CSR refers to rules and practices companies follow voluntarily to limit the negative social, environmental and other externalities caused by their activities. There is a trend to incorporate CSR standards in investment treaties. Could CSR clauses be useful in consolidating enforceable investor obligations and serving as a basis for state counterclaims?
Tribunal finds Costa Rica’s measures to protect the environment did not breach FET or its expropriation obligations under CAFTA-DR
DAVID R. AVEN AND OTHERS V. REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA, ICSID CASE NO. UNCT/15/3
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 October 18, 2018. Read more here.) Decisions and Award are available at https://www.italaw.com/cases/181 Keywords Taxation, investor obligations, environmental counterclaim Key Dates Request for Arbitration: April […]
Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26 (Published in 2018 in International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key cases from the 2010s and on this website on October 18, 2018. Read more here.) Decisions and award are available at http://www.italaw.com/cases/1144 Keywords Human rights, […]
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
Burlington Resources Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5
ICSID tribunal renders interim decision on Ecuador’s environmental counterclaim in long-running dispute
Perenco Ecuador Limited v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6
It is quite common in investment arbitration for the respondent State to include in its defense to treaty claims one or more criticisms of the investor’s underlying conduct. Yet while such arguments feature prominently in State defenses, they are rarely framed as counterclaims seeking affirmative relief. The reason may lie in an instinctive preference by States to pursue any affirmative claims in their own courts. But it may also lie in perceived limits to the jurisdiction of international tribunals to hear State counterclaims.
Two recent ICSID decisions have reached entirely different conclusions on the issue of jurisdiction over State counterclaims. This essay touches briefly on certain jurisprudential and policy factors that may explain the divergent results and frame future cases for further analysis.
Swiss claimant fails jurisdictional stage for not qualifying as an ‘investor’ Alps Finance and Trade AG v. Slovak Republic Damon Vis-Dunbar A claim against the government of Slovakia has failed after a three-member tribunal declined jurisdiction. The tribunal determined that the claimant was not an “investor” as intended by the Switzerland-Slovakia bilateral investment treaty. In […]
By Damon Vis-Dunbar 26 March 2009 An American businessman has failed in his claim against Grenada under a 1996 oil and gas agreement, in a contract dispute conducted before an ICSID tribunal. Initiated in 2005, the ICSID claim was one of a host of legal avenues pursued by Jack J. Grynberg, the president and CEO […]