Orrego Vicuna disagreed with majority’s analysis on dual nationality

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.

Majority applied the “Lucchetti test”, concluding that all three claims related to one single dispute pre-dating the BIT

Arbitrators found that they were not bound by the claimant’s description of the relevant facts, but must consider all claims presented by Vieira

Tribunal bifurcated jurisdictional questions, and it set out general principles governing its jurisdiction under the ICSID Convention

Arbitrators decided that Chile had not implicitly accepted the jurisdiction of the tribunal when entering into amiable negotiations with the claimant

Tribunal distinguished between “claims” and “disputes”

Tribunal found it unnecessary to examine further jurisdictional objections, and split costs between the parties

Russia did not participate, could elect to pursue set aside in The Hague

GAMI failed to demonstrate quantifiable damage connected with alleged unfair and inequitable treatment

Expectations are to be assessed at time of investment

Mere failure to fulfil domestic law is insufficient; “outright and unjustified repudiation” is needed – and is not satisfied here

Minimum standard of treatment has evolved since Neer case

Tribunal warns that states can’t plead poverty as excuse for not living up to international standards

Discrimination claim fails; no like circumstances, and rational objective pursued

Although it prevailed, Mexico is not awarded its legal or arbitration costs

Local action by GAM does not affect GAMI’s expropriation claim under NAFTA

Barcelona Traction decision only applied to diplomatic protection; minority shareholder GAMI has standing to bring NAFTA claim

Jurisdiction upheld despite partial redress obtained by local entity before Mexican courts

All parties agree that BIT applies to Crimea; question is timing of investment

Tribunal confirms its jurisdiction despite Russian non-participation

Tribunal follows Abaclat and Ambiente Ufficio on multi-party arbitrations

Claimants say de facto control of Crimea is enough for BIT jurisdiction

BIT purposes better achieved by extending protection to pre-annexation Ukrainian investments

Investments are lawful under Russian law

Russia declines to participate in claims prompted by Crimea annexation

No grounds to support request for ‘Section 1782’ discovery in US courts

Tribunal sets out now-classic definition of ‘police powers’ to justify Californian measures

University study is ‘objective and scientific’, and rationally supports California’s decision

Tribunal doubts relevance of WTO case-law on discrimination in rejecting claim

Tribunal denies request to order respondent to provide NAFTA travaux

Challenge leads to later reconsideration request, denied by tribunal

Most jurisdictional objections swiftly dismissed

Investor bears all costs, and ultimately pays up

Request to amend pleadings during hearings denied

NAFTA minimum standard does not cover discrimination

Request for interpretation is outside scope of that process

Investment arbitration’s ‘Asbestos’ moment: Methanex tribunal accepts amicus curiae briefs

Investment still operated for limited purposes; no ‘substantial deprivation’ for expropriation

No specific representations found, and no reliance anyway

Tribunal finds one claim not time-barred, postpones determination of another

Tribunal views sanctuary as an investment because it was acquired with expectation of profit

Tribunal sees no evidence of environmental damage over the investment timeframe

Tribunal finds that claimant’s non-compliance with Barbados’ exchange control laws is a merely ‘technical’ breach

Even if damage occurred, tribunal doubts that Barbados caused it

Separate opinion agrees that the claimant’s good faith conduct allows the tribunal to overlook certain failings

Investor hit with US$3 million costs order, but some of state’s costs rejected as disproportionate

Claimant says legitimate expectations affected by state’s international environmental obligations

Tribunal considers environmental obligations potentially relevant to ‘full protection and security’ standard

Tribunal chooses substance over form; finds valid ownership of investment despite incomplete and conflicting documentation

Parties dispute facts of environmental degradation at the sanctuary site

Disagreement on interpretation of local law

Tribunal issues interpretation of award, and clarifies that it reinstated a contractual arbitration clause that had been extinguished under Jordanian law

Timing of BIT’s entry into force nixed several other claims

Award is terse on treaty violation

User Login:

Email Alerts

Editor’s Picks