Treaty shall remain in force for 10 years, with automatic 1-year renewals

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.

BIT contains exceptions for public interest matters and essential security interests, as well as a taxation carve-out

Denial of benefits is subject to “prior notification and consultation”; BIT does not provide for transparency of arbitral process

BIT provides for specific consolidation proceedings

Tribunals may order restitution; draft awards must be submitted to the parties for comments

BIT provides for mandatory bifurcation of certain objections and limits parallel proceedings

ISDS provision specifically refers to ICSID’s 2006 Arbitration Rules, and provides that non-observance of pre-arbitration requirements would nullify the state’s consent to arbitration

ISDS and state-to-state dispute resolution provisions contain specific carve-outs for measures targeted at tobacco-related products

War-losses clause combines non-discrimination approach with limited guarantees of strict liability; free-transfers clause is included, but with exceptions

Expropriation provision contains carve-out for land measures and intellectual property rights; annex sets out multi-factor test to identify indirect expropriation

MFN provision ponders on like circumstances requirement and does not apply to dispute settlement or substantive provisions of other treaties

FET and FPS are linked to customary international law

BIT applies to pre-existing investments, but not to pre-existing claims or events; government subsidies and grants are carved out

BIT covers state-owned companies, but excludes public debt instruments

Tribunal also sees no MST breach

Tribunal was free to assess the probative value of the evidence

No “willful ignorance of evidence” in making factual findings

Application of Kim test was “sufficiently clear”

Reading an implicit legality requirement into the BIT is not untenable

Tribunal did address estoppel arguments

Cortec to bear costs of proceedings, but legal fees lie where they fall

Award would withstand annulment even if alternative reasoning were deficient

Failure to state reasons only applies with respect to arguments adduced “with reasonably clarity” in the proceedings

Investors argue that the tribunal has manifestly exceeded its power on four accounts

Legal findings won’t be annulled if they are “reasonably tenable” – even jurisdictional findings

Archives