Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Counterclaims Admissibility in Investment Arbitration

The Case of Environmental Disputes

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy

  • 500 Accesses

Abstract

The admissibility of environmental counterclaims in investment arbitration is untouched academic territory. The Ecuadorian counterclaims of Perenco and Burlington were the impetus of this analysis. As the first successful environmental counterclaims in investment arbitration, the tribunals’ failure to inquire into admissibility warrants further attention. This paper provides an in-depth examination of the gap in this area of investment arbitration. It draws upon international jurisprudence in an attempt to redefine the admissibility inquiry. It concludes that traditional approaches to admissibility will not exclude environmental counterclaims. Requiring a legal connection is an unreasonable and restrictive approach which denies the reality of investment treaties. The asymmetry of such instruments lends host states to rely upon alternative sources of environmental obligations. This should not be fatal to a host State’s environmental claim. The nature of environmental claims, including the implication of public policy should not be an impediment for a tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction. So long as an environmental counterclaim has a temporal and geographical connection to the principal claim or arises directly from the investment, there- is no reason for it to be inadmissible. In reaching this conclusion, this chapter also yields some insight into how host states can increase the receptivity of investment arbitration to environmental matters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Sundararajan A. Environmental counterclaims: enforcing international environmental law through investor-state arbitration. Salzburg Global Seminar. http://www.salzburgglobal.org. at 25

  2. 2.

    Iversen K-J (2013) Foreign direct liability in Europe for environmental damage. Master’s thesis, University of Oslo, at 1

  3. 3.

    Perenco Ecuador Ltd v. Republic of Ecuador (Interim Decision on the Environmental Counterclaim) ICSID ARB/08/6, 11 August 2015 at [10]; Burlington Resources Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador (Procedural Order No 1 on Burlington Oriente’s Request for Provisional Measures) ICSID ARB/08/5, 29 June 2009 at [8]. [Burlington PO 1].

  4. 4.

    Burlington PO 1, above n 3, at [9].

  5. 5.

    At [10].

  6. 6.

    Perenco, above n 3, at [11]; Burlington Resources Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador (Decision on Ecuador’s Counterclaims) ICSID ARB/08/5, 7 February 2016 at [6]. [Burlington].

  7. 7.

    Wood C, Castelan G, King & Spalding (2018) Environmental and human rights considerations for international energy companies. Paper presented to the Energy Industry Environmental Law Conference, May 2018, at 2

  8. 8.

    At [69].

  9. 9.

    Perenco, above n 3, at [611].

  10. 10.

    Perenco Ecuador Ltd v. Republic of Ecuador (Award) ICSID ARB/08/6, 27 September 2019 at [1023].

  11. 11.

    Burlington, above n 6, at [1199].

  12. 12.

    Sundararajan, above n 1, at 25.

  13. 13.

    Rivas JA (2014) ICSID treaty counterclaims: case law and treaty evolution. TDM 11:1, at 2

  14. 14.

    Slater T (2015) Investor-state arbitration and domestic environmental protection. Wash Univ Global Stud Law Rev 14:131, at 147; Wang V (2007) Investor protection or environmental protection? “Green” development under CAFTA Colum J Environ L 32:251, at 259

  15. 15.

    Metaclad Corporation v. The United Mexican States (Award) ICSID ARB(AF)/97/1, 30 August 2000; Tecnicas Medioabientales Tecmed v. United Mexican States (Award) ICSID ARB(AF)/00/2, 19 May 2003; LG&E Energy Corp, LG&E Capital Corp and IG&E International Inc v. Argentine Republic (Award) ICSID ARB/02/1, 3 October 2006. Methanex Corporation v. United States (Final Award of the Tribunal on Jurisdiction and Merits) J William, F Rowley, W Reisman, V.V. Veeder 3 August 2005. S. D. Myers Inc. v. Government of Canada (Second Partial Award) Bryan Schwartz, Edward Chiasson and J Hunter 21 October 2002.

  16. 16.

    Laborde G (2010) The case for host state claims in investment arbitration. JIDS 1:97, at 98

  17. 17.

    Viñuales J (2012) The environment breaks into investment disputes. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinish A (eds) International investment law. C.H. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Munich, at 8; Sarenmalm I (2015) Investment treaty arbitration and environmental sustainability: are ex officio considerations needed, possible or desirable? Master’s thesis in International Investment Law, Uppsala University, at 28

  18. 18.

    Irma A. Imbaquingo v. Perenco Ecuador Limited Exh. CA-CC-57, 17 September 2013.

