs for photovoltaic projects. 15 Claimant developed twelve additional projects in Barancasia using the new technology, and on 1 July 2012, the BEA granted Claimant all twelve licenses with the guaranteed 0.44EUR/kWh rate. 16 Claimant thus had a total of 14 projects in Respondent s renewable energy sector, which individually and jointly constitute investment in Respondent s territory. 6. The BEA also granted around 6,000 licenses to other producers as late as 3 January 2013, 17 even though officials and some domestic groups complained that the LRE was creating a solar bubble and had privileged producers starting in early In June 2012, Respondent faced teachers strikes and projected that it might face budgetary difficulties in the future. 19 Allegedly in response to these occurrences, and despite a complete lack of evidence that any problems were escalating, Respondent made the unilateral decision to renege on its guarantees to investors under the LRE through a nontransparent and biased process. In November 2012, the Barancasian Parliament conducted private hearings with select industry representatives, excluding Claimant, and on 3 January 2013 Respondent adopted the Law on the Amendment of Article 4 of the LRE ( LRE Amendment ), replacing the 10 Facts 12 13, R Facts 22, R Facts 23, R Facts 23, R Facts 27, R Facts 25, R Facts 33, R PO2 13, R Facts 28, 29, 32, R Facts 32, R-24. 2

14 original twelve-year feed-in tariffs with annually renewable rates. 20 Without any explanation for the new rate, and without any open consultation with Claimant an affected investor the BEA then calculated and announced a new feed-in tariff of 0.15EUR/kWh, with retroactive application from 1 January By then, Claimant had made significant investments in land, personnel, and equipment in reliance on the original LRE and the licenses it had obtained from Respondent pursuant thereto These actions violated Respondent s obligation under the BIT to accord fair and equitable ( FET ) treatment to Claimant s investments. Respondent lured investors like Claimant with the promise of predictable returns on investments, and then unilaterally modified its obligations in violation of Claimant s legitimate expectations and rights to due process, transparency, and nonarbitrary treatment. 9. Respondent s illegal actions do not qualify for the defense of necessity. Respondent merely faced teachers strikes and projected budgetary difficulties that had not yet even materialized. 23 Such mundane occurrences do not constitute the type of emergency situation that the BIT requires for a Party to claim necessity. The customary international law ( CIL ) doctrine of necessity also does not apply. Respondent s decision to respond to teachers strikes and potential future budgetary difficulties by unilaterally amending the LRE, which Respondent itself had enacted and pursuant to which Respondent issued licenses to investors with the twelveyear fixed feed-in tariff, was not the only way for Respondent to safeguard itself against perceived peril. Even assuming there was an actual peril, Respondent itself created it. In addition, Respondent cannot rely on its energy objectives and EU obligations to derogate from its BIT obligations because any alleged conflict with EU law is entirely speculative. 10. Even if a state of necessity existed, Respondent is obligated to provide restitution to Claimant. Respondent should be ordered to rescind the LRE Amendment or to pay Claimant the tariff rate guaranteed by the LRE and the licenses that Respondent approved as late as Ordering specific performance of Respondent s international law obligations is expressly within the powers of this Tribunal under the terms of the BIT, customary international law, and the 20 Facts 34, R Facts 35, R Facts 36, R Facts 29, 32, R

15 LCIA rules, and is the most appropriate remedy to place Claimant in the position it would have been had the breach not occurred. If the Tribunal declines to award specific performance, it should order Respondent to pay Claimant 2,437,217EUR in compensation. This represents the total of the net present value of the profits that Claimant s investments would have generated under the promised 0.44EUR/kWh tariff had Respondent not breached its obligations under the BIT, as well as the fair market value of Claimant s lost business opportunities. 4

16 ARGUMENTS I. THE TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CLAIMS AND THE CLAIMS ARE ADMISSIBLE 11. This Tribunal has jurisdiction over Claimant s claims for three reasons: (A) Claimant s projects meet the BIT s jurisdictional requirements, (B) Claimant s claims are admissible, and (C) the BIT is in force between Respondent and Cogitatia ( the Contracting Parties ). A. Claimant s Projects Meet the BIT s Jurisdictional Requirements 12. Respondent has consented to binding arbitration pursuant to Article 8 of the BIT, which grants this Tribunal jurisdiction over [a]ny dispute which may arise between an investor of one Contracting Party and the other Contracting Party in connection with an investment in the territory of that other Contracting Party. Claimant s claims meet the jurisdictional prerequisites under Article 1 of the BIT: (1) Claimant qualifies as an investor, and (2) Claimant s projects qualify as investments. 1. Claimant Meets the BIT s Definition of Investor 13. Article 1(2) of the BIT provides that an investor must (i) be a natural or legal person, (ii) of one Contracting Party, who (iii) invests in the territory of the other Contracting Party. Claimant meets this rationae personae jurisdictional requirement. 14. Claimant is a legal person of Cogitatia, a Contracting Party. Claimant fulfills the requirements of Article 1(2)(b) because it is both incorporated in Cogitatia 24 and seated there, as its headquarters are located there. Claimant s projects constitute investments in Respondent s territory, as explained below. 2. Claimant s Projects Meet the BIT s Definition of Investment 15. Article 1(1) defines an investment as compris[ing] every kind of asset invested in connection with economic activities by an investor of one Contracting Party in the territory of the other Contracting Party in accordance with the laws and regulations of the latter. 25 Given the broad language of Article 1(1) ( every kind of asset ), it is clear that the Parties intended an expansive definition of investment. Claimant s photovoltaic projects fall within this definition: the constituent turbines, solar panels, and other possessions are assets, and these assets were 24 Facts 3, R BIT Art. 1(1), R-25. 5

17 invested for the development of renewable energy undoubtedly an economic activity. Additionally, as the projects were physically established within Respondent s territory, they clearly meet the territoriality requirement. Claimant therefore meets the rationae materiae jurisdictional requirement. 16. Consistent with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ( VCLT ), which governs treaty interpretation for Respondent and Cogitatia, 26 the BIT should be read to encompass the ordinary meaning of the term investment (in accordance with the BIT s object and purpose to protect investments), which includes the development and operation of energy infrastructure. 27 Energy production and transmission projects are a common form of investment, and have repeatedly been found to fall within the scope of investment treaties. 28 If the Contracting Parties intended to exclude energy projects from the range of covered investments, they would have included explicit language to that effect. 17. Though not required, Claimant s projects also meet other international law definitions of investment. The Salini tribunal introduced a well-known list of typical hallmarks of investments: (1) financial contribution, (2) duration, (3) risk, (4) regular profit and return, and (5) contribution to the host state s development. 29 Although some tribunals prefer a less formulaic approach, 30 Claimant s projects satisfy all five criteria. 18. First, Claimant invested significant capital in developing the farms, turbines, and transmission infrastructure necessary to develop energy and transmit it to Respondent s energy grid. Second, Claimant has operated photovoltaic projects in Respondent s territory for over five years, beginning in 2009 and expanding under the LRE regime. 31 Other tribunals have found the duration requirement to be met by investments of much shorter length. 32 Third, Claimant incurred significant expense in developing infrastructure up front for long-term investment, an element that multiple tribunals have observed entails substantial risk. 33 Fourth, Claimant s 26 PO2 5, R VCLT Art. 30(1). 28 Al-Bahloul 140; Petrobart pp Salini Philip Morris ; Pantechniki Facts 12, 13, 23, 27, R Deutsche Bank (12 months); Quiborax 234 (3 years). 33 Saipem 109; Salini 56. 6

