Substantial damages awarded to Perenco for FET breach and expropriation; Ecuador also awarded compensation under environmental counterclaim
Perenco Ecuador Limited v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6
Perenco Ecuador Limited v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6
Ivory Coast adopted a new investment code on August 1, 2018.[1] This new law[2] features a variety of innovations ranging from the revitalization of the institutional framework to the reconfiguration of tax rules to new obligations on investors.
Investor–state arbitration has repeatedly proven ineffective in addressing environmental damages that host states suffer as a result of investment activities. This piece examines what lessons can be learned from international civil liability conventions, which are specifically designed to ensure victims’ compensation in cases of environmental harm. The author then explores which principles from these conventions could be adapted for use in investment treaties.
Arguments submitted by an amicus curiae (a “friend of the court”) have become increasingly common in investment arbitration. Many of these arguments deal with internationally recognized social rights, such as the right to water or food. This piece considers the restrictive conditions on amici curiae admission, the frequent reference to social rights issues in amici briefs, and the challenges in presenting these social rights arguments. The author advances possible actions that amici and states can take to make their social rights arguments more effective in an investment law context.
DAVID R. AVEN AND OTHERS V. REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA, ICSID CASE NO. UNCT/15/3
Methanex Corp. v. United States of America, UNCITRAL (Originally published in 2011 in International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key cases from 2000–2010; republished on this website on October 18, 2018. […]
Burlington Resources Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5 (Published in 2018 in International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key cases from the 2010s and on this website on […]
Glamis Gold Ltd. v. United States of America (Originally published in 2011 in International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key cases from 2000–2010; republished on this website on October 18, 2018. […]
Metalclad Corp. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1 (Originally published in 2011 in International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key cases from 2000–2010; republished on this website on October 18, […]
William Ralph Clayton, William Richard Clayton, Douglas Clayton, Daniel Clayton and Bilcon of Delaware Inc. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Case No. 2009-04 (Published in 2018 […]
Host states have had the challenge to protect their citizens from human rights violations caused by multinationals. This paper explains the bases of states’ obligations under international human rights law and how foreign investors may be held responsible.
Burlington Resources Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5
This report examines whether and how investment tribunals consider community perspectives, interests and rights.
Adel A. Hamadi Al Tamimi v. Sultanate of Oman, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/33
Those that propose that the environment needs “more investment protection” are recommending a very long-term solution (of questionable efficacy) to what is essentially a short-term problem.
Perenco Ecuador Limited v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6
This book assesses the current state of environmental protection under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), outlining the scope and process of both agreements, their impact on specific environmental issues, and paths to reform.