Dan Cake (Portugal) S.A. v. Hungary (ICSID)

2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 496-524
Author(s):  
Catherina Valenzuela-Bock
Keyword(s):  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Rare Finding ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Treatment Provision ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Equitable Treatment

In Dan Cake v. Hungary, an arbitral tribunal constituted under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) issued a rare finding of denial of justice in its adjudication of the claims by Portuguese investor Dan Cake, alleging that the Hungarian court’s actions during the liquidation proceedings of its subsidiary were a violation of the fair and equitable treatment provision of the Hungary-Portugal Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). The decision adds an example of the factual circumstances that lead to a finding of denial of justice and reaffirms the stringent requirements that need to be satisfied in order to succeed on such a claim.

scholarly journals Klausula Counter-claim dalam Bilateral Investment Treaty Indonesia

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (6) ◽  
pp. 2219
Author(s):  
Nabilla Zelda Nasution
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaty ◽  
Host State ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Equitable Treatment

Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) merupakan suatu mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa antara investor dan negara penerima investasi (host state) karena suatu pelanggaran terhadap Hukum Investasi Internasional. Berdasarkan data UNCTAD, alasan yang sering diajukan dalam gugatan ISDS umumnya meliputi empat hal permasalahan yakni Most Favoured Nations, National Treatment, Non Exproriation, dan Fair and Equitable Treatment. Namun pengaturan penyelesaian sengketa investasi dengan mekanisme ISDS dianggap lebih berpihak kepada pihak investor dibandingkan kepada host state karena sebagian besar IIA mengijinkan ISDS diajukan oleh investor, dan dalam prakteknya investor merupakan satu-satunya penggugat yang diizinkan. Ketidakseimbangan kedudukan para pihak dalam mekanisme ISDS memberikan pemikiran counter-claim sebagai upaya menyeimbangkan kedudukan investor dan host state dalam mekanisme ISDS. Selain itu pentingnya counter-claiim dalam mekanisme ISDS antara lain karena belum ada aturan yang seragam mengenai counter-claim, counter-claim memungkinkan responden untuk mencari keadilan di forum yang sama sehingga lebih efisien. Serta bagi host state, counter-claim dapat digunakan untuk membersihkan reputasi host state atas gugatan yang diajukan oleh investor. Penelitian ini mengkaji klausula counterclaim yang dapat diadopsi dalam BIT Indonesia sehingga dapat menyeimbangkan kedudukan para pihak dalam mekanisme ISDS, khususnya Indonesia sebagai host state. Penelitian hukum yang digunakan adalah pendekatan konseptual (conseptual approach), pendekatan perundang-udangan (statute approach), dan pendekatan kasus (case approach) dalam membahas counterclaim dalam mekanisme ISDS serta dalam menganalisa rumusan klausula counterclaim yang dapat di adopsi dalam Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) Indonesia.

scholarly journals Perlindungan Kepentingan Nasional Melalui Klausula Dalam Bilateral Investment Treaty

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (6) ◽  
pp. 1909
Author(s):  
Adinda Balqis Tegarmas G.
Keyword(s):  
Host Country ◽  
Dependency Theory ◽  
Policy Space ◽  
Most Favored Nation ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Equitable Treatment

Kepentingan nasional merupakan hal yang abstrak dan dinamis namun dianggap penting dalam pelaksanaan kegiatan penanaman modal. Landasan yang mendasari argumentasi tersebut yaitu parameter dan definisi yang beragam atau tidak menentu. Setiap negara berusaha melindungi dan mempertahankan kepentingan nasional dalam hal penanaman modal asing sehingga dapat memacu pembangunan perekonomian nasional, khususnya pada bilateral investment treaty (BIT). BIT menjadi instrumen perlindungan kepentingan nasional yang menjamin kepastian hukum dan membatasi intrepretasi hakim pada suatu sengketa. Kepentingan nasional dapat ditemukan dalam klasula utama BIT yaitu Most Favored Nation, National Treatment, Fair and Equitable Treatment. Tiga klausula tersebut dinilai belum memberikan perlindungan yang seimbang antara investor asing dan investor dalam negeri, berakibat buruk pada kepentingan nasional host country dan membatasi regulatory space atau policy space suatu negara untuk mengatur sendiri kegiatan penanaman modal. Hal tersebut bersesuaian dengan dependency theory yang memandang penanaman modal asing sebagai suatu ancaman bagi host country. Sejalan dengan hal tersebut, BIT dapat diberhentikan berdasarkan fundamental changes of circumtances secara legal apabila tidak melakukan tindakan breach of treaty dan dapat digantikan dengan model BIT yang baru. Tulisan ini mengkaji bentuk perlindungan kepentingan nasional dalam penanaman modal asing dan pilihan penyesuaian klasula utama BIT sehingga dapat memberikan perlindungan terhadap kepentingan nasional.