18 projects were to receive regular and predictable returns through Respondent s guaranteed tariff. 34 Finally, Claimant s production and transmission of renewable energy contributed to meeting Respondent s climate and energy targets. 35 B. Claimant s Claims are Admissible 19. Article 8(1) of the BIT requires investors and Contracting Parties to resolve disputes by negotiation if possible, but Article 8(2) allows a party to submit a claim if a dispute is not settled six months from the written notification of a claim. 36 Claimant notified Respondent of its claims on 20 April 2014, through correspondence with three of Respondent s authorities: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Economics, and the BEA. 37 In that correspondence, Claimant stated that it would not resort to legal remedies if the disputes could be resolved through other means. Respondent refused to negotiate, and did not indicate any willingness to resolve the dispute. 38 Claimant then waited over six months before commencing the arbitration, filing its Request on 2 November Claimant s claims are therefore admissible and ripe for arbitration. C. The BIT Is in Force Between the Contracting Parties 20. Respondent suggests that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because the BIT is terminated. 39 This is incorrect, because: (1) the Contracting Parties accession to the EU did not displace the BIT, (2) Respondent s actions did not terminate the BIT, and (3) regardless, the BIT s protections still apply to Claimant s investments. 1. The Contracting Parties Accession to the EU Did Not Terminate the BIT 21. Claimant s and Respondent s accession to the EU did not terminate the BIT for three reasons. First, the European Commission ( EC ) has acknowledged that EU accession does not result in automatic termination of intra-eu BITs. Second, the circumstances underlying these proceedings do not fulfill the requirements for treaty termination. Third, the BIT does not violate Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( EU Treaty ). 34 Facts 21, R Facts 7 8, R BIT Art. 8, R RA, R RA, R Response to RA, R-11. 7

19 22. First, accession of the Contracting Parties to the EU does not automatically terminate the BIT. The EC has acknowledged that EU accession does not terminate a BIT without notification and proper termination procedures neither of which was present here. In the 2004 Eureko proceedings, the EC s legal expert opined that EU accession renders intra-eu BITs obsolete, but that the parties must notify each other that they agree on this point. 40 In 2006, the EC clarified that intra-eu BITs are not automatically terminated upon accession. It stated: [T]he effective prevalence of the EU acquis does not entail, at the same time, the automatic termination of the concerned BITs or, necessarily, the non-application of all their provisions.... [T]o terminate these agreements, Member States would have to strictly follow the relevant procedure provided for this in regard in the agreements themselves. 41 The EC has repeatedly called for its members to terminate their intra-eu BITs and in June 2015, the EC initiated proceedings against five member states in an attempt to convince them to terminate their BITs. 42 By repeatedly recognizing the need for member states to affirmatively terminate their BITs, the EC has shown that EU accession does not automatically terminate intra- EU BITs Second, the Contracting Parties EU accession does not terminate the BIT under the terms of the VCLT. The VCLT provides for automatic treaty termination in only two scenarios, both of which require incompatibility. 24. Article 59 addresses situations where a later treaty is entirely incompatible with an earlier treaty, and the earlier treaty cannot be enforced at all. It provides that: A treaty shall be considered as terminated if all the parties to it conclude a later treaty relating to the same subject-matter and: (a) it appears from the later treaty or is otherwise established that the parties intended that the matter should be governed by that treaty; or (b) the provisions of the later treaty are so far incompatible with those of the earlier one that the two treaties are not capable of being applied at the same time Eureko Eastern Sugar EC Press Release. 43 EURAM 208; Binder VCLT Art

20 25. Article 30(3), which states that it governs successive treaties with the same subject matter, provides that [w]hen all the parties to the earlier treaty are parties also to the later treaty but the earlier treaty is not terminated or suspended in operation under Article 59, the earlier treaty applies only to the extent that its provisions are compatible with those of the latter treaty Neither Article 59 nor Article 30 applies here. First, both Article 59 and Article 30 permit termination only where the later treaty relates to the same subject matter. The EU Treaty and the BIT do not cover the same subject matter. The tribunal in Oostergetel explained that, as the objective of the EU Treaty (unified state functioning) and the objective of a BIT (investment protection) differ, the treaties cannot be considered to relate to the same subject matter. 46 The EURAM tribunal arrived at the same conclusion, only differing in finding the EU s objective to be the creation of an internal market. 47 The Oostergetel and Eastern Sugar tribunals also explained that the significant differences between the investment protections in the EU Treaty and the relevant BITs in those cases foreclosed the conclusion that the treaties covered the same subject matter. 48 In particular, both tribunals highlighted that the EU Treaty does not provide for an investor-state dispute mechanism while the BITs in question did Furthermore, the BIT and the EU Treaty are neither entirely (Article 59), nor partially (Article 30(3)) incompatible. The EU legal regime has existed alongside bilateral investment treaty regimes in various member states for many years, and none of the provisions relevant to this dispute are in conflict with the EU Treaty. No specific provision of the EU Treaty interferes with protections to Claimant s investments under Articles 10 (simultaneous applicability of multiple treaties), 12 (applicability of the BIT), and 13 (entry into force and termination) of the BIT. Article 8 of the BIT, which provides for arbitration of investor-state disputes, similarly does not conflict with the EU Treaty. There is no evidence that the Contracting Parties intended the EU Treaty, rather than the BIT, to govern investments by their nationals. Indeed, the EURAM tribunal concluded that the arbitration provision in the relevant BIT in that case was not in conflict with the EU Treaty, because the EU Treaty did not provide for investor-state dispute 45 VCLT Art. 30(3). 46 Oostergetel EURAM Oostergetel 77; Eastern Sugar Oostergetel 77; Eastern Sugar

21 settlement. 50 Finally, as the Binder and EURAM tribunals explained in a similar context, the EU Treaty does not conflict with Respondent s obligation to compensate investors in accordance with Articles 4 (compensation) and 5 (expropriation) of the BIT Moreover, Article 10(1) of the BIT explicitly envisages situations where a matter is governed simultaneously both by this Agreement and by another international agreement to which both Contracting Parties are parties. This is precisely the situation in the present dispute. Article 10 of the BIT provides that where another set of international rules binds the Contracting Parties, investors may take advantage of whichever set of rules is more favorable to them. Analyzing a similar provision, the EURAM tribunal concluded that the parties intended that future treaties between them would complement the States Parties rights and obligations, and not that such treaties would replace provisions in the BIT Third, the BIT is in no way inconsistent with Article 207 of the EU Treaty. Article 207(1) calls for uniform principles for commercial aspects of foreign investment, while Article 207(2) states that the EU common commercial policy is to be determined by the European institutions. Given the emphasis on commercial elements, the BIT does not fall within the scope of 207(1) or 207(2). As a legal agreement between states, the BIT relates to sovereign elements of foreign investment (for example, Respondent s regulatory decision to adjust the tariff) rather than commercial ones. Nor does the BIT conflict with Article 207(3), which provides that [w]here agreements with one or more third countries or international organisations need to be negotiated and concluded, the European institutions must act according to certain enumerated procedures. This provision does not apply to agreements between Cogitatia and Barancasia, both of which are EU member states and not third countries. Moreover, Article 207 is silent as to agreements already concluded at the time of ratification. The BIT is therefore not inconsistent with Article 207 of the EU Treaty, nor with any other provision. 30. In light of the VCLT requirements, all five tribunals that have considered the impact of EU accession on BIT validity have held that accession does not automatically terminate a BIT. Each of these tribunals has found that that the relevant BIT was compatible with the EU Treaty, 50 EURAM EURAM 279; Binder EURAM

