Abstract
Against the backdrop of an ongoing arbitration “war”, disputing parties often end up waging parallel media wars to further promote their interests and to mount pressure on their opponent. Media coverage of pending disputes can admittedly promote transparency and public participation in a field centered around state decisions that are often taken for the sake of the public interest—or allegedly so. On the flipside, however, media involvement can also prove to be an extra arrow in the quiver of either party, which by openly sharing or anonymously leaking information to the public domain aims at advancing its position in the dispute. This double-edged role of the press has engaged the attention of tribunals having to decide on requests for provisional measures or non-aggravation orders brought by respondents and claimants alike. This chapter focuses on the role of the media as an actor and tool in investment arbitration and discusses the different facets, modalities and possible limitations to their involvement.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
See indicatively, Philip Morris Asia Limited v. Commonwealth of Australia, PCA Case No. 2012-12, Procedural Order No. 5, 30 November 2012, para. 51, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw1216.pdf; Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona SA, and Vivendi Universal SA v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Order in Response to a Petition for Transparency and Participation as Amicus Curiae of 19 May 2005, para. 22, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0815.pdf.
- 4.
Kinnear (2005), p. 1.
- 5.
- 6.
For the application of the Mauritius Convention in the context of a case, see BSG Resources Limited (in administration), BSG Resources v. Guinea, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/22, Procedural Order No. 2, 17 September 2015, paras 9–10, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw4400.pdf. See also Scherer, Gehring and Euler (2015).
- 7.
See Report of the UN Commission in International Trade Law, Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventy-second Session, Supplement No 17 (A/72/17), para. 317, http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/commissionsessions/unc-50/A-72-17-E.pdf. See also Maupin (2013), p. 170 (“Thanks to the transparency reforms enacted in the NAFTA and ICSID contexts, information about the majority of investor–State arbitral awards is now publicly available.”); Brower and Blanchard (2014), p. 717 (“A growing number of investor-State arbitrations involve open hearings, sometimes live-streamed on the internet.”); Peterson (2012).
- 8.
- 9.
Kinnear and Diop (2006), p. 42.
- 10.
See e.g. Tanzania: Dirty aid, dirty water – Hands off Tanzania – Stop UK company, Biwater’s attempt to sue, Pambazuka News. 7 December 2005, https://www.pambazuka.org/land-environment/tanzania-dirty-aid-dirty-water-hands-tanzania-stop-uk-company-biwaters-attempt-sue (“Now Biwater wants compensation for the money it would have got if the contract had lasted ten years – this will amount to millions, and will take years to resolve. Click on the web link provided to protest against Biwater’s actions”); Shazar (2019).
- 11.
Kinnear and Diop (2006), p. 45.
- 12.
See e.g. Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3, 29 September 2006, para. 49, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0089.pdf; United Utilities v. Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/24, Decision on Respondent’s Application for Provisional Measures, 12 May 2016, para. 112, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7302.pdf; Abaclat and others v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Procedural Order No. 3, 27 January 2010, paras 84–85, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0002.pdf.
- 13.
States for example may have the duty to provide the public with information about public and governmental affairs.
- 14.
Note that both similar and different issues might arise when it is not the parties but the arbitrators that indulge in public commentary on the case in the media. See e.g. Perenco Ecuador Limited v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6, Decision on Challenge to Arbitrator, PCA Case No. IR-2009/1, 8 December 2009, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0625.pdf. Such issues fall outside the purview of this chapter. For a more detailed discussion of the Perenco challenge procedure against an arbitrator for “going public”, see Fach Gómez (2019), pp. 152–153, 172–173.
- 15.
See e.g. Gramercy v. Peru, ICSID Case No. UNCT/18/2, Procedural Order No. 5, 29 August 2018, para. 18, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw9921.pdf.
- 16.
United Utilities v. Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/24, Decision on Respondent’s Application for Provisional Measures, 12 May 2016, para. 95, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7302.pdf. See also BSGR Resources v. Guinea, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/22, Procedural Order No. 3, 25 November 2015, para. 37, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7380.pdf.
- 17.
United Utilities v. Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/24, Decision on Respondent’s Application for Provisional Measures, 12 May 2016, para. 95, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7302.pdf.
- 18.
Saluka v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para. 481, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0740.pdf.
- 19.
Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, para. 67, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0095.pdf.
- 20.
Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3, 29 September 2006, para. 136, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0089.pdf.
- 21.
- 22.
Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3, 29 September 2006, para. 137, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0089.pdf.
- 23.
For example, an incorporation by reference of the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency.
- 24.
As per Article 32(5) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, “[t]he award may be made public only with the consent of both parties”. Article 25(4) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules also provides that “[h]earings shall be held in camera unless the parties agree otherwise”.
- 25.
For a more detailed account of the differences between these commonly used arbitration procedures in terms of transparency and confidentiality, see Knahr and Reinisch (2007), pp. 98–103. Similar provisions in that regard are included in the “new NAFTA”, the Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA).
- 26.
See e.g. World Duty Free v. Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award, 4 October 2006, para. 16, 46 ILM 339 (2007); Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3, 29 September 2006, paras 121–125, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0089.pdf; Abaclat v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Procedural Order No. 3, 27 January 2010, para. 79, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0002.pdf; Churchill v. Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14, Procedural Order No. 3, 4 March 2013, para. 46, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw1312.pdf; Loewen v. United States, Decision on Hearing of Respondent’s Objection to Competence and Jurisdiction, 5 January 2001, para. 26, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0469.pdf. See also Kinnear and Diop (2006), pp. 46–47.
- 27.
Sinclair and Repousis (2017), p. 431.
- 28.
See e.g. Article 47 of the ICSID Convention and ICSID Arbitration Rule 39. See also Quiborax v. Bolivia, ICSID Case No ARB/06/2, Decision on Provisional Measures, 26 February 202, para 105.
- 29.
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (with amendments as adopted in 2006), https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/07-86998_Ebook.pdf.
- 30.
The proportionality of the measures requested to the alleged harm to be suffered by the requesting party has also been considered by tribunals, either as a standalone requirement or as part of necessity. See United Utilities v. Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/24, Decision on Respondent’s Application for Provisional Measures, 12 May 2016, paras 66–71, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7302.pdf; Quiborax v. Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2, Decision on Provisional Measures, 26 February 2010, para. 158, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0698.pdf; Burlington v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Procedural Order No. 1, 29 June 2009, para. 82, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0104.pdf.
- 31.
Amco Asia Corporation v. Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on Request for Provisional Measures, 9 December 1983, para. 3, 1 ICSID Reports 410. See also Churchill Mining v. Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and 12/40, Procedural Order No. 3, 4 March 2013, para. 49, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw1312.pdf.
- 32.
Friedland (1986), p. 336.
- 33.
Goldberg et al. (2019), p. 11.
- 34.
See e.g. Churchill Mining v. Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and 12/40, Procedural Order No. 3, 4 March 2013, paras 46–50, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw1312.pdf.
- 35.
CEMEX v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/15, Decision on the Claimant’s Request for Provisional Measures, 3 March 2010, paras. 61–65, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0141.pdf; PNG v. Papua New Guinea, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/33, Decision on Claimant Request for Provisional Measures, 21 January 2015, para. 153, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw4108.pdf. See also Goldberg et al. (2019), p. 11.
- 36.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Order of 23 January 2007, ICJ Reports 2007(I) p. 16, paras 49–51; Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand), Order of 18 July 2011, ICJ Reports 2011(II), pp. 551–552, para. 59; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Order of 23 January 2020, para. 83, https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/178/178-20200123-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf; Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates), Order of 23 July 2018, ICJ Reports 2018(II), p. 434, para. 79 and Order of 2 May 2019, para. 28.
- 37.
See e.g. Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3, 29 September 2006, paras 135–136, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0089.pdf; Burlington v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Procedural Order No. 1, 29 June 2009, para. 60, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0104.pdf; Plama v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Order, 6 September 2005, para. 40, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0670.pdf; Quiborax v. Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2, Decision on Provisional Measures, 26 February 2010, paras 118–119, 124, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0698.pdf; Menzies v. Senegal, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/21, Procedural Order No. 2, 2 December 2015, para. 128, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ITA%20LAW%207004.pdf; Transglobal Green Energy v. Panama, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/28, Decision on Provisional Measures relating to Security for Costs, 21 January 2016, para. 28, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7332.pdf.
- 38.
