Some key demands of ICCPR against which Indonesia’s conduct should be measured

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.

OIC Treaty contains consent for arbitration

Background: Investment in Iraq’s telecommunications sector leads to arbitration

Libya’s consistent position that it has appointed Mr. Thomas only for BIT claims implies there is no tribunal in place for claims under the OIC Treaty

Parties debate whether arbitration can proceed under both treaties

Background: parties dispute scope of Libya’s appointment

Abuse of process defence is inadmissible

OIC Agreement does not provide for PCA intervention

Annulment judge won’t act as appointing authority

Article 8 OIC Agreement is an MFN clause

Treaty’s MFN obligation did not extend to arbitral consent

Investor to bear most of the costs

Conciliation is not a necessary precondition to arbitration

No limitation for natural resources disputes under the applicable treaty

Arbitration clause in OIC Agreement is not limited to state-to-state disputes

No ground for a restrictive interpretation of OIC Agreement

No breach of FET or discriminatory treatment given the investor’s failure to perform

Alleged illegality should reach a certain level of gravity

ISDS mechanism not barred by contemplated international court

OIC Agreement’s “public order or morals” clause is not a legality clause

Exploration licence was an expropriable asset

Background: manganese exploration activities are stopped after licence is not renewed

Treaty contains unambiguous consent to arbitrate

Refusal to renew licence was justified given investor’s lack of performance

Mere threat to terminate licence cannot amount to expropriation

Archives