22 deciding that both regimes applied simultaneously. There is no reason for a different finding here. 2. Respondent Did Not Terminate the BIT Through Its Actions 31. In June 2007, Respondent notified Cogitatia of its intent to terminate the BIT, but this notification did not comply with the BIT s requirements for termination. Respondent s notification was ineffective under Article 13(2), which provides: This Agreement shall remain in force for a period of ten years. Thereafter, it shall remain in force until the expiration of a twelve month period from the date either Contracting Party notifies the other in writing of its intention to terminate the Agreement. In accordance with Article 13(1), the BIT entered into force on 1 August 2002, the date of the final written notification through diplomatic channels of the fulfillment of procedures to bring the BIT into force. The BIT thus applied until at least August After that ten-year period, the BIT remains in force until twelve months after a Contracting Party provides written notification of termination to the other Contracting Party. The presence of the term [t]hereafter in Article 13(2) confirms that notification (and therefore termination) is not possible during the initial ten-year period. Respondent s attempt to terminate the BIT violated Article 13, and was therefore ineffective The BIT also does not provide that written notification of termination before the expiration of the ten-year period would take effect at the end of the initial ten years, so Respondent s supposed notice of termination did not automatically become an effective termination in Cogitatia s indication that it received Respondent s notification had no effect; it simply acknowledged receipt but did not approve early termination in 2008 or any other adjustment to Article 13 s termination process. 54 Similarly, Respondent s informal contact with Cogitatia regarding termination did not terminate the BIT. The most recent communication was in 2010, more than a year before the end of the initial ten years. 55 As Respondent failed to properly terminate the BIT, the BIT remains in force. 53 Annex 5, 6, 7.1, R Annex 7.2, R Facts 24 25, R

23 3. Claimant s Investments Are Protected Even if the BIT Was Terminated 33. Even if Respondent s notification took effect on 1 August 2012 (upon the conclusion of the ten-year period), the protections of the BIT still apply to Claimant s investments by virtue of the sunset clause in Article 13(3). Article 13(3) provides that, for investments made prior to its termination, the BIT remains in force for ten years from termination. This means that even if the BIT was terminated in August 2013 (one year after notification on 1 August 2012), its protections continue to apply to Claimant s investments until All of Claimant s projects in Respondent s territory began between 2009 and July As the BIT remained in effect until at least August 2013, all the investments were made before the earliest possible termination date of the BIT. Similarly, the license denial took place in 2010 and the tariff revisions in 2013, both well within that time frame. The BIT therefore covers Claimant s claims. II. RESPONDENT S ACTIONS BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION TO ACCORD CLAIMANT S INVESTMENT FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT 34. Respondent failed to accord Claimant s investments fair and equitable treatment as required by the BIT. BIT Article 2(2) provides that [i]nvestments of investors of either Contracting Party shall at all times be accorded fair and equitable treatment and shall enjoy full protection and security in the territory of the other Contracting Party By their ordinary meaning, fair and equitable mean impartial, free from prejudice, evenhanded, and just. 58 Past tribunals have read FET clauses with similar language to capture principles of transparency, stability, and protection of investors legitimate expectations; compliance with contractual obligations; procedural propriety and due process; good faith; and freedom from coercion and harassment. 59 Though FET is an inherently flexible standard, violation of any of the above independently constitutes a violation of FET, even in the absence of bad faith RA, R The clause is not qualified by a reference to customary international law, so this is an independent treaty standard that is broader than minimum standard. (Enron 258; Sempra 302; Vivendi II 7.4) Nevertheless, both the autonomous treaty standard and the CIL minimum standard are defined with respect to the same principles, and Respondent s actions violated FET under either standard. 58 Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 59 Schreuer, FET, pp ; Dolzer & Schreuer, pp ; Tecmed 154; MTD ; CMS Mondev 116; Siemens

24 36. Taken as a whole, Respondent s actions undoubtedly violated FET. First, Respondent created a regime that guaranteed favorable measures to attract investors to provide critical energy. After investors expended significant capital building energy-generating facilities in Respondent s territory, Respondent unilaterally revoked the very measures on which investors relied when deciding to invest. There are three independent bases for establishing that Respondent s conduct amounted to a FET violation: (A) the violation of Claimant s legitimate expectations, (B) the lack of due process accorded to Claimant, and (C) the arbitrariness and lack of transparency in Respondent s actions. A. Respondent s Actions Violated the Legitimate Expectations that Formed the Basis of Claimant s Investments 37. Respondent s actions must accord with Claimant s reasonable and legitimate expectations when it made the investment. 61 Respondent failed to honor this obligation because: (1) Respondent s actions violated Claimant s reasonable and legitimate expectations of stability and predictability that formed the basis of its decision to invest, and (2) the stability clause in the LRE guaranteeing the feed-in tariff for twelve years provides an independent basis for concluding that Respondent violated Claimant s legitimate expectations as a matter of law. 1. Respondent s Actions Violated Claimant s Reasonable and Legitimate Expectations of Stability and Predictability 38. Through its regulatory framework, Respondent created an expectation of stability and predictable returns in order to induce investment and then, in a classic bait-and-switch maneuver, upended the applicable framework, effectively destroying the value of Claimant s investments. 39. When determining whether a FET provision has been violated, tribunals look to a claimant s expectations at the time it decided to invest. 62 Legitimate expectations may be based on the host state s legal framework, as well as both explicit and implicit representations, or other undertakings made by the host state. 63 While the host state has the right to determine its own legal and economic order, the protection of investors reasonable and legitimate expectations balances state interest with investors need for planning and stability Dolzer & Schreuer, pp Bayindir ; LG&E, Liability 127; Duke Energy 340; Occidental Exploration Dolzer & Schreuer, p Dolzer & Schreuer, p

25 40. Tribunals have repeatedly found FET violations where investors acted on the basis of an existing law that was changed by the host state after the investment was made. 65 Here, when making its investment, Claimant relied on Respondent s explicit commitment in the LRE to provide a guaranteed feed-in tariff rate for twelve years when making its investment. In CMS, the tribunal found a breach of FET because the claimant relied upon guarantees for price adjustments in legislation and the claimant s license. 66 Similarly, here, the LRE fixed a feed-in tariff rate for a set period of time to lure investment by allowing Claimant to recover high start-up costs in a nascent and volatile industry. The legal and business framework Respondent created gave Claimant an expectation of stability and guaranteed returns on its investments. Respondent s failure to protect those expectations amounts to a violation of FET. 41. While the legitimate expectations standard does not require the state to freeze its regulatory power and the BIT is not a blanket insurance policy, as noted in EDF, stability is implied where the state makes specific promises or representations. 67 The LRE made specific guarantees as to the twelve-year application of the feed-in tariff rate for all licensees. 68 It contains no fallback provisions, adjustments, or contingent rights for unforeseen circumstances. The only qualification for revocation of the measures under the LRE is when electricity generated from renewable sources amounts to 20% or more of gross consumption, 69 which is not the case here. In fact, calculation of the initial tariff rate accounted for variable costs of operation... [and] their variation over the useful life of power plants. 70 Respondent is now trying to correct its own calculation mistake at Claimant s expense. 42. Respondent s continued representations after its domestic troubles began also supported Claimant s expectations. The tribunal in MTD found an FET violation where an agency granted a license contrary to national urban policy, and added that the claimant s FET argument was even 65 CME 611 (the state eviscerated arrangements upon which the claimant relied when making its investment), Tecmed (the state replaced unlimited licenses with licenses of a limited duration); LG&E (the state abrogated guarantees upon which the claimant relied when making its investment); Occidental Petroleum (the state unilaterally modified a contractual clause upon which the claimant relied when making its investment). 66 CMS 275, EDF LRE Art. 4, R LRE Art. 2, R Annex 3 Art. 2(5), R

