Menu
Browse Options
The “Anti-ISDS Bill” before the Australian Senate

Indonesia is not the only Asia-Pacific nation that is reassessing investment treaties containing provisions on Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS, especially arbitration). India announced a review in 2013, partly in the wake of the successful claim from an Australian mining investor, although the impact in practice is hard to discern or predict – especially under the new Modi government. In both countries, the reviews may also have been linked to domestic politics during election years.

More surprisingly, public debate over ISDS has resurfaced in Australia. For the political left, it really began when Philip Morris Asia announced in 2010 that it would claim under a 1992 treaty with [...]

The Futility Exception to The Exhaustion Requirement: Apotex v. United States

In its Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, a unanimous tribunal in Apotex, Inc. v. United States dismissed a Canadian manufacturer’s claims that the United States judiciary had violated NAFTA by mis-applying a regulatory time period.

Most of the reaction to Apotex has focused on the tribunal’s decision that the claimant’s activities in the United States—and in particular its submissions for regulatory approval—did not constitute an “investment” under NAFTA Article 1139. While the tribunal struggled with claimant’s assertion that the regulatory filings were actually treated as “property” as a technical matter, the Award essentially concluded that Apotex simply had no [...]

Notes on the Persistent Latin American Countries’ Attitude Towards Investment Arbitration and ICSID

Investment arbitration is a crucial and sensitive dispute-resolution method, notably because the treatment given to foreign investment matters may materially affect the economic and social realities of a country or region, particularly those in development. In the last decade, however, as already reported and addressed in this blog by, among many others, Vanessa Giraud and Carlos González-Bueno, countries in Latin America — a true hot-spot for foreign investment1 — have been either ignoring, denouncing or resisting the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”), the dispute-resolution framework for investment protection enacted under the Washington Convent [...]

“White Industries” and State Responsibility: Lesser-Known Facts about the Case as Discussed during the 2014 ICCA Young Arbitration Practitioners Conference

and Sapna Jhangiani, Clyde & Co. and Joseph P. Matthews J.D., University of Miami School of Law
for Young Arbitration Practitioners

It has been some time since the White Industries Australia Limited v Republic of India judgment was rendered against India in 2011. However, there remain several interesting aspects of the case still not widely known by the international arbitration community. For example, it is generally considered that this case was the first Investment Treaty Claim (ITA) against India. In fact, there was another ITA claim against India previously – the Dabhol case – which was related to a power project in State of Maharashtra, but was settled in 1996. This post seeks to set [...]

Rule 41(5) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules: The Sleeping Beauty of the ICSID system

and Oleg Temnikov

Foreword
The recent decision on preliminary objections, dated 17 January 2014, against the application for annulment in Elsamex S.A. v. Honduras (ARB/09/4) brought renewed interest in the procedure for summary dismissal of unmeritorious claims under Rule 41(5) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules.

The present post examines shortly this procedure as well as the implications of the above mentioned decision.

I. Characteristics
In response to criticism that no procedure exists for the expeditious dismissal of patently unmeritorious claims, in 2006, the ICSID adopted Arbitration Rule 41(5). This procedure is intended to strike a balance between the need to save time and costs and, [...]

Investment Arbitration in the Nuclear Energy Sector: A Brief Note on Investors and Investments

Every now and then the arbitration society witnesses the filing of investor-state disputes in fields previously ‘unharmed’ by the spotlight of investment adjudication. Perhaps the most recent example is the ‘hydraulically fractured’ shale gas dispute against Canada (see Lone Pine v. Canada). In a similar manner, the Vattenfall II dispute over Germany’s nuclear phase-out has turned the spotlight to disputes in the nuclear energy sector. This post provides a brief note to some of the issues that are relevant when dealing with investor-state disputes in the nuclear energy industry and are associated with the potential investors and the nexus between their disputes and this industry.

[...]

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...