This article examines a contract-based dispute, P&ID v. Nigeria, which highlights issues of corruption and lack of transparency in this type of dispute settlement. It concludes that, given the significant public interests at stake in investor–state arbitration, including the possibility that arbitration may facilitate the corrupt transfer of public funds to private actors, they should not be conducted in private.
On November 6, 2019, the Energy Charter Conference confirmed that it would hold the first session of its “Modernization Group” on December 12, 2019, kicking off the process to revise the decades-old ECT.
Delegates to the UNCITRAL Working Group III process on multilateral ISDS reform will meet again in Vienna during the week of October 14–18, 2019.
REN Holding S.À.R.L. v. The Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/15
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 […]
World Duty Free Co. Ltd. v. Republic of Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7 (Originally published in 2011 in International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key cases from 2000–2010; republished on this website […]
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. […]
Metal-Tech Ltd. v. The Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No ARB/10/3 (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. […]
Investment facilitation is a vague and broad term encompassing administrative simplification for investors. Certain proposals submitted to global forums also include mechanisms giving foreign investors an opportunity to participate in the design process of new regulations. Would multilateral rules on investment facilitation pose risks to domestic regulatory processes?
This book explains the underlying debate and provides an in-depth commentary on the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor–State Arbitration, paragraph by paragraph.
In May 2018, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs published its new draft model bilateral investment treaty (BIT), in hopes to foster rethinking of existing and future Dutch BITs. Will this revised model achieve this goal, or does it fall short of the promised policy reset?
On July 14, 2017, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) entrusted its Working Group III with a broad mandate to work on the possible reform of investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS).
The future operation of the investment dispute settlement facility of the Union of South American Nations is likely to generate scepticism, as it could undermine international standards in favour of regional parameters and lead to increased instability in the region. Alternatively, it could enhance the legitimacy and popularity of ISDS mechanisms in UNASUR member states. What are the procedural and substantive novelties contained in the Draft Constitutive Agreement?
All 751 Members of the European Parliament (MEP) will have comprehensive access to all confidential documents relating to TTIP negotiations.
The book analyses how the investment treaty regime has changed and how it ought to be changing to reconcile private property interests and the state’s duty to regulate in the public interest.
This in-depth commentary analyses each paragraph of the UNCITRAL Transparency Rules, and explains the underlying debate for a broader context.
In July 2013, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) adopted a package of rules aiming to ensure transparency in investor-State arbitration, ratifying the work done by delegations to UNCITRAL—comprised of 55 Member States, additional observer States and observer organizations—over the course of nearly three years of negotiations. With the adoption of the new rules, there is now a carefully negotiated and widely approved template that can serve as a model for how to conduct investor-State arbitrations transparently.
From October 1-5, 2012, a working group of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law met in Vienna to continue work on how to ensure transparency in treaty-based investor-state arbitration. It was the working group’s fifth week-long meeting on the topic, but will not be the last.
With the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty, in force since December 2009, foreign direct investment fell under the exclusive competence of the European Union (EU). Since then the three European institutions—the […]
Negotiations over transparency in investor-state arbitrations have reached a critical juncture heading into an October 2012 meeting in Vienna. During the last meeting in February 2012, a large number of […]
Philip Morris files for arbitration over intellectual property dispute with Australia The tobacco company Philip Morris filed for arbitration on 21 November 2011, claiming the government of Australia’s regulations on […]
Working group moves slowly on agreement for transparency in UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules A working group of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) met from 7-11 February 2011 […]
Ignacio Torterola In October, State delegations are expected to discuss the issue of transparency in the UNCITRAL Rules of Arbitration. Ignacio Torterola, ICSID Liaison at the Argentine Embassy in Washington, […]
By Ugo Ukpabi* March 11, 2010 In Giovanna A Beccara and Others v. The Argentine Republic a tribunal composed of Pierre Tercier, Georges Abi – Saab, and Albert Jan Van […]
By Damon Vis-Dunbar 22 January 2009 The United Kingdom has formally declined to release a notice of arbitration delivered by an Indian citizen under the UK-India bilateral investment treaty, explaining […]
Sorry, this entry is only available in Français.
1 October 2008 Professor John Ruggie was appointed to be Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General on business & human rights in 2005. Prof. Ruggie is also the Kirkpatrick […]
By Gus Van Harten Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University 7 August 2008 I shall lay out an argument for an international investment court, not because I wish […]