Leaders from 15 of the countries negotiating the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) announced on November 4, 2019, that they had clinched a deal that would govern trade and investment across a wide swath of the Asia–Pacific region.
Perenco Ecuador Limited v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6
Belenergia S.A. v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/40
Glencore International A.G. and C.I. Prodeco S.A. v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/6
Professor Christian Doutremepuich and Antoine Doutremepuich v. Republic of Mauritius, PCA Case No. 2018-37
Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/6, and Sanum Investments Limited v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2013-13
Tethyan Copper Company Pty Limited v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/1
Cube Infrastructure Fund SICAV and Others v. The Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/20
United Utilities (Tallinn) BV and Aktsiaselts Tallinna Vesi v. Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/24
The Energy Charter Treaty modernization negotiations are due to begin later this year and a set of topics for parties to consider has already been announced. This piece examines the prospects for updating the ECT’s existing formulation of FET and analyzes how this standard has been interpreted in past arbitrations involving renewable energy disputes. The author argues in favour of including a requirement of investor due diligence as an attempt to help ensure that investors anticipate possible risks that may emerge from changes to a state’s regulatory framework.
The EC released on May 14 a set of draft negotiating directives setting out its proposed approach in “modernizing” the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT).
RREEF INFRASTRUCTURE (G.P.) LIMITED AND RREEF PAN-EUROPEAN INFRASTRUCTURE TWO LUX S.A R.L. V. KINGDOM OF SPAIN, ICSID CASE NO. ARB/13/30
DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG V. THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA, PCA CASE NO. 2014-10
GARANTI KOZA LLP V. TURKMENISTAN, ICSID CASE NO. ARB/11/20
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22 (Originally published in 2011 in International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key cases from 2000–2010; republished on this […]
CME Czech Republic B.V. v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL Ronald S. Lauder v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL (Originally published in 2011 in International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key cases from 2000–2010; republished on […]
CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8 (Originally published in 2011 in International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key cases from 2000–2010; republished on this website on […]
Continental Casualty Co. v. Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9 (Originally published in 2011 in International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key cases from 2000–2010; republished on this website on October […]
Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3 (Originally published in 2011 in International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key cases from 2000–2010; […]
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. […]
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, […]
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. […]
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 (Published in 2018 in International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key […]
Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/11/2 (Published in 2018 in International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key cases from the 2010s and on this website […]
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 […]
ANTIN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES LUXEMBOURG S.À.R.L. AND ANTIN ENERGIA TERMOSOLAR B.V. V. THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN, ICSID CASE NO. ARB/13/31
OLIN HOLDINGS LIMITED V. STATE OF LIBYA, ICC CASE NO. 20355/MCP
Over 300 experts gathered in Geneva to take stock of the sustainable development-oriented reform of the investment treaty regime and discuss policy options for modernizing the existing stock of older-generation treaties. Participants recognized that multilateral collaboration would be key to addressing the complex IIA regime.
In their new book, Jonathan Bonnitcha, LaugePoulsen and Michael Waibel develop a coherent structure for policy analysis of investment treaties that should attract interest as governments review their treaty policies. It argues that investment treaties as currently applied often appear poorly tailored to address identifiable economic concerns.
Caratube International Oil Company LLP and Devincci Salah Hourani v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/13
Two African developing countries respond to criticisms against the investment regime. The innovative treaty offers protection to foreign investors without compromising on the host state’s capacity to regulate in the public interest.
Isolux Infrastructure Netherlands B.V. v. the Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No. V2013/153
Teinver S.A., Transportes de Cercanías S.A. and Autobuses Urbanos del Sur S.A. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1
Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.à r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36
WNC Factoring Limited v. The Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2014-34
The Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) reform project led by the OECD tackles corporate measures aimed at shifting profits to no- or low-tax destinations. But investment law can hinder the implementation of much-needed reform in international taxation.
Anglia Auto Accessories Ltd. v. Czech Republic (SCC Case No. V 2014/181) and Ivan Peter Busta and James Peter Busta v. Czech Republic (SCC Case No. V 2015/014)
ICSID tribunal dismisses claims brought against Indonesia based on forged mining licences Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and ICSID […]
Windstream Energy LLC v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2013-22 An arbitral tribunal under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has reached the award stage. […]
Peter A. Allard v. The Government of Barbados, PCA Case No. 2012-06 On June 27, 2016, a tribunal under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) dismissed all […]
The Government of India has proposed a Joint Interpretative Statement to its bilateral investment treaty (BIT) partners. The statement clarifies key substantive and procedural provisions, bringing them more in line with India’s new foreign investment policy.
During the 10th Annual Forum of Developing Country Investment Negotiators, held in Colombo, Sri Lanka, from November 7 to 10, representatives from Brazil and India announced that they had recently initialled a bilateral investment agreement (BIT).
Murphy Exploration & Production Company – International v. Republic of Ecuador, PCA Case No. 2012-16 (formerly AA 434) – Inaê Siqueira de Oliveira
India has started to send official notices to terminate bilateral investment treaties (BITs) to 57 partner countries with which it has BITs that have already expired or will expire in the near […]
The long-expected final award has been rendered in the high-profile case initiated by tobacco giant Philip Morris in early 2010 against Uruguay over its tobacco control measures.
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
A tribunal at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) declared that it lacked jurisdiction in the case of Corona Materials LLC (a U.S. company) against the Dominican Republic.
In a 273-page award dated April 4, 2016, a tribunal at the Additional Facility (AF) of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) ordered Venezuela to pay US$1.202 billion plus interest to Canadian company Crystallex International Corporation (Crystallex).
In a 318-page award issued July 28, 2015 but only published February 2016, a tribunal at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) ordered Zimbabwe to return farms it seized without compensation in 2005.
Quiborax S.A. and Non-Metallic Minerals S.A. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2)