26 stronger if the agency knew of the inconsistency between the policy and the license. 71 Here, the BEA granted twelve additional licenses even after the Government admitted that the program was unsustainable and contrary to public policy. 72 In fact, as late as 3 January 2013, Respondent granted around 6,000 licenses under the original LRE. 73 Claimant s reliance on these affirmative actions was justified. Since the BEA was still granting licenses under the original regime, Claimant reasonably and justifiably expected the promised rate to be delivered, and made substantial investments after receiving licenses. Furthermore, Respondent s officials complained that guaranteed profits for twelve years was a windfall, 74 which indicates they also expected the regime to last for twelve years as promised. 43. Even if a minor modification of the legal framework could have been expected, such an arbitrary wholesale transformation was not. In Occidental Exploration, the tribunal found a FET violation when Ecuador changed the VAT framework under which the claimant was operating, without providing any clarity as to the meaning or scope of the change. 75 Respondent similarly failed to provide any reasoning for why the tariff rate was cut so drastically, by nearly two-thirds of the original guaranteed rate. Even if Claimant could have expected that the tariff rate might be adjusted despite the guarantee in the LRE and Respondent s continued representations, Claimant could not have expected such a drastic and arbitrary reduction. 44. Lastly, EU obligations and good faith do not protect Respondent from a FET violation. In Micula, Romania revoked state aid because it would violate EU limits on such aid, but the tribunal found that Romania still violated FET. 76 Last year, the tribunal in EDF also found that Hungary had violated the Energy Charter Treaty s FET clause when it terminated long-term power purchase agreements because they violated EU state aid rules. 77 In the same vein, EU borrowing limits do not shield Respondent from liability for violating FET under the BIT. Even assuming that Respondent was guided by the best of intentions and acted in good faith, Respondent unpredictably and arbitrarily changed the legal and business framework under which 71 MTD Facts 28 29, 33, R PO2 13, R Facts 29, R Occidental Exploration Micula Thomson. 15

27 the investment was decided and implemented, and therefore objectively breached the FET standard Respondent s Breach of the Stabilization Clause in the LRE Amounted to a FET Violation as a Matter of Law 45. Respondent s violation of the LRE s stabilization clause is an independent FET violation. Stabilization clauses are defined as: [C]lauses... with the intended effect of freezing a specific host State s legal framework at a certain date, such that the adoption of any changes in the legal regulatory framework of the investment concerned (even by law of general application and without any discriminatory intent by the host State) would be illegal The clause in the LRE that froze the feed-in tariff for twelve years was such a clause. Claimant was allowed to rely on Respondent s domestic law in its expectations as a matter of law, 80 and Respondent s revocation of the stabilization clause amounts to an independent FET violation. 47. The prospective nature of energy investments does not defeat Claimant s position because a claim to stability can be based on the inherently prospective nature of the regulation at issue. 81 As the tribunals in Total S.A. and National Grid held, the entire purpose of regimes such as the one initially guaranteed by Respondent is to encourage and protect long-term investments and operations, and to guarantee that investors can recover operating costs and make a reasonable return over time. 82 Otherwise, states should provide contingent rights in case the relevant framework has to be changed. 83 Respondent changed the regulatory framework in violation of its international law obligations, and failed to provide any contingent rights or fallback measures to lessen Claimant s losses. To the contrary, Respondent enacted the reduced rate retroactively from 1 January Sempra Total National Grid Total Total 122; National Grid Total 122; National Grid Facts 35, R

SKELETON BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT

SKELETON BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT TEAM BADAWI LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION VASIUKI LLC Claimant v. REPUBLIC OF BARANCASIA Respondent ARBITRATION No. 00/2014 SKELETON BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT ISSUES RELATING TO JURISDICTION THE

More information

An Analysis of a Developing Jurisprudence in International Investment Law

An Analysis of a Developing Jurisprudence in International Investment Law An Analysis of a Developing Jurisprudence in International Investment Law What Investment Treaty Tribunals Are Saying & Doing Jeffery P. Commission British Institute of International and Comparative Law

More information

LIST OF AUTHORITIES Claimant: International Treaties and Covenants: - Charter of United Nations. Treatises and Books:

LIST OF AUTHORITIES Claimant: International Treaties and Covenants: - Charter of United Nations. Treatises and Books: LIST OF AUTHORITIES Claimant: International Treaties and Covenants: - Charter of United Nations Treatises and Books: - Dolzer, R., Schreuer, Ch. Principles of International Investment Law. 2008. Oxford

More information

Principles of International Investment Law

Principles of International Investment Law Principles of International Investment Law Second Edition RUDOLF DOLZER and CHRISTOPH SCHREUER OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS Contents N- / Foreword to the Second Edition Table of Cases Table of Treaties, Conventions,

More information

CASES. LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp. and LG&E International Inc. 1 v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1) Introductory Note

CASES. LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp. and LG&E International Inc. 1 v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1) Introductory Note CASES LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp. and LG&E International Inc. 1 v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1) Introductory Note The decisions on jurisdiction and liability in LG&E Energy Corp.,

More information

In the Eyes of the Beholder: Host State s Refusal to Pay under a Contract as Breach of a BIT

In the Eyes of the Beholder: Host State s Refusal to Pay under a Contract as Breach of a BIT In the Eyes of the Beholder: Host State s Refusal to Pay under a Contract as Breach of a BIT Kluwer Arbitration Blog May 7, 2013 Inna Uchkunova (International Moot Court Competition Association (IMCCA))

More information

Global Financial Disruptions and Related Cases

Global Financial Disruptions and Related Cases Global Financial Disruptions and Related Cases Mexico (1994) Fireman s Fund v. Mexico Peru (2000) Renée Rose Levy de Levi v. Peru Czech Republic (1998-2000) Saluka Investments B.V. v. Czech Republic Argentina

More information

Prominent Issues in Latin American Arbitration: Annulment, Multi-party Arbitrations, Corruption and Fraud

Prominent Issues in Latin American Arbitration: Annulment, Multi-party Arbitrations, Corruption and Fraud Prominent Issues in Latin American Arbitration: Annulment, Multi-party Arbitrations, Corruption and Fraud Carolyn B. Lamm White & Case LLP April 12, 2012 Prominent Issues ANNULMENT MULTI-PARTY ARBITRATIONS