  19. 19.

    Douglas Z (2013) The enforcement of environmental norms in investment treaty arbitration. In: Dupuy P-M, Viñales JE (eds) Harnessing foreign investment to promote environmental protection. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, at 434.

  20. 20.

    Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) (Judgment) [2015] ICJ Rep 665 at [9].

  21. 21.

    At [168].

  22. 22.

    Hunter D, Salzman J, Zaelke D (2009) International environmental law and policy, 2nd edn. Foundation Press, at 1145. See also Chaisse J, Bellak C (2015) Navigating the expanding universe of investment treaties – creation and use of critical index. J Int Econ Law 18(1):79–115

  23. 23.

    Laborde, above n 15, at 98.

  24. 24.

    Stephenson A, Carroll L (2017) The trans-pacific partnership: lessons learned for ISDS. In: Legum B (ed) The investment treaty arbitration review, 2nd edn. Gideon Roberton, London, at 301

  25. 25.

    Asteriti A (2015) Environmental law in investment arbitration: procedural means of incorporation. JWIT 15:248, at 252

  26. 26.

    Gordon K, Poal J (2011) Environmental concerns in international investment agreements: a survey. OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2011/01

  27. 27.

    Kryvoi Y (2012) Counterclaims in investor-state arbitration. Minn J Int Law 21:216, at 218

  28. 28.

    Beharry C, Kuritzky M (2015) Going green: managing the environment through international investment arbitration. Am Univ Int Law Rev 30:384, at 407

  29. 29.

    Laborde, above n 15, at 113.

  30. 30.

    “States as Claimants in Investment Arbitration” (23 May 2018) Aceris Law: International Arbitration Law Firm https://www.acerislaw.com

  31. 31.

    Laborde, above n 15, at 97.

  32. 32.

    Toral M, Schultz T (2010) The state, a perpetural respondent in investment arbitration? Some unorthodox considerations. In: Waibel M, Kaushal A, Chung K-HL, Balchin C (eds) The backlash against investment arbitration: perceptions and reality. Wolter Kulwer, at 278

  33. 33.

    Bernasconi-Osterwalker N (2003) International legal framework on foreign investment. Center for International Environmental Law, Background Paper, May 2003, at 6

  34. 34.

    Levy C (2015) Drafting and interpreting international investment agreements from a sustainable development perspective. GroJIL 3:59, at 60; United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Investment dispute settlement navigator. Investment Policy Hub https://www.investmentpolicy.unctad.org

  35. 35.

    Levy, above n 33, at 60.

  36. 36.

    World Investment Report (2019) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, UNCTAD/WIR/2019, June 2019, at 103. See also Chaisse J, Donde R (2018) The state of investor-state arbitration – a reality check of the issues, trends, and directions in Asia-Pacific. Int Lawyer 51(1):47–67.

  37. 37.

    At 103.

  38. 38.

    Cadena X, Montanes M (2008) Introductory note to Ecuador’s notice under ICSID Article 25(4). ILM 47:154, at 154

  39. 39.

    Ardern J (2017) Foreign speculators house ban. Press Release

  40. 40.

    Parker D (2018) New Zealand signs side letters curbing investor-state dispute settlement. Press Release

  41. 41.

    Asteriti, above n 24, 271.

  42. 42.

    Laborde, above n 15, at 99.

  43. 43.

    Burlington, above n 6, at [61].

  44. 44.

    Brower C, Schill S (2009) Is arbitration a threat or a boon to the legitimacy of international investment law? Chin J Int Law 9:471, at 476

  45. 45.

    El-Hakim J (1990) Enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards in Syria. ALQ 5:138, at 139

  46. 46.

    Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States (signed 18 March 1965, entered into force 14 October 1966) 575 UNTS 159, art 54(1). [ICSID Convention]. See Marisi F (2020) Environmental interests in investment arbitration: challenges and directions. Kluwer, International Arbitration Law Library, The Hague, 252 p

  47. 47.

    Oelmann J (2006) The barriers to enforcement of foreign judgments as opposed to those of foreign arbitral awards. Bond LR 18:77, at 94

  48. 48.

    Sands P (2007) Litigating environmental disputes: courts, tribunals and the progressive development of international environmental law. Environ Pol Law 37:66, at 69

  49. 49.

    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1771 UNTS 107 (signed 9 May 1992, entered into force 21 March 1994), art 14.

  50. 50.

    Corr A (2016) Expect climate catastrophe: Paris agreement lack enforcement. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com

  51. 51.

