Declaratory award held enforceable by English court: a healthy move for arbitration?
- By Phillip Capper, White & Case LLP,
for White & Case
Following the path of the hotly debated West Tankers decision, in African Fertilizers v BD Shipsnavo, the English Commercial Court held that a declaratory award is enforceable, allowing judgment to be entered on the same terms as the arbitral award. Such an order enables a party to obtain the material benefit of the award and indicates the continuing trend of the English courts in favour of arbitration and the enforcement of arbitral awards. However, this approach does raise questions for the health of the inter-twining co-existence of the arbitration and court systems.
The declaratory award (on the tribunal’s jurisdiction) was made pursuant to an arbitration agreement contained in a bi [...]
The European Advocate General Supports BIT Obligations in EC v. Slovakia Case
On March 15, 2011 the Advocate General (“AG”) issued its opinion on an interesting matter which considers the relationship between EU law, a contract preceding the Republic of Slovakia’s accession into the EU and the Energy Charter Treaty and Investment Arbitration Agreement (essentially, a bilateral investment treaty applicable here).
The dispute involves a contract dated back to 1997 between a Swiss company (“ATEL”) and a State-owned network operator in Slovakia (“SEPS”). Pursuant to the contract, ATEL paid a considerable amount of construction costs for a line from Poland to Slovakia which had not yet been constructed. In return it would receive priority access to the line f [...]
The New World of International Trade Arbitration
In the past twenty years the world of investment arbitration has taken the commercial world by storm. There are over 2,750 bilateral investment treaties and almost every one of them has an arbitration provision. Investment arbitration is now a prominent feature of the arbitration landscape.
Just as BITs have proliferated in recent years, so too have free trade agreements. There are approximately 380 free trade agreements now in existence, and yet the question of dispute settlement in the FTA context has rarely featured in the discussion. Sure, there have been NAFTA Chapter 20 cases, and the occasional ad hoc dispute–such as the Canadian-U.S. Softwood Lumber dispute. But international [...]
The European Commission’s Opposition To Intra-EU BITs And Its Impact On Investment Arbitration
The growing success of investment arbitration may collide with the European Commission’s attitude towards intra-EU BITs, as shown recently by a development reported in August 2010 (the IA Reporter, August 5, 2010, Vol. 3, No. 12) regarding the Eureko v. Slovakia arbitration. In this case, Eureko initiated a claim against the Slovak Republic based on the Netherlands-Slovakia BIT. In the jurisdictional phase of the proceedings, the arbitral tribunal invited the Commission to provide its observations on the claim. In its response, as reported by the IA Reporter, the Commission cast “serious doubts” on the jurisdiction of the tribunal to hear a claim based on an intra-EU BIT.
This deve [...]
Who’s A Respondent In Light of Art. 207 of the Lisbon Treaty?
Art. 207 of the Lisbon Treaty defines the new common commercial policy of the European Union, and states that it shall furthermore relate also to “foreign direct investments”. This provision has the appeal of an outright earthquake, given that the field of foreign investment, and in particular investment treaties, has always been the exclusive realm of the member states (at least in theory, the legal reality was different, though: the EU has concluded mixed free trade agreements with third states not only comprising matters of commercial policy, but also of investments). It has accordingly drawn the comments and critique of numerous scholars. Yet, to my mind it seems that this provision [...]
Some additional comments on the (now amended) Heidelberg Report: A reply to Professor Hess
I am grateful to Professor Hess for his comments on my 3 March 2010 blog. It greatly contributes to advancing the debate. However, it also perfectly illustrates the difficulties of a proposition – the total or partial deletion of the arbitration exception in Regulation 44/2001 – that has not been sufficiently thought through.
1. Professor Hess now introduces a very significant change in the Heidelberg proposal.
In his 14 February post on ConflictsofLaw.net, he had acknowledged that “the proposal of the Heidelberg Report to delete the arbitration exception entirely maybe goes too far”.
Professor Hess now proposes for the first time an alternative to the Heidelberg proposal by drafting [...]