More information

FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 29 OCTOBER 1 NOVEMBER 2015 LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION

FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 29 OCTOBER 1 NOVEMBER 2015 LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TEAM TOMKA FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 29 OCTOBER 1 NOVEMBER 2015 LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION In the Proceeding Between Vasiuki LLC (Claimant) v. The Republic

More information

FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2009

FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2009 FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2009 MEMORIAL FOR CLAIMANT On Behalf of: MedBerg Co. [CLAIMANT] Against: The Government of The Republic of Bergonia [RESPONDENT] Team: MO i TABLE

More information

THE ARBITRATION INSTITUTE OF THE STOCKHOLM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE UNDER THE SCC RULES

THE ARBITRATION INSTITUTE OF THE STOCKHOLM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE UNDER THE SCC RULES THE ARBITRATION INSTITUTE OF THE STOCKHOLM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE UNDER THE SCC RULES CALRISSIAN & CO., INC. CLAIMANT V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF DAGOBAH RESPONDENT SKELETON BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT 8 TH

More information

The Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the Republic of Belarus, hereinafter referred to as "the Contracting Parties,"

The Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the Republic of Belarus, hereinafter referred to as the Contracting Parties, AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS ON THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS The Government of the United Mexican

More information

Arbitration of Energy Disputes: New Challenges

Arbitration of Energy Disputes: New Challenges Arbitration of Energy Disputes: New Challenges Conference Organized by the Danish Institute of Arbitration September 1, 2014 Copenhagen, Denmark PANEL II: INTERIM MEASURES AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT James Castello,

More information

IN THE ARBITRATION UNDER THE RULES OF THE LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION BETWEEN. VASIUKI LLC CLAIMANT v. REPUBLIC OF BARANCASIA RESPONDENT

IN THE ARBITRATION UNDER THE RULES OF THE LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION BETWEEN. VASIUKI LLC CLAIMANT v. REPUBLIC OF BARANCASIA RESPONDENT TEAM KEITH IN THE ARBITRATION UNDER THE RULES OF THE LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION BETWEEN VASIUKI LLC CLAIMANT v. REPUBLIC OF BARANCASIA RESPONDENT MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS

More information

LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION

LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TEAM KOROMA LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION Vasuiki LLC (Claimant) v. Republic of Barancasia (Respondent) MEMORIAL FOR CLAIMANT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF AUTHORITIES ii iv STATEMENT

More information

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER ELEVEN OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND THE 2010 UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER ELEVEN OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND THE 2010 UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER ELEVEN OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND THE 2010 UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES BETWEEN: WINDSTREAM ENERGY LLC and Claimant GOVERNMENT OF CANADA

More information

LITIGATION PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION

LITIGATION PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION LITIGATION PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION LAWG/J 885 08 Fall 2007 Prof. Mark Kantor Prof. Jean Kalicki Mondays 7:55 p.m. to 9.55 p.m. Room 156 This course blends mock litigation experiences with

More information

MODULE 2: CORE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW

MODULE 2: CORE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW MODULE 2: CORE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW African Institute of International Law Training Workshop on Bilateral Investment Treaties and Arbitration Laura Halonen Arusha, 17 February 2015

More information

MEMORIAL FOR CLAIMANT. The London Court of International Arbitration TEAM MOSLER IN THE PROCEEDING BETWEEN. VASIUKI LLC (Claimant)

MEMORIAL FOR CLAIMANT. The London Court of International Arbitration TEAM MOSLER IN THE PROCEEDING BETWEEN. VASIUKI LLC (Claimant) TEAM MOSLER The London Court of International Arbitration IN THE PROCEEDING BETWEEN VASIUKI LLC (Claimant) V REPUBLIC OF BARANCASIA (Respondent) MEMORIAL FOR CLAIMANT Arbitration No: 00/2014 19 September

More information

South Asian University Faculty of Law

South Asian University Faculty of Law South Asian University Faculty of Law Part I Course Title: International Investment Law Course Code: Course instructor: Dr Prabhash Ranjan Course Duration: One Semester Credit Units: 4 Medium of Instruction:

More information

DESIRING to intensify the economic cooperation for the mutual benefit of the Contracting Parties;

DESIRING to intensify the economic cooperation for the mutual benefit of the Contracting Parties; AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ON THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS The Government of the United

More information

Occidental Exploration and Production Company v The Republic of Ecuador

Occidental Exploration and Production Company v The Republic of Ecuador This case summary was prepared in the course of research for S Ripinsky with K Williams, Damages in International Investment Law (BIICL, 2008) Case summary Occidental Exploration and Production Company

More information

Investment Arbitration and Remedies under the Energy Charter Treaty

Investment Arbitration and Remedies under the Energy Charter Treaty Investment Arbitration and Remedies under the Energy Charter Treaty 8 February 2016 Tomoko Ishikawa Associate Professor, University of Tsukuba Legal Advisory Committee, ECT The dispute settlement mechanism

More information

Achmea: The Future of Investment Arbitration in Europe. 2 July 2018

Achmea: The Future of Investment Arbitration in Europe. 2 July 2018 Achmea: The Future of Investment Arbitration in Europe 2 July 2018 Agenda The Achmea Proceedings 01 02 Issue and Developments Implications. 03 04 Concluding remarks 2 Achmea Proceedings 01 Commenced in

More information

ILLEGALITY IN INVESTMENT ARBITRATION. Sylvia T. Tonova

ILLEGALITY IN INVESTMENT ARBITRATION. Sylvia T. Tonova ILLEGALITY IN INVESTMENT ARBITRATION Sylvia T. Tonova Warsaw, Poland 7 June 2013 Investor-State Arbitration System Instruments: Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) Multilateral treaties (e.g. Energy Charter

More information

International Commercial Arbitration Autumn 2013 Lecture II

International Commercial Arbitration Autumn 2013 Lecture II Associate Professor Ivar Alvik International Commercial Arbitration Autumn 2013 Lecture II Investment Treaty Arbitration: Special Features Summary from last time Two procedural frameworks of investment

More information

PART FIVE INVESTMENT, SERVICES AND RELATED MATTERS. Chapter Eleven. Investment

PART FIVE INVESTMENT, SERVICES AND RELATED MATTERS. Chapter Eleven. Investment PART FIVE INVESTMENT, SERVICES AND RELATED MATTERS Chapter Eleven Investment Section A - Investment Article 1101: Scope and Coverage 1. This Chapter applies to measures adopted or maintained by a Party

More information

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 3 April 1996 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 3 April 1996 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Unclassified DAFFE/MAI/EG1(96)7 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 3 April 1996 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Negotiating Group on the Multilateral Agreement

More information

Investment Treaty Protection and Arbitration: Key Things to Know

Investment Treaty Protection and Arbitration: Key Things to Know Investment Treaty Protection and Arbitration: Key Things to Know Dany Khayat Partner dkhayat@mayerbrown.com William Ahern Associate wahern@mayerbrown.com 11 April 2017 Mayer Brown is a global legal services

More information

PART FIVE INVESTMENT, SERVICES AND RELATED MATTERS. Chapter Eleven. Investment

PART FIVE INVESTMENT, SERVICES AND RELATED MATTERS. Chapter Eleven. Investment CHAP-11 PART FIVE INVESTMENT, SERVICES AND RELATED MATTERS Chapter Eleven Investment Section A - Investment Article 1101: Scope and Coverage 1. This Chapter applies to measures adopted or maintained by

