Ecuador’s other jurisdictional objections deemed closely related to the merits

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.

Tribunal majority clarified the nature of the obligation to negotiate within the six-month period, viewing it as a “fundamental requirement” of jurisdiction

Majority found that six-month waiting period starts running only when claimant has alleged treaty breach per BIT’s definition of “investment dispute”

Notifications under Article 25(4) of ICSID Convention may not unilaterally modify treaty-based offer to arbitrate

Murphy filed but then withdrew request for provisional measures

Background: Ecuador imposed windfall levy on its oil sector and attempted to obviate consent to ICSID arbitration over natural resources disputes, leading to a series of arbitrations

Claimant ordered to bear costs of respondents not bound by arbitration clause

Discussion on applicability of res judicata doctrine is deferred to merits stage

Challenges to exercise of sovereign powers fall outside of tribunal’s ratione materiae jurisdiction

Tribunal finds no ground to look into potential implicit consent to arbitration under Bolivian Arbitration Law

Tribunal finds no element to consider that ESM acted on behalf of Bolivia

State’s overall involvement in the planning and implementation of the project does not make it a party to the Contract

State’s participation in joint venture contract only fulfilled a legal requirement

Contract leaves no space to consider Bolivia and state-owned company as ‘parties’

Background: Indian steel giant resorts to ICC arbitration following failure of mining joint venture with state-owned company

Iberdrola was ordered to pay costs

Tribunal also saw no DOJ in respect to the Constitutional Court rulings

Administrative action may amount to a DOJ – but no violation is established here

Tribunal rejects claimant’s contention that BIT’s DOJ standard is broader than DOJ under customary international law

Claims of denial of justice are claims under international law and international arbitral tribunals have jurisdiction to resolve them

Tribunal upheld dual systems-based objection to jurisdiction raised by Guatemala, with the exception of the applicant’s claim for denial of justice

Mere allegation that there had been a breach of the duty not to interfere with the investment through arbitrary measures and to respect written commitments made in relation to the investment was not sufficient to convince the tribunal that a question of local law could amount to a breach of international law

Tribunal held that claim for breach of the full protection and security standard was also based on Guatemalan domestic law

The tribunal found that FET claim had become the claimant’s principal claim, but that claim was merely based on domestic Guatemalan law

Archives