Mexico is awarded some costs, but request for joint liability is declined

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.

Customs decisions were not arbitrary

Customs decisions did not lack due process

Customs decisions are consistent with local and international law

Waste Management II standard reflects customary international law

No need to prove specific prohibition against impugned conduct under customary international law

Investment was not in like circumstances as comparators

Alleged discrimination against the investor (as opposed to the investment) are irrelevant

Discrimination claim is limited by the scope of the Joint Venture Agreement

Limitation period argument is linked to the merits, and ultimately deemed moot

Vento controlled the Joint Venture

Vento is a US-based entity, owned and controlled by a US national

Claimant fails to prove that loans were actually paid

Non-corporate joint venture qualifies as investment under NAFTA

RFA was properly authorized

Mexico failed to prove that Vento lacked the capacity to deliver a NOD while it was a forfeited corporation under Texas law

Tribunal clarifies the respective roles of the arbitrators and ICSID’s Secretary-General

Background: Long-running dispute over right to preferential NAFTA customs tariffs leads to treaty-based arbitration

According to the dissenter, claimant lost opportunity to ask for environmental permits to carry out mining project

Costs are split, resulting in costs order for respondent, who failed to advance costs

No need to review exception for environmental measures, given finding on MST

No expropriation absent vested mining rights, and absent the “rare circumstances” – such as breach of a commitment – required by the treaty

Failure to prevent artisanal, small-scale mining is no proof of discrimination

Striking balanced policy can be complex, and state cannot be faulted for adopting solution that is detrimental to the claimant, as long as it pursues a legitimate purpose

No breach of transparency in back and forth on delimitation of environmentally-protected area

Archives