More information

Luxemburger Juristische Studien Luxembourg Legal Studies. Daniel Rosentreter

Luxemburger Juristische Studien Luxembourg Legal Studies. Daniel Rosentreter Luxemburger Juristische Studien Luxembourg Legal Studies 4 Daniel Rosentreter Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the Principle of Systemic Integration in International

More information

(including the degree of openness to foreign capital) (3) Importance as a source of energy and/or mineral resources (4) Governance capacity of the gov

(including the degree of openness to foreign capital) (3) Importance as a source of energy and/or mineral resources (4) Governance capacity of the gov Section 2 Investment treaties Foreign direct investment has been growing rapidly worldwide since the 1980s, playing a major role in driving the growth of the global economy. In terms of the share of GDP

More information

Bilateral Investment Treaty between Mexico and China

Bilateral Investment Treaty between Mexico and China Bilateral Investment Treaty between Mexico and China Signed on July 11, 2008 This document was downloaded from the Dezan Shira & Associates Online Library and was compiled by the tax experts at Dezan Shira

More information

ICSID Case No ARB/10/5: Tidewater v Venezuela, Decision on Jurisdiction

ICSID Case No ARB/10/5: Tidewater v Venezuela, Decision on Jurisdiction ICSID Case No ARB/10/5: Tidewater v Venezuela, Decision on Jurisdiction ANIL YILMAZ I Introduction On 8 February 2013, an arbitration tribunal constituted under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment

More information

4 ICSID REVIEW FOREIGN INVESTMENT LAW JOURNAL

4 ICSID REVIEW FOREIGN INVESTMENT LAW JOURNAL Banro American Resources, Inc. and Société Aurifère du Kivu et du Maniema S.A.R.L. v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (ICSID Case No. ARB/98/7), Award of the Tribunal of September 1, 2000 (excerpts) II.

More information

CONTRACTING WITH THE STATE COMMON PITFALLS

CONTRACTING WITH THE STATE COMMON PITFALLS CONTRACTING WITH THE STATE COMMON PITFALLS Luminita Popa 43 Aviatorilor Blvd., 1 st District Code 011853, Bucharest, ROMANIA Website: www.musat.ro A. Political Risks and Adverse Treatment Generally determined

More information

2011 Winston & Strawn LLP

2011 Winston & Strawn LLP Investor-State Arbitration: Effective Means to Resolve Disputes Between a Foreign Investor and a Host State Brought to you by Winston & Strawn s International Dispute Resolution Practice Group 2 Today

More information

India-Singapore CECA India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, 2005

India-Singapore CECA India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, 2005 LIST OF AUTHORITIES Claimant: International Treaties and Covenants: The Charter of the United Nations US-Uruguay BIT Mutual Assistance Convetion Treaty between the Government of the United States of America

More information

TAX STRUCTURING WITH BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES KIEV ARBITRATION DAYS: THINK BIG CONFERENCE KIEV, UKRAINE NOVEMBER 15, 2013

TAX STRUCTURING WITH BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES KIEV ARBITRATION DAYS: THINK BIG CONFERENCE KIEV, UKRAINE NOVEMBER 15, 2013 Richard L. Winston, Esq. Partner (Miami Office) TAX STRUCTURING WITH BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES KIEV ARBITRATION DAYS: THINK BIG CONFERENCE KIEV, UKRAINE NOVEMBER 15, 2013 Copyright 2013 by K&L Gates

More information

NOTE Date: Subject: INTRODUCTION

NOTE Date: Subject: INTRODUCTION NOTE Date: 25 October 2016 Subject: Termination of Intra-European Union Bilateral Investment Treaties by Romania and Further Possibilities for the Promotion and Protection of the Foreign Investments in

More information

Eudoro A. Olguín v. Republic of Paraguay. ICSID Case No. ARB/98/5. Decision on Jurisdiction. 8 August Award

Eudoro A. Olguín v. Republic of Paraguay. ICSID Case No. ARB/98/5. Decision on Jurisdiction. 8 August Award Eudoro A. Olguín v. Republic of Paraguay ICSID Case No. ARB/98/5 Decision on Jurisdiction 8 August 2000 Award I. Introduction 1. On 27 October 1997, the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment

More information

Iurii Bogdanov, Agurdino, Invest Ltd, Agurdino Chimia JSC; v. Moldova

Iurii Bogdanov, Agurdino, Invest Ltd, Agurdino Chimia JSC; v. Moldova Iurii Bogdanov, Agurdino, Invest Ltd, Agurdino Chimia JSC v. Moldova 22 September 2005 Claimants: Iurii Bogdanov, Agurdino, Invest Ltd, Agurdino Chimia JSC; Respondent: Republic of Moldova. 1. Introduction

More information

FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION OCTOBER 2014

FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION OCTOBER 2014 TEAM YUSUF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 24-26 OCTOBER 2014 ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF ARBITRATION OF THE ARBITRATION INSTITUTE OF THE STOCKHOLM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

More information

WILL THE NEW EU INSTITUTIONS ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE INDUSTRY?

WILL THE NEW EU INSTITUTIONS ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE INDUSTRY? WILL THE NEW EU INSTITUTIONS ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE INDUSTRY? Ana Stanič English Solicitor Advocate Honorary Lecturer at Centre for Energy Petroleum and Mining Law and Policy, University of Dundee

More information

CHAPTER NINE INVESTMENT. 1. This Chapter shall apply to measures adopted or maintained by a Party related to:

CHAPTER NINE INVESTMENT. 1. This Chapter shall apply to measures adopted or maintained by a Party related to: CHAPTER NINE INVESTMENT SECTION A: INVESTMENT ARTICLE 9.1: SCOPE OF APPLICATION 1. This Chapter shall apply to measures adopted or maintained by a Party related to: investors of the other Party; covered

More information

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 09/28/18 Page 1 of 10 : : : : : : : : PETITION TO ENFORCE ARBITRAL AWARD ALLEN & OVERY LLP

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 09/28/18 Page 1 of 10 : : : : : : : : PETITION TO ENFORCE ARBITRAL AWARD ALLEN & OVERY LLP Case 118-cv-02254 Document 1 Filed 09/28/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ------------------------------------------------------------x MASDAR SOLAR & WIND COOPERATIEF

More information

AGREEMENT. on Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments. between. the Government of the Republic of Austria. and

AGREEMENT. on Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments. between. the Government of the Republic of Austria. and AGREEMENT on Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments between the Government of the Republic of Austria and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran PREAMBLE The Government of the Republic

More information

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA AND GEORGIA THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA AND GEORGIA THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA AND GEORGIA ON THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS The Republic of Estonia and Georgia (hereinafter the Contracting Parties ); Desiring to promote

More information

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC AND THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES ON THE RECIPROCAL PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC AND THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES ON THE RECIPROCAL PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC AND THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES ON THE RECIPROCAL PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS The Portuguese Republic and the United Mexican States, hereinafter referred

More information

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES (ICSID)

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES (ICSID) INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES (ICSID) INTRODUCTORY NOTE New Jurisdictional Hurdles, More on Investment Protection Standards and Novel Procedural Issues ICSID Arbitration in