Plama v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Order, 6 September 2005, para. 39, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0670.pdf (“If the words used in Amco Asia, “rights in dispute”, may be too narrow, at least a limitation such as “rights relating to the dispute” is reasonable and necessary.”). See also Teinver v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1, Decision on Provisional Measures, 8 April 2016, para. 177, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7209.pdf (“those rights must relate to the applicant’s ability to have its claims and requests for relief in the arbitration fairly considered and decided”).
- 39.
Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3, 29 September 2006, para. 135, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0089.pdf. See also Lao Holdings v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic I, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/6, Ruling on Motion to Amend the Provisional Measure Order, 30 May 2014, para. 13, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw3208.pdf.
- 40.
CEMEX v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/15, Decision on the Claimant's Request for Provisional Measures, 3 March 2010, para. 56, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0141.pdf; Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Procedural Order No. 3, 18 January 2005, para. 8, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0865.pdf; Occidental v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Decision on Provisional Measures, 17 August 2007, para. 59, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0576.pdf; Phoenix Action v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Decision on Provisional Measures, 6 April 2007, para. 33, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0667.pdf.
- 41.
Sinclair and Repousis (2017), p. 438; Perenco v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6, Decision on Provisional Measures, 8 May 2009, para 43, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0623.pdf.
- 42.
Valle Verde v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/18, Decision on Provisional Measures, 25 January 2016, para. 92, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7089.pdf.
- 43.
Dawood Rawat v. Mauritius, PCA Case 2016-20, Order on Interim Measures, 11 January 2017, para. 129, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw8082_0.pdf.
- 44.
See Sharooshi (2013); City Oriente v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/21, Decision on Revocation of Provisional Measures and Other Procedural Matters, 13 May 2008, paras 70–72, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7990_0.pdf; Burlington v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Procedural Order No. 1, 29 June 2009, para. 81, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0104.pdf.
- 45.
Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3, 29 September 2006, para. 146, cited in United Utilities v. Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/24, Decision on Respondent Application for Provisional Measures, 12 May 2016, para. 102, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7302.pdf.
- 46.
United Utilities v. Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/24, Decision on Respondent Application for Provisional Measures, 12 May 2016, para. 101.
- 47.
United Utilities v. Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/24, Decision on Respondent Application for Provisional Measures, 12 May 2016, para. 100.
- 48.
Gramercy v. Peru, ICSID Case No. UNCT/18/2, Procedural Order No. 5, 29 August 2018, para. 18, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw9921.pdf.
- 49.
Gramercy v. Peru, ICSID Case No. UNCT/18/2, Procedural Order No. 5, 29 August 2018, para. 57. See also Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3, 29 September 2006, para. 135, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0089.pdf.
- 50.
Gramercy v. Peru, ICSID Case No. UNCT/18/2, Procedural Order No. 5, 29 August 2018, para. 60.
- 51.
Gramercy v. Peru, ICSID Case No. UNCT/18/2, Procedural Order No. 5, 29 August 2018, para. 62.
- 52.
Kinnear and Diop (2006), p. 49.
- 53.
Knahr and Reinisch (2007), p. 113.
- 54.
Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3, 29 September 2006, para. 112, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0089.pdf.
- 55.
Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3, 29 September 2006, paras 148–163.
- 56.
- 57.
- 58.
See e.g. Article 8.36 of CETA; Article 14.D.8 of the USMCA; Article 3.16 and Annex 8 of the EU-Singapore Investment Protection Agreement; Article 30 of the 2019 Australia-Hong Kong BIT, Article 22 of the 2018 Belarus-India BIT; Article 30 of the 2018 Canada-Moldova BIT; Article 17(20) of the 2018 Japan-UAE BIT; Article 8.32 of the Argentina-Chile FTA; Article 10(5) of the 2016 Morocco-Nigeria BIT, available at https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements.