    Rinceanu J (2000) Enforcement mechanisms in international environmental law: Quo Vadunt? J Environ Law Litig 15:147, at 155

  52. 52.

    Kamminga M (2004) Corporate obligations under international law. International Law Association, Report of the 71st Conference of the International Law Association, at 424

  53. 53.

    Kelsen H (1966) Principles of international law. Rinehart & Company, New York, at 194. See a c tritique in Nollkaemper A (2006) Responsibility of transnational corporations in international environmental law: three perspectives. In: Winter G (ed) Multilevel governance of global environmental change: perspectives from science, sociology and the law. Cambridge University Press, New York

  54. 54.

    Kryvoi, above n 26, at 246.

  55. 55.

    Sands P (2003) Principles of international environmental law, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, at 896

  56. 56.

    “Frequently Asked Questions” International Court of Justice. http://www.icj-cij.org

  57. 57.

    Bjorklund AK (2013) The role of counterclaims in rebalancing investment law. LCRL 17:461, at 475

  58. 58.

    Kjos H (2013) Applicable law in investor-state arbitration: the interplay between national and international law. Oxford University Press, New York, at 26

  59. 59.

    At 131.

  60. 60.

    Hamida W (2005) L’arbitrage Etat-investisseur cherche son équilibre perdu: Dans quelle mesure l’Etat peut introduire des demandes reconventionnelles contre l’investisseur prive? Int Law Forum du droit international 7:261, at 270–271

  61. 61.

    Amado JD, Kern JS, Rodriguex MD (2018) Arbitrating the conduct of international investors. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, at 118

  62. 62.

    Laborde, above n 15, at 101.

  63. 63.

    ICSID Convention, art 13.

  64. 64.

    Laborde, above n 15, at 100.

  65. 65.

    Schwebel S (2008) A BIT about ICSID. Foreign Invest LJ 23:1, at 5

  66. 66.

    Alschner W, Tuerk E (2016) The role of international investment agreements in fostering sustainable development. In: Baetens F (ed) Investment law within international law. Cambridge University Press, New York, at 220

  67. 67.

    Levy, above n 33, at 83.

  68. 68.

    Mann H, von Moltke K, Peterson L, Cosbey A (2005) International institute for sustainable development model international agreement on investment for sustainable development. International Institute for Sustainable Development, at 9–11

  69. 69.

    At 11.

  70. 70.

    United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2015) Investment policy framework for sustainable development. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2015/5, at 77

  71. 71.

    Douglas, above n 18, at 434.

  72. 72.

    Model Text for the Indian Bilateral Investment Treaty 2016, art 12.

  73. 73.

    Mann, von Moltke, Peterson and Cosbey, above n 69, at 14.

  74. 74.

    Levy, above n 33, at 79.

  75. 75.

    Zeiler G (2009) Jurisdiction, competence, and admissibility of claims in ICSID arbitration proceedings. In: Binder C, Kriebaum U, Reinisch A, Wittich S (eds) International investment law for the 21st century: essays in honour of Christoph Schreuer. Oxford University Press, at 82; Miles C (2012) Corruption, jurisdiction and admissibility in international investment claims. J Int Dispute Settlement 3:329, at 338

  76. 76.

    See Newcombe A (2010) The question of admissibility of claims in investment treaty arbitration. Kluwer Arbitration Blog. http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com; Qian X (2020) Rethinking judicial discretion in international adjudication. Conn J Int Law 35(2):251–310

  77. 77.

    Waibel M (2013) Investment arbitration: jurisdiction and admissibility. University of Cambridge Paper No. 9/2014, at 8

  78. 78.

    Paulsson J (2005) Jurisdiction and admissibility. In: Aksen G, Böckstiegel K-H, Patocchi PM, Whitesell AM (eds) Global reflections on international law, commerce and dispute resolution: liber amicorum in honour of Robert Briner. ICC Publishing, Paris, at 601–617

  79. 79.

    Zeiler, above n 74, at 81.

  80. 80.

    Miles, above n 74, at 334.

  81. 81.

    Wehland H (2017) Jurisdiction and admissibility in proceedings under the ICSID convention and the ICSID additional facility rules. In: Baltag C (ed) ICSID convention after 50 years: unsettled issues. Wolters Kluwer, at 232

  82. 82.

    Waste Management Inc v. United Mexican States (Dissenting Opinion (of Keith Highet)) ICSID ARB(AF)/98/2, 8 May 2000 at [58].

  83. 83.

