In Decision on Interpretation, tribunal clarified that order restoring arbitration agreement was reciprocal

You are not logged in. If you are a subscriber, please Login to access. If you are not a subscriber, you can contact us for a rate quote at subscribe@iareporter.com. Alternatively, you can sign up to receive free email headlines here.

Jordan’s “retroactive” termination of ATA’s right to arbitrate breached the BIT

Tribunal found that it had ratione temporis jurisdiction over dispute stemming from annulment of contractual arbitration agreement

Even if arbitral award qualified as protected investment (quod non), tribunal would still lack jurisdiction over award’s annulment

Tribunal declined jurisdiction ratione temporis over dispute stemming from annulment of arbitration award

BIT does not apply to pre-existing disputes, even though it applies to pre-existing investments

Investment must be viewed as “bundle of rights”

Background: Fate of commercial award before Jordanian courts led to treaty claim

Norway is awarded part of its costs

No breach with respect to Sea & Coast, since Norway was under no obligation to ensure a market for that entity

Tribunal sees no denial of justice

No violation of duty to encourage investment

Tribunal lacks authority to rule on inter-state dispute regarding interpretation of Svalbard treaty

No discrimination with respect to North Star’s BIT protected investment

Tribunal sees no indirect expropriation

No lack of transparency and consistency

Norway did not act arbitrarily or in bad faith in designated snow crab as a sedentary species and imposing the harvesting ban

Claimants did not have a legitimate expectation that Norway would permit them to harvest snow crab from the Norwegian sector of the Loop Hole after June 2016

Tribunal sees no material difference between BIT’s equitable and reasonable treatment standard and customary minimum standard of treatment

Tribunal sees no conspiracy by Norway and Russia to exclude EU vessels from harvesting snow crab in the Loop Hole; Norway cannot be held responsible for Russia’s acts

Norway initially hesitated whether to designate snow crab as a sedentary species under UNCLOS, but this hesitation was understandable

Tribunal may consider other international treaties as part of the applicable law on the merits, depending on the circumstances of the case

Claims are not rendered inadmissible due to application of other international treaties or Monetary Gold principle, though these instruments indicate some limits for the case

Most of North Star’s assets are associated with other states than Norway, limiting BIT-protected investment to contractual claim with local partner

Mr. Pildegovics’ shares in Sea & Coast qualify as BIT protected investment

Archives