More information

EU LAW AND ENERGY DISPUTES

EU LAW AND ENERGY DISPUTES EU LAW AND ENERGY DISPUTES Ana Stanič English Solicitor Advocate Honorary Lecturer at Centre for Energy Petroleum and Mining Law and Policy, University of Dundee Scope of Review 1. EU s Competences after

More information

THE LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. LCIA Arbitration No 00/2014

THE LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. LCIA Arbitration No 00/2014 TEAM PADILLA THE LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION LCIA Arbitration No 00/2014 VASIUKI LLC Claimant v. REPUBLIC OF BARANCASIA Respondent MEMORIAL FOR CLAIMANT 19 SEPTEMBER 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS

More information

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA AND THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC FOR THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA AND THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC FOR THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA AND THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC FOR THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS The Republic of India and the Slovak Republic, hereinafter referred to as the

More information

The Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the Hellenic Republic, hereinafter referred to as the "Contracting Parties",

The Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the Hellenic Republic, hereinafter referred to as the Contracting Parties, AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC ON THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS The Government of the United Mexican

More information

FROM ISDS TO ICS: A LEOPARD CAN T CHANGE ITS SPOTS

FROM ISDS TO ICS: A LEOPARD CAN T CHANGE ITS SPOTS FROM ISDS TO ICS: A LEOPARD CAN T CHANGE ITS SPOTS Brussels, 11 February 2016 POSITION PAPER ON THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL FOR AN INVESTMENT COURT SYSTEM IN TTIP This position paper illustrates Greenpeace

More information

Prevention & Management of ISDS

Prevention & Management of ISDS Investments Prevention & Management of ISDS Vee Vian Thien, Associate (Allen & Overy HK) 8 th Meeting of the Asia-Pacific FDI Network, 26 September 2018 Allen & Overy LLP 2018 Agenda 1 Introduction to

More information

Investment Protection and International Relations

Investment Protection and International Relations Investment Protection and International Relations By Christoph Schreuer 1. INTRODUCTION Economic disputes are frequent sources of international conflicts. Where interests of foreign investors are involved,

More information

Bilateral Investment Treaty between Jordan and China

Bilateral Investment Treaty between Jordan and China Bilateral Investment Treaty between Jordan and China Signed on November 5, 2001 This document was downloaded from the Dezan Shira & Associates Online Library and was compiled by the tax experts at Dezan

More information

AGREEMENT BETWEEN AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC

AGREEMENT BETWEEN AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF MAURITIUS AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC FOR THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS The Government of the Republic of Mauritius

More information

JICLT. Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology Vol.9, No.4 (2014)

JICLT. Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology Vol.9, No.4 (2014) JICLT Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology Vol.9, No.4 (2014) Variability of fair and equitable treatment standard according to the level of development, governance capacity and resources

More information

International investment protection and the implementation of measures of general interest: a difficult balance to strike?

International investment protection and the implementation of measures of general interest: a difficult balance to strike? Faculty of Law Academic Year 2015-16 Exam Session 1 International investment protection and the implementation of measures of general interest: a difficult balance to strike? LLM Paper by Morgan Bechet

More information

Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment New York February 14, 2013

Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment New York February 14, 2013 Counterclaims by States in Investment Arbitration Jean E. Kalicki Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment New York February 14, 2013 Why Not More Counterclaims by States? Quite common

More information

Bilateral Investment Treaty between Lebanon and Malaysia

Bilateral Investment Treaty between Lebanon and Malaysia Bilateral Investment Treaty between Lebanon and Malaysia This document was downloaded from ASEAN Briefing (www.aseanbriefing.com) and was compiled by the tax experts at Dezan Shira & Associates (www.dezshira.com).

More information

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND FOR THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND FOR THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND FOR THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS The Czech Republic and the (hereinafter referred to as the "Contracting Parties"), Desiring to develop

More information

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE SULTANATE OF OMAN AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE SULTANATE OF OMAN AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA AGREEMENT between the Government of the Sultanate of Oman and the Government of the Republic of Austria for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments THE GOVERNMENT OF THE SULTANATE OF OMAN

More information

Siemens A.G. v The Argentine Republic

Siemens A.G. v The Argentine Republic This case summary was prepared in the course of research for S Ripinsky with K Williams, Damages in International Investment Law (BIICL, 2008) Case summary Siemens A.G. v The Argentine Republic Year of

More information

Consent to Arbitration by Christoph Schreuer 27 February 2007

Consent to Arbitration by Christoph Schreuer 27 February 2007 Consent to Arbitration by Christoph Schreuer 27 February 2007 I. INTRODUCTION Arbitration is by far the most frequently used method to settle investment disputes. Investor/State arbitration has largely

More information

New model treaty to replace 79 existing Dutch bilateral investment treaties

New model treaty to replace 79 existing Dutch bilateral investment treaties 1 New model treaty to replace 79 existing Dutch bilateral investment treaties Yesterday, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs launched an internet consultation in relation to a new draft model Bilateral

More information

AGREEMENT BETWEEN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AND THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC FOR THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS

AGREEMENT BETWEEN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AND THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC FOR THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AND THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC FOR THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Slovak Republic (hereinafter referred to as the

More information

UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION OF THE SPANISH ORIGINAL

UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION OF THE SPANISH ORIGINAL AGREEMENT FOR THE RECIPROCAL PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS BETWEEN THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES AND THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN The Mexican United States and the Kingdom of Spain, hereinafter The Contracting

More information

The Government of the Republic of Chile and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia, hereinafter referred to as the "Contracting Parties";

The Government of the Republic of Chile and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia, hereinafter referred to as the Contracting Parties; AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA ON THE RECIPROCAL PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS The Government of the Republic of Chile

More information

Part VII. Part V of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure Arbitration. [The following translation is not an official document]

Part VII. Part V of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure Arbitration. [The following translation is not an official document] Part VII Part V of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure Arbitration [The following translation is not an official document] 627 Polish Code of Civil Procedure. Part five. Arbitration [The following translation

More information

Challenges for Foreign Direct Investment in the

Challenges for Foreign Direct Investment in the Challenges for Foreign Direct Investment in the Solar Energy Sector Nikos Lavranos* Introduction There are basically two main reasons for the importance of the renewable energy sector in general and the

More information

ICSID I History, Overview and Jurisdiction - Consent

ICSID I History, Overview and Jurisdiction - Consent Seminar 3 ICSID I History, Overview and Jurisdiction Consent Learning objectives At the end of the session you should Appreciate the limited scope of jurisdiction of national courts in investment disputes

More information

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE AND THE REPUBLIC OF TUNISIA ON THE RECIPROCAL PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE AND THE REPUBLIC OF TUNISIA ON THE RECIPROCAL PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE AND THE REPUBLIC OF TUNISIA ON THE RECIPROCAL PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS The Republic of Chile and the Republic of Tunisia (hereinafter the "Contracting

More information

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES. In the arbitration proceeding between. Claimant. and. Respondent. ICSID Case No.