    Gouiffes L, Ordonez M (2015) Jurisdiction and admissibility: are we any closer to a line in the sand? Arb Int 31:107, at 108

  84. 84.

    Miles, above n 74, at 339.

  85. 85.

    At 338.

  86. 86.

    Billiet J (2016) International investment arbitration: a practical handbook. Maklu Publishing, Portland, at 195

  87. 87.

    Freimane N (2012) Arbitrability: problematic issues of the legal term. Master’s thesis, Riga Graduate School of Law, at 14

  88. 88.

    Levy, above n 33, at 79.

  89. 89.

    Lalive P, Halonen L (2011) On the availability of counterclaims in investment treaty arbitration. Czech YB Int Law 2:141, at 144; Asteriti, above n 24, at 257.

  90. 90.

    Harrison J (2016) Environmental counterclaims in investor-state arbitration. JWIT 17:479, at 486. Douglas, above n 18, at 434.

  91. 91.

    Douglas Z (2012) The international law of investment claims. Cambridge University Press, New York, at 256

  92. 92.

    Agreement between the Government of the Republic of France and the Government of the Republic of Ecuador ensuring the Reciprocal Encouragement and Protection of Investments (signed 7 September 1994, entered into force 10 June 1996). [France-Ecuador BIT].

  93. 93.

    Urbaser S.A.and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic (Award) ICSID ARB/07/26 8 December 2016 at [1143].

  94. 94.

    Asteriti, above n 24, at 252.

  95. 95.

    Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Cyprus and the Government of the Hungarian People’s Republic of Mutual Promotion and Protection of Investments (Cyprus-Hungary) (signed on 25 May 1989, entered into force 25 May 1990) art 7.

  96. 96.

    Musayev K (2017) Counterclaims in treaty-based investment arbitration: an analysis of two main requirements for their admission. Master’s thesis, University of Oslo, Faculty of Law, at 7

  97. 97.

    Smith R (2018) The Green Retort: the limitation of the procedural basis for counter-claims and its effect on environmental counter-claims. LinkedIn. http://www.linkedin.com

  98. 98.

    Rules of the International Court of Justice (adopted 14 April 1978, entered into force 1 July 1978), art 80. [ICJ Rules].

  99. 99.

    Metal-Tech Ltd v. Republic of Uzbekistan (Award) ICSID ARB/10/3, 4 October 2013 at [407].

  100. 100.

    Beharry and Kuritzky, above n 27, at 408.

  101. 101.

    Lalive and Halonen, above n 88, at 150.

  102. 102.

    At 12.

  103. 103.

    Veenstra-Kjos H (2007) Counterclaims by host states in investment treaty arbitration. In: Kahn P, Walde T (eds) Les aspects nouveaux du droit des investissements internationaux: les livres de droit de l’Academie (New aspects of international investment law: the law books of the academy). Nijhoff, Leiden, at 600.

  104. 104.

    Asteriti, above n 24, at 258.

  105. 105.

    Paulsson J (1995) Arbitration without privity. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law 10:232

  106. 106.

    Schreuer C, Malintoppi L, Reinisch A, Sinclair A (2009) The ICSID convention – a commentary, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, at 751

  107. 107.

    Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania (Award) ICSID ARB/06/1, 7 December 2011 at [759].

  108. 108.

    Bravin M, Kaplan A (2012) Arbitrating closely related counterclaims at ICSID in the wake of Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania. TML 9:1, at 6

  109. 109.

    Burlington, above n 6, at [60].

  110. 110.

    At [61]; Burova E (2017) Jurisdiction of investment tribunals over host states’ counterclaims: wind of change? Kluwer Arbitration Blog. https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com

  111. 111.

    Burlington, above n 6, at [60].

  112. 112.

    At [61].

  113. 113.

    ICSID Convention, r 40.

  114. 114.

    France-Ecuador BIT, art 9.

  115. 115.

    Harrison, above n 91, at 486.

  116. 116.

    Wehland, above n 82, at 232.

  117. 117.

    Pauker S (2018) Admissibility of claims in investment treaty arbitration. Arbitr Int 34:1, at 2

  118. 118.

    Miles, above n 74, at 335.

  119. 119.

    Pauker, above n 116, at 2.

  120. 120.

    Parry C, Grant J, Barker C (2003) Parry and grant encyclopaedic dictionary of international law, 2nd edn. Oceana Publications, at 423

  121. 121.

    Newcombe, above n 77, at 1.

  122. 122.

    At 1.

  123. 123.

