Search for:
Category

International Investment

Category
In Europe

Eureka! Advocate General blasts European Commission on the validity of intra-EU investment treaties

by 11 Mins Read

In an advisory opinion to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Advocate General Wathelet has rejected the argument that investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms in intra-EU bilateral investment treaties are inherently incompatible with EU law. While an Advocate General’s recommendations to the CJEU are non-binding, they are highly influential and are frequently adopted by the Court. The case could therefore have far-reaching consequences for investment arbitration within Europe. Background Prior to acceding to…

Read More
In Asia-Pacific

Investor-State Arbitration – An Introduction

by and 21 Mins Read

A. Introduction While investor-state arbitration remains a relatively new area of international law, the number of cases commenced under international investment agreements (IIAs) has grown exponentially over the past 10 years. This reflects in part the surge in the number of IIAs throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, but also an increasing awareness of the protections available.[1] For example, the 2016 UNCTAD World Investment Report noted that investors had initiated 70 known cases, the “highest…

Read More
In Applicable Law

EU Court thwarts prompt ratification of EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement

by 8 Mins Read

In a legal Opinion handed down on 16 May 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) declared that the free trade agreement signed between the EU and Singapore in June 2015 cannot be ratified without the approval of all 38 of the EU’s national and regional parliaments. Given the broad subject-matter of the agreement, including potentially controversial provisions regarding investor-State dispute settlement, might this decision spell the end of the EU’s fledgling…

Read More
In Costs

Impecunious Claimant – Does the impecuniosity warrant that the respondent pays the full advance on costs or that the claimant pays security for costs?

by and 6 Mins Read

On 11 January 2017, the arbitral tribunal in the investor-state arbitration between a French-Mauritian businessman (the “Claimant”) and the Republic of Mauritius (“Mauritius”) [1] issued a decision (i) on Claimant’s application to order Mauritius to pay the full advance on costs and (ii) on Mauritius application to order Claimant to pay security for costs. Both requests were denied.[2] The PCA administered arbitration was initiated by Claimant in November 2015 because Mauritius allegedly violated the France-Mauritius…

Read More
Load More