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES. In the arbitration proceeding between. Claimant. and. Respondent. ICSID Case No. INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES In the arbitration proceeding between UAB E ENERGIJA (LITHUANIA) Claimant and REPUBLIC OF LATVIA Respondent ICSID Case No. ARB/12/33 DISSENTING

More information

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES (ICSID) IN THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN. TECO GUATEMALA HOLDINGS, LLC Claimant and

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES (ICSID) IN THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN. TECO GUATEMALA HOLDINGS, LLC Claimant and INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES (ICSID) IN THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN TECO GUATEMALA HOLDINGS, LLC Claimant and THE REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA Respondent ICSID Case No. ARB/10/23 ================================================================

More information

The Government of the People s Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the Contracting Parties),

The Government of the People s Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the Contracting Parties), AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE S REUBLIC OF CHINA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA ON THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS Department of Treaty and Law 2010-02-05 16:25

More information

Both the Union and the member states would become members of the Convention.

Both the Union and the member states would become members of the Convention. Opinion on recommendation of a Council decision authorising the opening of negotiations for a convention establishing a multilateral court for the settlement of investment disputes (COM (2017) 493 final)

More information

Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law

Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law Maffezini v Spain Case August Reinisch Table of Contents A. Introduction B. Factual Background C. Decision on Provisional Measures D. Decision on Jurisdiction E. Award on the Merits F. Rectification of

More information

Arbitration Law no. 31 of 2001

Arbitration Law no. 31 of 2001 Arbitration Law no. 31 of 2001 Article 1: General Provisions This law shall be called (Arbitration Law of 2001) and shall come into force after thirty days of publishing it in the Official Gazette (2).

More information

Treaty between the United States of America and. the Republic of Ecuador concerning the. Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment

Treaty between the United States of America and. the Republic of Ecuador concerning the. Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of Ecuador concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment The United States of America and the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter

More information

2010/IEG/WKSP1/003 Trends in Treaty-Based Investment Disputes

2010/IEG/WKSP1/003 Trends in Treaty-Based Investment Disputes 2010/IEG/WKSP1/003 Trends in Treaty-Based Investment Disputes Submitted by: Vanderbilt University Workshop on Dispute Prevention and Preparedness Washington, DC, United States 26-30 July 2010 Trends in

More information

Canberra, 12 November Entry into force, 14 March 2007 AUSTRALIAN TREATY SERIES [2007] ATS 22

Canberra, 12 November Entry into force, 14 March 2007 AUSTRALIAN TREATY SERIES [2007] ATS 22 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS Canberra, 12 November 2002 Entry into

More information

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER ELEVEN OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER ELEVEN OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER ELEVEN OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES BETWEEN: MESA POWER GROUP, LLC Claimant AND: GOVERNMENT OF CANADA Respondent

More information

ICSID: Jurisdiction ratione materiae and ratione personae

ICSID: Jurisdiction ratione materiae and ratione personae ICSID: Jurisdiction ratione materiae and ratione personae Professor Loukas Mistelis Any questions 2 ITIDS 202-203 - Slides Issues covered ICSID Jurisdiction ratione personae Personal jurisdiction (party

More information

THE ICSID CASELOAD STATISTICS (ISSUE )

THE ICSID CASELOAD STATISTICS (ISSUE ) THE ICSID CASELOAD STATISTICS (ISSUE 03-) The ICSID Caseload Statistics (Issue 03-) This issue of the ICSID Caseload Statistics updates the profile of the ICSID caseload, historically and for the Centre

More information

MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT

MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT TEAM: EVENSEN FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION MOOT 2015 THE LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT ON BEHALF OF Vasiuki LLC Helios Boulevard 1100 2401 Ville-de-Ra

More information

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA FOR

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA FOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA FOR THE RECIPROCAL PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS The Government of Republic

More information

Claimant s Memorial on Liability Index of Legal Authorities

Claimant s Memorial on Liability Index of Legal Authorities IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE RULES OF THE UNITED COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW THE RENCO GROUP, INC. CLAIMANT, v. THE REPUBLIC OF PERU, RESPONDENT. Claimant s Memorial on Liability

More information

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA CONCERNING THE ENCOURAGEMENT AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENT

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA CONCERNING THE ENCOURAGEMENT AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENT TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA CONCERNING THE ENCOURAGEMENT AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENT The United States of America and the Republic of Bulgaria (hereinafter

More information

AGREEMENT between the Republic of Austria and the Republic of Macedonia on the Promotion and Protection of Investments

AGREEMENT between the Republic of Austria and the Republic of Macedonia on the Promotion and Protection of Investments 440 BGBl. III Ausgegeben am 19. April 2002 Nr. 65 AGREEMENT between the Republic of Austria and the Republic of Macedonia on the Promotion and Protection of Investments THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA AND THE

More information

Aguas del Tunari SA v. The Republic of Bolivia (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/2)

Aguas del Tunari SA v. The Republic of Bolivia (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/2) Aguas del Tunari SA v. The Republic of Bolivia (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/2) Introductory Note The Decision on Jurisdiction reproduced hereunder was rendered on October 3, 2005, by a Tribunal comprised of

More information

Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (ICSID CASE NO. ARB/00/2)

Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (ICSID CASE NO. ARB/00/2) Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (ICSID CASE NO. ARB/00/2) INDIVIDUAL CONCURRING OPINION BY MR. DAVID SURATGAR 1. Although in agreement with the findings of

More information

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE AND THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM FOR THE RECIPROCAL PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE AND THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM FOR THE RECIPROCAL PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE AND THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM FOR THE RECIPROCAL PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS The Government of the Republic of Chile and the Government of the

More information

TREATY-PROTECTED INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS: OF UMBRELLA CLAUSES AND PRIVITY OF CONTRACT

TREATY-PROTECTED INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS: OF UMBRELLA CLAUSES AND PRIVITY OF CONTRACT American University of Beirut From the SelectedWorks of Raul Henrique Pereira de Souza Fleury May 26, 2015 TREATY-PROTECTED INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS: OF UMBRELLA CLAUSES AND PRIVITY OF CONTRACT Raul Henrique

More information

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE AND THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA FOR THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENT

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE AND THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA FOR THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE AND THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA FOR THE PROMOTION AND RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENT THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE AND THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA, hereinafter referred to

More information

JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH [VOL 1 ISSUE 2 DEC 2015] Page 40 of 142

JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH [VOL 1 ISSUE 2 DEC 2015] Page 40 of 142 BALANCING THE MFN AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSE UNDER INDIA S DRAFT MODEL BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATY, 2015 By Manas Pandey 91 1. INTRODUCTION Bilateral Investment Treaties (BIT) are the primary legal

More information

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE LEBANESE REPUBLIC AND THE BELGO-LUXEMBOURG ECONOMIC UNION

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE LEBANESE REPUBLIC AND THE BELGO-LUXEMBOURG ECONOMIC UNION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE LEBANESE REPUBLIC AND THE BELGO-LUXEMBOURG ECONOMIC UNION ON THE RECIPROCAL PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE LEBANESE

More information

Prof. Dr. Stephan Schill, LL.M. (NYU)*

Prof. Dr. Stephan Schill, LL.M. (NYU)* Energi-, Forsynings- og Klimaudvalget 2017-18 L 43 Bilag 3 Offentligt Memorandum on Possible Implications under Denmark s Investment Treaty Commitments of the Draft Bill to Amend the Danish Continental

More information