    Methanex Corporation v. United States of America (Partial Award (Preliminary Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility)) PCA 7 August 2002 at [126].

  124. 124.

    Pauker, above n 116, at 68.

  125. 125.

    At 67.

  126. 126.

    Reinisch A (2017) Jurisdiction and admissibility in international investment law. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 16:21, at 43

  127. 127.

    Walker J (2004) Arbitrability: are there limits. Paper presented at the LCIA Symposium, Montreal, October 2004, at 2

  128. 128.

    Waibel, above n 76, at 8.

  129. 129.

    Kjos, above n 57, at 147; Lalive and Halonen, above n 88, at 145.

  130. 130.

    Kolb R (2013) The international court of justice. Hart Publishing, Oxford, at 203

  131. 131.

    Zimmerman A, Tomuschat C, Oellers-Frahm K, Tams C (2012) The statute of the international court of justice: a commentary, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, at 12

  132. 132.

    Pauker, above n 116, at 2.

  133. 133.

    Reinisch, above n 125, at 30.

  134. 134.

    Smith, above n 96.

  135. 135.

    Burlington, above n 6, at [62].

  136. 136.

    Saluka v. Czech Republic (Decision on Jurisdiction over the Czech Republic’s Counterclaim) PCA 7 May 2004 at [76]; Smith, above n 96.

  137. 137.

    Smith, above n 96.

  138. 138.

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (1968) ICSID/4/Rev 1 at 105.

  139. 139.

    United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Arbitration Rules 15 ILM 701 (1976) (entered into force 15 December 1976).

  140. 140.

    Musayev, above n 95, at 25.

  141. 141.

    Douglas, above n 90, at 494.

  142. 142.

    Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law: Summary of Discussion of the Preliminary Draft (1975) 6 Yearbook of UNCITRAL at 38.

  143. 143.

    Lalive and Halonen, above n 88, at 145.

  144. 144.

    Burlington, above n 6, at [52].

  145. 145.

    At [52]; Perenco, above n 3, at [36].

  146. 146.

    Burlington, above n 6, at [73].

  147. 147.

    At [259].

  148. 148.

    At [258].

  149. 149.

    At [262].

  150. 150.

    Republic of Ecuador Constitution 2008 (Ecuador), art 11.3 and 395. [Constitution of Ecuador].

  151. 151.

    Burlington, above n 6, at [80].

  152. 152.

    At [81].

  153. 153.

    At [83].

  154. 154.

    At [85].

  155. 155.

    At [99].

  156. 156.

    Burlington PO 1, above n 3, at [16].

  157. 157.

    At [16].

  158. 158.

    At [16].

  159. 159.

    At [16].

  160. 160.

    ICSID Convention, art 42(1).

  161. 161.

    Burlington, above n 6, at [218].

  162. 162.

    At [216].

  163. 163.

    At [216].

  164. 164.

    At [216].

  165. 165.

    At [233].

  166. 166.

    Constitution of Ecuador, art 72.

  167. 167.

    Burlington, above n 6, at [219].

  168. 168.

    At [219].

  169. 169.

    Perenco, above n 3, at [320].

  170. 170.

    At [321].

  171. 171.

    At [321].

  172. 172.

    Burlington, above n 6, at [1075].

  173. 173.

    Perenco, above n 3, at [322].

  174. 174.

    At [374] and [379].

  175. 175.

    Burlington, above n 6, at [223]

  176. 176.

    At [234].

  177. 177.

    At [227].

  178. 178.

    At [372].

  179. 179.

    At [429]–[748].

  180. 180.

    Perenco, above n 10, at [898].

  181. 181.

    Sundararajan, above n 1, at 25.

  182. 182.

    Sarenmalm, above n 16, at 24.

  183. 183.

    Tanzi A, Fontanelli F (2017) The law and practice of international courts and tribunals. Nijhoff International Investment Law Series, at 3

  184. 184.

    Vadi V (2015) Analogies in international investment law and arbitration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, at 98

  185. 185.

    ICJ Rules, art 80.

  186. 186.

    Musayev, above n 95, at 7.

  187. 187.

    Kolb, above n 129, at 665

  188. 188.

    At 663.

  189. 189.

    Zimmerman, Tomuschat, Oellers-Frahm and Tams, above n 130, at 1009.

  190. 190.

    Kolb, above n 129, at 665.

  191. 191.

    Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) (Counterclaim Order of 10 March 1998) [1998] ICJ Rep 190 at [38].

  192. 192.

    Constantine Antonopoulos (2011) Counterclaims before the international court of justice. Springer Publishing, at 86

  193. 193.