The Chevron Saga: The Denial of Justice Standard under the Fair and Equitable Treatment and Customary International Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 274-285
Author(s):  
Pablo Jaroslavsky ◽  
Florencia Wajnman
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Treatment Provision ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
Chevron Corporation ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Equitable Treatment

The Chevron saga is a paramount example of parallel proceedings. It includes several judicial proceedings in Ecuador and the U.S., different settlements, decisions at all levels of the Ecuadorian judicial system, and enforcement proceedings before the courts of several countries. In 2009, Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum initiated arbitration proceedings against the Republic of Ecuador claiming that Ecuador had breached Article ii of the Treaty between the United States of America and Ecuador concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment (the BIT) by failing to provide them fair and equitable treatment. Further, they also claimed that Ecuador committed a denial of justice. In its recent decision, the arbitral tribunal analysed the denial of justice standard under the fair and equitable treatment provision of the treaty and customary international law and concluded that Ecuador had in fact committed a denial of justice. The purpose of this case-note is to analyse the Tribunal’s findings on the denial of justice standard.

Beyond Gold Reserve Inc. v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela: The Host State’s Capacity to Regulate Extractive Activities in Light of Canadian Firms’ Experience in International Investment Treaty Arbitration

2015 ◽  
Vol 52 ◽  
pp. 261-295
Author(s):  
JEAN-MICHEL MARCOUX
Keyword(s):  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Treatment Provision ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Gold Reserve ◽  
Investment Agreement ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Negative Impacts ◽  
Equitable Treatment

AbstractIn a recent award involving Gold Reserve Inc., an international investment arbitral tribunal concluded that Venezuela had to pay compensation of US $713 million for violations of the fair and equitable treatment provision of an international investment agreement between Canada and Venezuela. This decision contrasts sharply with the outcome of other investment disputes concerning Canadian extractive companies. Relying on a detailed analysis of awards involving EnCana Corporation, Glamis Gold Ltd. and Vannessa Ventures Ltd., this article recalls that host states can take measures to increase the benefits and limit the negative impacts of extractive industries’ activities without breaching their obligations under international investment law.

Micula and Others v. Romania

2021 ◽  
Vol 196 ◽  
pp. 1-492
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Equitable Treatment

1Economics, trade and finance — Investment protection — Fair and equitable treatment — Sweden–Romania Bilateral Investment Treaty, 2002 — Article 2(3) — Whether Romania breaching fair and equitable treatment protection under Treaty — Whether Romania breaching investors’ legitimate expectations — Whether Romania acting reasonably with respect to investors’ investment — Whether Romania affording investors adequate levels of transparency — Article 2(4) — Umbrella clause — Whether Romania breaching umbrella clause protection under TreatyArbitration — Jurisdiction — Investment protection — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Distinction between objection to jurisdiction and objection to admissibility — Factual findings — Burden of proof — Jurisdiction ratione personae — Jurisdiction ratione materiae — Jurisdiction ratione temporis — Temporal application of bilateral investment treaty — Whether applicable to acts occurring before entry into force if dispute arose after entry into forceArbitration — Remedies — Standard for bringing a claim for lost profits — Sufficient certainty — Whether investors would have made profits but for the international wrong — Whether trend among investment tribunals to award compound rather than simple interest — Whether a tribunal having power to issue definitive injunctive relief — Res judicata effectArbitration — Enforceability of Award — Whether appropriate for Tribunal to base its decisions on matters of EU law applying after Award rendered — ICSID Convention, 1965, Articles 53 and 54Nationality — Individuals — Claimants renouncing nationality of respondent State and acquiring new nationality — Whether new nationality purely a matter for national law — Whether role for international law — Whether new nationality opposable to State of former nationality — Whether “genuine link” with State of new nationality required — Standing to being investment claim under bilateral investment treatyTreaties — Interpretation — Sweden–Romania Bilateral Investment Treaty, 2002 — Treaties established under European Union law to which Romania and Sweden parties — Whether conflict of treaties — Whether EU law having role in interpretation of BIT — Whether EU law applying after Award rendered relevant to Tribunal’s decision making — ICSID Convention, 1965, Articles 53 and 54

scholarly journals eu Law Constraints on Intra-eu Investment Arbitration?

