International claims settlement involves a number of challenges that are relevant for the international arbitration community, including fact-finding and burden of proof, principles of State responsibility, treaty interpretation and damages under international law. One recent development of note involves Israel’s recent settlement of a claim brought by the United Nations.
In July 2009, [...] read more »
Archive for the 'International Courts' Category
Israel’s Settlement of UN Claim Involving Gaza
The Question of Admissibility of Claims in Investment Treaty Arbitration
In my last post I questioned whether investor misconduct (such as fraud, illegality and corruption) is invariably a jurisdictional issue. This post focuses on the use of admissibility as a filtering mechanism to screen investor claims. Although it has been suggested by at least one investment treaty tribunal that the concept of admissibility does not [...] read more »
Perenco v. Ecuador: Was there a valid arbitrator challenge under the ICSID Convention?
By Federico Campolieti* and Nicholas Lawn**
Introduction
In a recent decision related to the ICSID case Perenco Ecuador Limited v. The Republic of Ecuador [1], the Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague (“PCA”) has upheld a challenge against a leading arbitrator, Judge Charles N. Brower, on the basis that from the point [...] read more »
Do We Really Need A World Financial Court?
On September 9th, 2009, an intriguing editorial penned by Jeffrey Golden, a special US Counsel and global derivatives senior partner at Allen & Overy LLP, appeared on the Financial Times. It was titled “We Need a World Financial Court with Specialist Judges”. The reason why I bring this article to the attention of the readers [...] read more »
The “difference without a distinction” strikes again in Glamis Gold: notes on the persisting confusion of preliminary objections to “admissibility” with objections to “jurisdiction” in investment disputes
In one of the most recent NAFTA awards, Glamis Gold v. United States, the United States (“US”) raised objections to the tribunal’s “subject matter jurisdiction” against Glamis’ claims of expropriation under NAFTA Chapter 11. The US argued that the Canadian mining company’s claims based on recently passed California legislation were not “ripe” because the [...] read more »
Can a State claim the status of “persistent objector” in investor-State arbitration?
The question of the existence of legal protection for foreign investors under customary international law has always been controversial. States have indeed entered into BITs precisely because of the lack of development of relevant custom rules in the field of international investment law. It is nonetheless largely agreed today that some rules of customary law [...] read more »
Recent Comments