    Oil Platforms, above n 185, at [39].

  194. 194.

    At [37].

  195. 195.

    Zimmerman, Tomuschat, Oellers-Frahm and Tams, above n 130, at 1010.

  196. 196.

    Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) (Order) ICJ 17 December 1997 at 254.

  197. 197.

    Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) (Separate Opinion of Judge Higgins) [1998] ICJ Rep 190 at 218.

  198. 198.

    Kolb, above n 129, at 672.

  199. 199.

    At 672.

  200. 200.

    Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) (Order of 29 November 2001) (2001) ICJ Rep 660 at 667.

  201. 201.

    At 679.

  202. 202.

    Kolb, above n 129, at 673.

  203. 203.

    At 667.

  204. 204.

    At 670.

  205. 205.

    At 670.

  206. 206.

    Brower C, Brueschke J (1998) The Iran–United States claims tribunal. Nijhoff, The Hague, at 100

  207. 207.

    Caron D, Caplan L, Pellonpaa M (2006) The UNCITRAL arbitration rules: a commentary. Oxford University Press, New York, at 415

  208. 208.

    At 415.

  209. 209.

    Harris International Telecommunications, Inc. v. Iran (Partial Award) (1987) 17 Iran–U.S. CTR 31 at [176].

  210. 210.

    Computer Sciences Corporation v. The Government of Iran (1987) 10 Iran-U.S. CTR 269 at 312.

  211. 211.

    At 287.

  212. 212.

    At 312.

  213. 213.

    Crook J (1989) Applicable law in international arbitration: the Iran-U.S. claims tribunal experience. Am J Int Law 83:278, at 298

  214. 214.

    At 298.

  215. 215.

    Aldrich G (1996) The jurisprudence of the Iran-United States claims tribunal. Oxford University Press, Oxford, at 130

  216. 216.

    At.130.

  217. 217.

    Musayev, above n 95.

  218. 218.

    Kjos, above n 57, at 149.

  219. 219.

    Saluka, above n 137, at [78]–[79].

  220. 220.

    Lalive and Halonen, above n 88, at 150.

  221. 221.

    Smith, above n 96.

  222. 222.

    Burlington, above n 6, at [73].

  223. 223.

    Urbaser, above n 92, at [34] and [1156]. On this case, see Qian X (2018) Challenges of water governance (and privatization) in China-Traps, gaps, and law. Georgia J Int Comp Law (1):49–91. See also Chaisse J (2017) The regulation of global water services market. Cambridge University Press, London, 502 p

  224. 224.

    At [1128].

  225. 225.

    At [1151].

  226. 226.

    At [1151].

  227. 227.

    At [1151]. See also Chaisse J, Polo M (2015) Globalization of water privatization – ramifications of investor-state disputes in the ‘blue gold’ economy. Boston Coll Int Comp Law Rev 38(1):1–64; Qian X (2018) Challenges of water governance (and privatization) in China-Traps, gaps, and law. Georgia J Int Comp Law (1):49–91

  228. 228.

    At [1151].

  229. 229.

    Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) (Separate Opinion of Judge Oda) [1998] ICJ Rep 190 at 218.

  230. 230.

    Kjos, above n 57, at 150.

  231. 231.

    Douglas, above n 90, at 225.

  232. 232.

    Saluka, above n 137, [82].

  233. 233.

    Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Company and CJSC Vostokneftegaz Company v. The Government of Mongolia (Award on Jurisdiction and Liability) Marc Lalonde, Horacio A. Grigera Naón, Brigitte Stern 28 April 2011 at [693].

  234. 234.

    At [678].

  235. 235.

    At [694].

  236. 236.

    At [695]; Kjos, above n 57, at 153.

  237. 237.

    At [695]; Kjos, above n 57, at 153.

  238. 238.

    At [695].

  239. 239.

    Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia (Decision of Jurisdiction in Resubmitted Proceeding) ICSID ARB/81/1, 10 May 1988 at [122]–[127]; Kjos, above n 57, at 152.

  240. 240.

    At [124].

  241. 241.

    At [124] and [126].

  242. 242.

    Antonopoulos, above n 196, at 32.

  243. 243.

    Aldrich, above n 213, at 130.

  244. 244.

    Saito A (2016) International commercial arbitration and international commercial courts: towards a competitive and cooperative relationship. Hors Serie 20:33, at 35

  245. 245.

    Pavić V (2006) Counterclaim and set-off in international commercial arbitration. Ann Int Ed 101, at 104

  246. 246.