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eirik Bjorge
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Energy Charter Treaty ◽  
The Law

This article questions whether the law of the European Union (eu) can impose jurisdictional constraints on so-called intra-eu investment arbitration proceedings. Would an arbitral tribunal hearing an intra-eu case under either a bilateral investment treaty (bit) or under the Energy Charter Treaty (ect) have to declare itself incompetent to conduct the case proceedings owing to the operation of eu law? This article subjects that proposition to criticism, finding that, for a number of reasons, connected either with the drafting of the bit or the ect or the operation of general principles of international law, it does not withstand scrutiny. An arbitral tribunal seized of a treaty claim under a bit or the ect cannot rely on eu law to negate rights expressly granted under the instrument providing for its jurisdiction.

The Application of the Principle of Proportionality to Assess Compensation: Some Reflections Arising from the Case of Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-222
Author(s):  
Sondra Faccio
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
Equitable Treatment

In the last few years, the principle of proportionality has appeared with a certain frequency in international investment case law: arbitrators have employed it to determine whether the State’s regulatory measure under scrutiny represents a form of indirect expropriation, to assess violations of the fair and equitable treatment (‘fet’) standard, to counterbalance competing obligations drawn from international investment law and international human rights law, and to assess compensation. This article will focus on the so-called “quantum phase” – the part of the award devoted to the assessment of the monetary compensation due to the foreign investor for the breach of the investment treaty provision – and will discuss whether the principle of proportionality can effectively play a role in the assessment of compensation. The work will start from the analysis of the case of Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, where arbitrators expressly resorted to proportionality to verify whether the indemnity awarded to the claimant for the breach of the fet standard was adequate in light of the specific characteristics of the investment lato sensu and the investor, to then approach the issue of proportionality more in detail.

Regulatory Coherence Requirements in Investment Treaty Arbitration

2021 ◽  
pp. 215-246
Author(s):  
Caroline E. Foster
Keyword(s):  
Government Policy ◽  
Environmental Concern ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Public Purpose ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Regulatory Measures ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Domestic Level ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

Part IV comprises two chapters, Chapter Seven and Chapter Eight. These chapters focus on investment treaty arbitration. Chapter Seven identifies the regulatory coherence tests emerging under each of the core investment protection guarantees. Fair and equitable treatment guarantees require host States’ regulatory measures to bear reasonable relationships to rational policies. National treatment guarantees call for a reasonable nexus to a rational government policy. The law on expropriation increasingly incorporates the understanding that reasonable measures adopted in good faith to address a real public health or environmental concern are ‘for a public purpose’. These tests all tend to accommodate domestic level decision-making, allowing room for the operation of democratic processes rather than envisaging an international legal override. This will assist with traditional procedural justifications for authority at the domestic and international level.

scholarly journals On Investment Law and Questions of Change

2018 ◽  
pp. 173-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Paine
Keyword(s):  
Significant Influence ◽  
Regulatory System ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Equitable Treatment

Abstract This article analyses the various ways in which investment law raises questions of change. It distinguishes between changes in international investment norms, and changes in a host state’s regulatory system which is subject to the control of such norms, and explains how these different manifestations of change relate to the distinct yet interrelated issues of interpretation and application. The article explains why, given features of the contemporary investment regime, on questions of interpretation, concerning the content of international investment norms, arbitrators operate within wider processes of law-development over which states, as treaty masters, also exercise significant influence. In contrast, arbitrators dominate the process of applying international investment norms to particular investor-state disputes to determine whether changes in a host state’s regulatory system breach applicable investment norms. This claim is demonstrated in relation to the two most prominent investment treaty standards: fair and equitable treatment, and the protection against indirect expropriation.

The legitimate expectation of regulatory stability under the Energy Charter Treaty

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 451-466
Author(s):  
Diego Zannoni
Keyword(s):  
Legal Framework ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Legitimate Expectation ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Energy Charter Treaty ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Equitable Treatment

AbstractOne of the main catalysts for the shift towards renewable energies has been the practice of support schemes in a key number of EU member states. Some of these states have since withdrawn or revoked much of their original support, which has resulted in investment treaty arbitrations being filed against them under the Energy Charter Treaty. Arguably, a balance should be found between investors’ legitimate expectations concerning the stability of the legal framework and the host states’ right to adapt regulations to new needs. This can be achieved by clarifying and delimiting the principle of fair and equitable treatment, and by encapsulating it in a more precise set of rules. Due to its open character, this principle could otherwise become too intrusive a standard of judicial review for the exercise of sovereign power by host states. It could be diluted into a rhetorical framework inviting uncertainty and subjective judgment. While the focus of this article is on energy, the concern for legal stability equally applies to all those sectors where large upfront investments are required, which can only be recouped in the long run.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document