References
Born G, Shenkman E (2009) Confidentiality and transparency in commercial and investor-state international arbitration. In: Rogers C, Alford AP (eds) The future of investment arbitration. Oxford University Press, pp 5–42
Bowcott O (2017) Attorney general begins inquiry about social media impact on UK trials. The Guardian, 15 September 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/15/attorney-general-begins-inquiry-impact-social-media-trials
Brower C, Blanchard S (2014) What’s in a Meme? The truth about investor-state arbitration: why it need not, and must not, be repossessed by states. Columbia J Transnl Law 52:689–777
DePalma A (2001) Nafta’s Powerful Little Secret; Obscure Tribunals Settle Disputes, but Go Too Far, Critics Say. The New York Times, 11 March 2001. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/11/business/nafta-s-powerful-little-secret-obscure-tribunals-settle-disputes-but-go-too-far.html
Diel-Gligor K (2017) Towards Consistency in International Investment Jurisprudence: A Preliminary Ruling System for ICSID Arbitration. Nijhoff International Investment Law Series 7
Douglas Z (2003) The hybrid foundations of investment treaty arbitration. Br Yearb Int Law 74:151–289
Fach Gómez K (2012) Rethinking the role of Amicus Curiae in international investment arbitration: how to draw the line favorably for the public interest. Fordham Int Law J 35(2):510–564
Fach Gómez K (2019) Key duties of international investment arbitrators – a transnational study of legal and ethical Dilemmas. Springer
Fouzder M (2017) AG seeks evidence on ‘trial by social media’. The Law Society Gazette, 15 September 2017. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/ag-seeks-evidence-on-trial-by-social-media/5062822.article
Friedland P (1986) Provisional measures and ICSID arbitration. Arbitr Int 2:335–357
Goldberg D, Kryvoi Y, Philippov I (2019) Empirical study: provisional measures in investor-state arbitration. British Institute of International and Comparative Law. https://www.biicl.org/documents/78_2019_empirical_study_provisional_measures_in_investorstate_arbitration.pdf
Hamby C (2016) The court that rules the world: inside the global “club” that helps executives escape their crimes. BuzzFeed.News. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrishamby/super-court
Ishikawa T (2010) Third party participation in investment treaty arbitration. Int Comp Law Q 59:373–412
Kinnear M (2005) Transparency and Third Party Participation in Investor-State Dispute Settlement, Symposium Co-organised by ICSID, OECD and UNCTAD making the most of International Investment Agreements: A Common Agenda. https://www.oecd.org/investment/internationalinvestmentagreements/36979626.pdf
Kinnear M, Diop A (2006) Use of media by counsel in investor-state arbitration. ICCA Congress Series 13:40–51
Knahr C, Reinisch A (2007) Transparency versus confidentiality in international investment arbitration – the biwater gauff compromise. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 6(1):97–118
Magraw DB, Amerasinghe NM (2009) Transparency and public participation in investor-state arbitration. ILSA J Int Comp Law 15(2):337–360
Maupin J (2013) Transparency in international investment law: the good, the bad and the Murky. In: Bianchi A, Peters A (eds) Transparency in international law. Cambridge University Press, pp 142–171
Peterson LE (2010) Guy walks into a court-house. Sky doesn’t fall. Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 28 March 2010. http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2010/03/28/guy-walks-into-a-court-house-sky-does-not-fall/
Peterson LE (2012) The expanding audience for open arbitration hearings. Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 6 February 2012. http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2012/02/06/the-expanding-audience-for-open-arbitration-hearings/
Resta G (2008) Trying cases in the media: a comparative overview. Law Contemp Probl 71(4):31–66
Robbennolt J, Studebaker C (2003) News media reporting on civil litigation and its influence on civil justice decision making. Psychol Civil Litigat 27(1):5–27
Scherer M, Gehring M, Euler D (2015) Introduction. In: Euler D, Gehring M, Scherer M (eds) Transparency in International Investment Arbitration: A Guide to the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration, pp 1–6
Sharooshi D (2013) Provisional measures and investment treaty arbitration. Arbitr Int 29(3):361–379
Shazar J (2019) Gramercy fund management chief always wanted to see what his head would look like on a vulture’s body. DealBreaker, 14 January 2019. https://dealbreaker.com/2015/10/gramercy-fund-management-chief-always-wanted-to-see-what-his-head-would-look-like-on-a-vultures-body
Sinclair A, Repousis O (2017) An overview of provisional measures in ICSID proceedings. ICSID Rev 32(2):431–446
Tanzania: Dirty aid, dirty water – Hands off Tanzania – Stop UK company, Biwater’s attempt to sue. Pambazuka News. 7 December 2005. https://www.pambazuka.org/land-environment/tanzania-dirty-aid-dirty-water-hands-tanzania-stop-uk-company-biwaters-attempt-sue
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Papanastasiou, A. (2021). Media Wars: Transparency and Aggravation in International Investment Arbitration. In: Fach Gómez, K. (eds) Private Actors in International Investment Law. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48393-7_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48393-7_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-48392-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-48393-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)