    Born G (2001) International commercial arbitration: international and USA, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International, at 322

  247. 247.

    Ford v. Nylcare Health Plans of the Gulf Coast 141 F 4d 243 (5th Cir 1998) at 250–251.

  248. 248.

    Born, above n 237, at 323.

  249. 249.

    “Court confirms application of standard ICC arbitration clause to tort claims” (16 September 2010) International Law Office. http://www.internationallawoffice.com. at 1.

  250. 250.

    At 1.

  251. 251.

    At 1.

  252. 252.

    At 1.

  253. 253.

    Sutton D, Gill J (2002) Russell on arbitration, 22nd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London, at 28

  254. 254.

    Biloune and Marine Drive Compex Ltd v. Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana (Award on Jurisdiction and Liability) (1989) ILR 95:194, at 203

  255. 255.

    Mustill L, Boyd S (1989) The law and practice of commercial arbitration in England, 2nd edn. LexisNexis, at 149

  256. 256.

    European Council Regulation No. 44/2001 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition of Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters (signed, 22 December 2000, entered into force 1 March 2001), art 8(3). (Brussels I Regulation).

  257. 257.

    Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) (2007) European commentaries on private international law: Brussels I regulation. European Law Publishers, at 264

  258. 258.

    At 265.

  259. 259.

    Oil Platforms, above n 185.

  260. 260.

    SGS Societe Generale de Surveillance SA v. Republic of Paraguay (Decision of Jurisdiction) ICSID ARB/07/29, 12 February 2010, at [176].

  261. 261.

    Oil Platforms (Separate Opinion of Judge Oda), above n 223, at 218.

  262. 262.

    Smith, above n 96.

  263. 263.

    Beharry and Kuritzky, above n 27, at 389.

  264. 264.

    Oil Platforms (Separate Opinion of Judge Higgins), above n 191, at 218.

  265. 265.

    Amco Asia, above n 232, at [126].

  266. 266.

    Kolb, above n 129, at 672.

  267. 267.

    Kryvoi, above n 26, at 229.

  268. 268.

    De Branbandere E (2014) Investment treaty arbitration as public international law. Cambridge University Press, New York, at 148

  269. 269.

    Viñuales J (2012) Foreign investment and the environment in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, at 94

  270. 270.

    United Nations Commission on International Trade Law “Arbitration Rules” (2011) UNCITRAL https://www.unictral.org art 35(3).

  271. 271.

    Beharry and Kuritzky, above n 27, at 389.

  272. 272.

    At 389.

  273. 273.

    Gordon and Poal, above n 15, at 23.

  274. 274.

    At 24.

  275. 275.

    Diepeveen R, Levashova Y, Lambooy T (2014) Bridging the gap between international investment law and the environment. Utrecht J Int Eur Law 30:145, at 158. See also Chaisse J (2013) Exploring the confines of international investment and domestic health protections – general exceptions clause as a forced perspective. Am J Law Med 39(2/3):332–361

  276. 276.

    Bernasconi-Osterwalder N, Cosbet A, Johnson L, Vis-Dunbar D (2012) Investment treaties & why they matter to sustainable development: questions and answers. International Institute for Sustainable Development, at 35

  277. 277.

    Reciprocal Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Nigeria –Morocco (signed 3 December 2016). [Nigeria-Morocco BIT].

  278. 278.

    Article 27.

  279. 279.

    Gazzini T (2017) The 2016 Morocco-Nigeria BIT: an important contribution to the reform of investment treaties. Investment Treaty News. https://www.iisd.org

  280. 280.

    Smith, above n 96.

  281. 281.

    Kryvoi, above n 26, at 219.

  282. 282.

    Urbaser, above n 92, at [1195]; (2017) Investor-state dispute settlement: review of developments in 2016. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2017/1, May 2017, at 22

  283. 283.

    Douglas, above n 18, at 440.

  284. 284.

    At 440.

  285. 285.

    Schwartz P (2010) The polluter pays principle. In: Fitzmaurice M, Ong D, Merkouris P (eds) Research handbook on international environmental law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, at 249; Sweify M (2016) Investment-environment disputes: challenges and proposals. De Paul Bus Comm Law J 14:133, at 141

  286. 286.

    Urbaser, above n 92, at [1128].

  287. 287.

    At [1151].

  288. 288.

    Douglas, above n 18, at 434.

  289. 289.

    Parlett K, Ewad S (2017) Protection of the environment in investment arbitration – a double-edged sword. Kluwer Arbitration Blog. https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com

  290. 290.

