The Kenyan government has made parliamentary oversight and public participation a constitutionally mandated part of anyapproval. While that same parliamentary involvement has fallen short of its desired potential, it could still play a valuable role in ensuring that BIT negotiations are open and transparent, and that the public is both aware of and engaged with the treaty-making process and what it means. This piece examines the lessons learned from Kenya’s BIT and experience to date. The author argues that the Kenyan High Court’s ruling that double taxation treaties do not require oversight and approval from the legislative branch should not set an example for the government as it considers how to revise its investment treaty-making processes.
UP AND C.D. HOLDING INTERNATIONALE V. HUNGARY,CASE NO. ARB/13/35
Isolux Infrastructure Netherlands B.V. v. the Kingdom of Spain,Case No. V2013/153
Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.à r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain,Case No. ARB/13/36
The Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) reform project led by thetackles 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.
Ecuador’s levy on extraordinary oil profits at a 99% rate has breached Murphy’s legitimate expectations, decides PCA tribunal
Murphy Exploration & Production Company – International v. Republic of Ecuador,Case No. 2012-16 (formerly AA 434) – Inaê Siqueira de Oliveira
ICSID tribunal renders interim decision on Ecuador’s environmental counterclaim in long-running dispute
Perenco Ecuador Limited v. Republic of Ecuador,Case No. ARB/08/6