Les problèmes des TBI traditionnels et le nombre croissant d’affaires investisseur-Etat (RDIE) font partie des facteurs qui ont amené le Brésil à développer le modèle CIFA, dans l’objectif de promouvoir et faciliter des investissements étrangers productifs et de grande qualité.
Après une absence de 15 ans, l’Argentine est de retour sur la scène des négociations de traités bilatéraux d’investissement (TBI) en signant un TBI avec le Qatar le 6 novembre 2016, et en s’engageant dans la négociation d’un TBI avec le Japon. Le nouveau traité comprend des dispositions traditionnelles et innovantes.
Eli Lilly and Company c. le Gouvernement du Canada, CNUDCI, Affaire CIRDI No. UNCT/14/2
Ansung Housing Co., Ltd. c. la République populaire de Chine, Affaire CIRDI n° ARB/14/25
Ampal-American Israel Corp. et autres c. République arabe d’Égypte, affaire CIRDI n° ARB/12/11
Supervisión y Control S.A. c. la République du Costa Rica, Affaire CIRDI n° ARB/12/4
Victor Pey Casado et la Fondation Presidente Allende c. la République du Chili, affaire CIRDI No. ARB/98/2
Un tribunal du CIRDI rejette les recours présentés contre l’Indonésie fondés sur des licences minières falsifiées Churchill Mining PLC et Planet Mining Pty Ltd c. la République d’Indonésie, affaire CIRDI n° ARB/12/14 et affaire CIRDI n° ARB/12/40 Inaê Siqueira de Oliveira[*] Après avoir rendu deux décisions distinctes sur la compétence, l’une dans l’affaire présentée par […]
Churchill Mining PLC et Planet Mining Pty Ltd c. la République d’Indonésie, affaire CIRDI n° ARB/12/14 et affaire CIRDI n° ARB/12/40 Après avoir rendu deux décisions distinctes sur la compétence, l’une dans l’affaire présentée par une entreprise britannique Churchill Mining PLC au titre du Traité bilatéral d’investissement (TBI) Royaume-Uni-Indonésie, et l’autre dans l’affaire présentée par […]
Pac Rim Cayman LLC c. la République d’El Salvador, Affaire CIRDI n° ARB/09/12 Le 14 octobre 2016, un tribunal du Centre international pour le règlement des différends relatifs aux investissements (CIRDI) a rejeté sur le fond tous les recours de Pac Rim Cayman LLC (Pac Rim) contre El Salvador. Le tribunal a condamné l’entreprise minière […]
(English) Venezuela to Pay Us$1 Billion For Expropriating Canadian Mining Company’s Investment
ICSID Tribunal dismisses MFN Clause in WTO GATS as a means of importing Senegal’s consent to arbitration from third party BIT
PCA tribunal deemed acts of Polish Agricultural Property Agency not attributable to Poland
Claimant not considered Investor due to interpretation of “Seat” under Cyprus–Montenegro BIT
Ecuador’s Levy on extraordinary oil profits at a 99% rate has breached Murphy’s legitimate expectations, decides PCA tribunal
Ecuador ordered by PCA tribunal to pay $24 million to Canadian Mining Company
Menzies Middle East and Africa S.A. et Aviation Handling Services International Ltd. c. République du Sénégal,Affaire CIRDI n°ARB/15/21
CEAC Holdings Limited c. Monténégro, Affaire CIRDI n° ARB(AF)/14/8
L’établissement futur du Centre pourrait générer un certain scepticisme, compte tenu que son fonctionnement pourrait saper les normes internationales favorables aux arrangements régionaux, ce qui pourrait donner lieu à une plus grande instabilité dans la région. Toutefois, d’un autre point de vue, la création du Centre pourrait renforcer la légitimité et la popularité des mécanismes de règlement des différends investisseur-État entre les pays membres de l’UNASUR, du fait de la mise en œuvre des innovations de fonds et de procédure, contenues dans la version la plus récente de l’AC que nous avons analysé. Quelles sont les nouveautés en matière de procédure et de fond contenues dans le projet d’accord constitutif?
(English) The long-expected final award has been rendered in the high-profile case initiated by tobacco giant Philip Morris in early 2010 against Uruguay over its tobacco control measures.
Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. et Abal Hermanos S.A. c. la République orientale de l’Uruguay, Affaire CIRDI n° ARB/10/7
Transglobal Green Energy, LLC et Transglobal Green Panama, S.A. c. la République du Panama (Affaire CIRDI n° ARB/13/28)
Crystallex International Corporation c. la République bolivarienne du Venezuela, Affaire CIRDI n° ARB(AF)/11/2
İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi c. le Turkménistan, Affaire CIRDI n° ARB/10/24
Le 24 mars, le Centre international pour le règlement des différends relatifs aux investissements (CIRDI) a enregistré une demande d’arbitrage (Affaire n° ARB/16/9) de l’entreprise étasunienne de télécommunications Italba contre l’Uruguay.
Tenaris S.A. et Talta-Trading e Marketing Sociedade Unipessoal LDA c. la République bolivarienne du Venezuela, Affaire CIRDI n° ARB/11/26
Société civile immobilière de Gaëta c. République de Guinée, Affaire CIRDI n° ARB/12/36
Hrvatska Elektroprivreda d.d. c. la République de Slovénie, Affaire CIRDI n° ARB/05/24
Grupo Francisco Hernando Contreras, S.L. c. la République de Guinée équatoriale, Affaire CIRDI n° ARB(AF)/12/2
Bernhard von Pezold et autres c. le Zimbabwe, Affaire CIRDI n° ARB/10/15
Le 19 janvier 2016, les experts de l’Union des nations sud-américaines (UNASUR) se sont réunis à Montevideo, en Uruguay, pour finaliser les accords portant sur le centre régional envisagé pour le règlement des différends relatifs aux investissements.
Electrabel S.A. c. la République de Hongrie, Affaire CIRDI n° ARB/07/1
Adel A. Hamadi Al Tamimi c. Le Sultanat d’Oman, Affaire CIRDI n° ARB/11/33
Guardian Fiduciary Trust Ltd, f/k/a Capital Conservator Savings & Loan Ltd c. l’ancienne République yougoslave de Macédoine, Affaire CIRDI n° ARB/12/31
(English) Quiborax S.A. and Non-Metallic Minerals S.A. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2)
Ping An Life Insurance Company of China, Limited et Ping An Insurance (Group) Company of China, Limited c. le Royaume de Belgique, Affaire CIRDI n° ARB/12/29
Cette publication annuelle offre un aperçu des tendances récentes et des principaux problèmes du droit et des politiques internationaux en matière d’investissement.
PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd. c. l’État indépendant de Papouasie-Nouvelle-Guinée, Affaire CIRDI n° ARB/13/33
Poštová Banka, a.s. et Istrokapital SE c. la République hellénique, Affaire CIRDI n° ARB/13/8
Venoklim Holding B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/22
Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe S.A. c. la République d’Albanie, Affaire CIRDI n° ARB/11/24
The system of international investment arbitration suffers from serious flaws. In South America, more than other regions, these failings are apparent from direct experience. Perhaps because so many countries in the region have faced multiple international investment arbitrations based on multi-million dollar claims for compensations, a number of alternatives to the current system of investment dispute resolution have been proposed by governments, multilateral institutions and academics.
It is quite common in investment arbitration for the respondent State to include in its defense to treaty claims one or more criticisms of the investor’s underlying conduct. Yet while such arguments feature prominently in State defenses, they are rarely framed as counterclaims seeking affirmative relief. The reason may lie in an instinctive preference by States to pursue any affirmative claims in their own courts. But it may also lie in perceived limits to the jurisdiction of international tribunals to hear State counterclaims.
Two recent ICSID decisions have reached entirely different conclusions on the issue of jurisdiction over State counterclaims. This essay touches briefly on certain jurisprudential and policy factors that may explain the divergent results and frame future cases for further analysis.
US$1.76 billion dollar award levied against Ecuador in dispute with Occidental; tribunal split over damages Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11 Damon Vis-Dunbar The Republic of Ecuador has been ordered to pay US$1,769,625,000 billion in damages—the largest award to be handed down […]
Majority declines jurisdiction in claim against Argentina over domestic litigation requirement Daimler Financial Services AG v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/1 Damon Vis-Dunbar A claim against Argentina by a subsidiary of the German automotive firm Daimler A.G. has failed on its merits because the claimant did not first bring the dispute to court in […]
South Africa begins withdrawing from EU-member BITs South Africa has terminated its bilateral investment treaty with Belgium and Luxembourg, and intends to phase out other treaties with European countries. In a September 7th letter to Belgium’s Ambassador in Pretoria, South Africa’s Minister of International Relations denunciated the treaty, in accordance with the treaty’s termination clauses […]
From October 1-5, 2012, a working group of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law met in Vienna to continue work on how to ensure transparency in treaty-based investor-state arbitration. It was the working group’s fifth week-long meeting on the topic, but will not be the last.
National investment codes[1] may function as potential sources of international investment law. In other words, states may make unilateral undertakings within the framework of national investment legislations and, as a result, be considered as having “created international obligation[s]”.[2] The addressees of national investment legislations are foreign investors as well as the state that is itself […]
Vattenfall launches new claim against Germany The Swedish state-run energy firm Vattenfall has launched a second claim against Germany. The claim stems from Germany’s May 2011 decision to phase-out its nuclear power plants, in which 8 plants have been shuttered and the remaining 9 plants to be closed over the next decade. While Germany has […]
Australia to reject investor-state dispute resolution in TPPA The Australian government will not sign on to investor-state dispute resolution provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), according to an Australian government official. “We have made it clear that we will no longer be seeking investor-state dispute settlement provisions in trade agreements,” said the Australian Minister […]
In January 2012, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela denounced the ICSID Convention,[1] becoming the third country – after Bolivia and Ecuador – to do so. The exit from the global forum for the settlement of investment disputes signals these countries’ apparent loss of faith in the system and raises questions about the Convention’s fitness for […]
A dispute will only fall within the jurisdiction of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) if it directly arises out of an ‘investment’, as is provided by Article 25(1) of the Convention for the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention). However, not only does the ICSID Convention fail to provide any definition of what constitutes an ‘investment’, the drafters of the ICSID Convention, in fact, made an express decision not to include such a definition. This absence has given rise to interesting issues of interpretation as ICSID tribunals have sought to arrive at an understanding of how the term ‘investment’ should be properly understood for the purposes of the ICSID Convention.
As members of the Eurozone are now acutely aware, the lack of a sovereign debt restructuring regime is one of the most glaring gaps in the international financial architecture. That said, this summer’s decision by a tribunal of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), which grants a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) jurisdiction […]
Arbitrator sharply critical of majority decision in Italian bondholder claim against Argentina Abaclat and Others (Case formerly known as Giovanna a Beccara and Others) v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5 Damon Vis-Dunbar Professor Georges Abi-Saab has delivered a sharply worded dissent against a decision that granted jurisdiction to an ICSID case involving tens of […]
Philip Morris files for arbitration over intellectual property dispute with Australia The tobacco company Philip Morris filed for arbitration on 21 November 2011, claiming the government of Australia’s regulations on cigarette branding breach the Hong Kong-Australia bilateral investment treaty. The announcement arrived on the same day that the Australian Parliament passed legislation that bans most […]