    Qatar Law on Organization of Foreign Capital Investment in the Economic Activity (Law No. 13 / 2000), art 13.

  291. 291.

    Iversen, above n 2, at 1.

  292. 292.

    Burlington, above n 6; Perenco, above n 3.

  293. 293.

    Oil Platforms (Separate Opinion of Judge Higgins), above n 191, at 218.

  294. 294.

    Douglas, above n 90, at 225.

  295. 295.

    Burlington, above n 6; Perenco, above n 3.

  296. 296.

    Laborde, above n 15, at 101.

  297. 297.

    Al-Adba NM (2014) The limitation of state sovereignty in hosting foreign investments and the role of investor-state arbitration to rebalance the investment relationship. Doctorate thesis in Law, University of Manchester, at 61

  298. 298.

    Nollkaemper, above n 52, at 180.

  299. 299.

    Amado, Kern and Rodriguex, above n 60, at 55.

  300. 300.

    Monebhurrun N (2013) Is investment arbitration an appropriate venue for environmental issues? A Latin American perspective. Braz J Int Law 10:195, at 200

  301. 301.

    Morgera E (2009) Corporate accountability in international environmental law. Oxford University Press, New York, at 30

  302. 302.

    De Branbandere, above n 266, at Y.

  303. 303.

    Dagbanja D (2017) Constitutionalism and local remedies rule as limitations on investor-state arbitration: perspectives from Ghana. OUCJL 17:110, at 139

  304. 304.

    At 134.

  305. 305.

    At 139.

  306. 306.

    Monebhurrun, above n 298, at 200.

  307. 307.

    Park W (2012) Arbitration of international business disputes: studies in law and practice, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York, at 697

  308. 308.

    Slater, above n 13, at 136.

  309. 309.

    Morgera, above n 29, at 28.

  310. 310.

    At 28.

  311. 311.

    Sands, above n 47, at 67.

  312. 312.

    Beharry and Kuritzky, above n 27, at 389.

  313. 313.

    Sands, above n 47, at 67.

  314. 314.

    Sands, above n 54, at 910.

  315. 315.

    Sands, above n 47, at 67.

  316. 316.

    Vadi V (2012) Public health in international investment law and arbitration. Routledge, at 135.

  317. 317.

    Asteriti, above n 24, at 272.

  318. 318.

    Gaillard E, Savage J (eds) (1999) Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on international commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, at [572]

  319. 319.

    Garcia-Castrillon C (2011) International litigation trends in environmental liability: a European Union-United States comparative perspective. J Priv Int Law 7:3, at 553

  320. 320.

    McLachlan C (2014) Foreign relations law. Cambridge University Press, at 447

  321. 321.

    Amado, Kern and Rodriguex, above n 60, at 55.

  322. 322.

    Sands, above n 54, at 876.

  323. 323.

    Perenco, above n 3, at [429]–[748].

  324. 324.

    Viñuales J (2016) Foreign investment and the environment in international law: the current state of play (2015). In: Miles K (ed) Research handbook on environmental and investment law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, at 34.

  325. 325.

    At 34.

  326. 326.

    Metaclad Corporation, above n 14; Tecmed, above n 14; Methanex, above n 14; S. D. Myers, above n 14.

  327. 327.

    Le Bars B (2017) International arbitration and the protection of the environment: should the existing legal instruments evolve? UNCITRAL Papers for Congress, Modernizing Intenrational Trade Law to Support Innovation and Sustainable Development, July 2017, at 14

  328. 328.

    Casgrain FM (2012) Arbitration of environmental disputes. Mondaq Business Briefing. https://www.mondaq.com

  329. 329.

    Beharry and Kuritzky, above n 27, at 405.

  330. 330.

    At 384.

  331. 331.

    Asteriti, above n 24, at 272.

  332. 332.

    Beharry and Kuritzky, above n 27, at 409.

  333. 333.

    See for example Nigeria –Morocco BIT, art 27.

  334. 334.

    Laborde, above n 15, at 112.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

    Molly Anning

Authors
  1. Molly Anning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Molly Anning .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Julien Chaisse

  2. School of Business and Law, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

    Leïla Choukroune

  3. Institute of Malaysia and International Studies, National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

    Sufian Jusoh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Anning, M. (2020). Counterclaims Admissibility in Investment Arbitration. In: Chaisse, J., Choukroune, L., Jusoh, S. (eds) Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5744-2_121-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5744-2_121-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-5744-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-5744-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Law and CriminologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation