Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tribunal Jurisdiction and the Relationship of Investment Arbitration with Municipal Courts and Tribunals

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

Abstract

While an investment dispute between a foreign national and a host state typically results in a single arbitration proceeding, certain circumstances give rise to multiple proceedings, in arbitration or litigation, being brought in relation to the same conduct of the host state. This chapter considers the various methods used by states and arbitral tribunals to regulate multiple proceedings. These methods include the use of express treaty provisions requiring the exhaustion of local remedies, local litigation clauses, fork-in-the-road clauses, or waiver clauses. In addition, arbitral tribunals have applied general principles such as the primacy of international tribunals, res judicata, lis pendens, abuse of process and comity, in order to prioritize one set of proceeding over another. Parties can also agree to consolidate two separate proceedings, whether formally or informally, with appropriate adaptations.

Ms. Amirfar is a Partner and Co-Chair of the Public International Law Practice at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and the President of the American Society of International Law (ASIL). Mr. Goh is a Senior Associate at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. The authors wish to thank Duncan Pickard, Juan Fandino, Agustin Spotorno and Sarah Castles for their excellent assistance in the preparation of this chapter. The views expressed herein are the authors’ personal views and should not be attributed to their firm or its clients.

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.

    Miles K, Schneiderman D (2013) The origins of international investment law: empire, environment and the safeguarding of capital. Eur J Int Law 25:19. See Lipson C (1985) Standing guard, protecting foreign capital in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 4, 8, 37, 38. Schrijver N (2019) Sovereignty over natural resources: balancing rights and duties, 6th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 173, 174; see Malanczuk P (1997) Akehurst’s modern introduction to international law. Routledge, USA/Canada, pp 9, 10.

  2. 2.

    Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, p 1.

  3. 3.

    Id., pp. 1, 2. See, also Sabahi R et al (2019) Investor-state arbitration, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, pp 28–30. Miles supra n 1, p. 27.

  4. 4.

    See also Miles and Schneiderman, supra n 1, Chapter 1, pp. 23–25.

  5. 5.

    Miles and Schneiderman, supra n 1, pp. 23–31.

  6. 6.

    Carlos Calvo was an Argentine jurist who published a well-known study titled, “Derecho internacional teorico y practico de Europa y America,” proposing a series of new interpretations to the rules for the protection of foreign investments, which then became known as “Calvo Doctrine” or “Doctrina Calvo.” For further discussion, see Freeman AV (1946) Recent aspects of the Calvo doctrine and the challenge of international law. Am J Int Law 40:121–147. See Grigera Naón HA (2007) Arbitration and Latin America: progress and setbacks. Arbitr Int 16:393–454. See also Juillard P (2007) Calvo doctrine/calvo clause. In: Max Planck encyclopedias of international law.

  7. 7.

    Dolzer and Schreuer, supra n 2, pp. 2, 3.

  8. 8.

    Id.

  9. 9.

    Sabahi, supra n 3, paras 2.30–2.45.

  10. 10.

    Id. para 2.06; Cornell P, Handley A (2000) Himpurna and hub: international arbitration in developing countries. Mealey’s Int Arbitr Rep 15(9):39. See also Sipress A (2002) Flawed legal system impeding Indonesia; lacking confidence, foreign investors flee. The Washington Post, p A17. See also Bank of the USA v. Deveaux, 9 US 5 Cranch 61 61 (1809).

  11. 11.

    Sabahi, supra n 3, para 2.07; Fox H, Webb P (2013) The law of state immunity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 25–33.

  12. 12.

    See Dolzer and Schreuer, supra n 2, p. 1, in fine, (stating that the Calvo doctrine “would have left room for all the vagaries of domestic law.”).

  13. 13.

    See e.g., North American Dredging Company of Texas (USA) v United Mexican States, 4 RIAA 26 (1926).

  14. 14.

    Sabahi, supra n 3, pp. 30–33. See, also, para 2.38 (“states tend[ed] to be quite selective about the claims they agree[d] to espouse”).

  15. 15.

    Dolzer and Schreuer, supra n 2, pp. 6, 7. See, Treaty between the Federal Republic of Germany and Pakistan for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on 25 November 1959, entered into force on 28 April 1962 (replaced by German–Pakistan BIT (2009). See Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments between the Republic of Chad and the Republic of Italy, signed and entered into force on 11 June 1969 (text in Italian).

  16. 16.

    Dolzer and Schreuer, supra n 2, pp. 9, 10. See, also, Schreuer CH (2010) Denunciation of the ICSID Convention and consent to arbitration. In: Waibel M et al (eds) The backlash against investment arbitration. Kluwer Law International, pp 358–359.

  17. 17.

    Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, in force as of 14 October 1966, Article 27.

  18. 18.

    Dolzer and Schreuer, supra n 2, p. 9.

  19. 19.

    See ICSID Convention, Article 53.

  20. 20.

    See also, Dolzer and Schreuer, supra n 2, pp. 4–16.

  21. 21.

    This figure is based on investment treaties in force according to the investment policy site of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (“UNCTAD”). Available at http://www.investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements.

  22. 22.

    Blackaby N et al (2015) Redfern and Hunter on international arbitration, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, para 5.91.

  23. 23.

    Douglas Z (2009) The international law of investment claims. Cambridge University Press, New York, p 151.

  24. 24.

    See generally ILC Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries (2001). Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol II, Part Two (“ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility”), arts 4 and 5 and commentary. See also Kovács C (2018) Attribution in international investment law. Kluwer Law International, pp 57–129.

  25. 25.

    In the case of multilateral agreements, it is common for foreign investment-related provisions to be included in a chapter of a wider agreement on trade and investment. See, e.g., Agreement Between the USA, the United Mexican States, and Canada, signed 30 November 2018, entered into force 1 July 2020, Chapter 14: Investment; see also Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, signed 8 March 2018, entered into force 30 December 2018, Chapter 9: Investment; Energy Charter Treaty 2080 UNTS 100, signed 17 December 1994, entered into force 16 April 1998, Parts III (Investment Promotion and Protection) and V (Dispute Settlement).

  26. 26.

    Paulsson J (1995) Arbitration without privity. ICSID Rev 10(2):232–257; see also Nolan M, Caivano FG (2010) Limits of consent – arbitration without privity and beyond. In: Fernandez-Ballester MA, Arias Lozano D (eds) Liber Amicorum Bernardo Cremades. Wolters Kluwer, pp 873–911.

  27. 27.

    Nolan and Caivano, id., pp. 874–880; Schreuer CH et al (2009) The ICSID Convention: a commentary, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York, p 9; Hobér K (2014) Res judicata and lis pendens in international arbitration. In: Collected courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, vol 366, pp 212, 341; Generation Ukraine Inc. v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/00/9, Award (16 September 2003) para 12.2; ABCI Investments Limited v. Republic of Tunisia, ICSID Case No ARB/04/12, Decision on Jurisdiction (18 February 2011) para 115.

  28. 28.

    Schreuer (2010) supra n 16, pp. 357, 358.

  29. 29.

    See e.g., Douglas supra n 23, pp. 284–327.

  30. 30.

    Id., pp. 233–283.

  31. 31.

    Id., pp. 328–343. See also Gallus N (2017) The temporal jurisdiction of international tribunals. Oxford University Press.

  32. 32.

    Sornarajah M (2010) The international law on foreign investment, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York, p 218.

  33. 33.

    See, e.g., Agreement Between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed 12 November 2002, entered into force 14 March 2007, Article 13(3) (“Where a dispute is referred to the Centre pursuant to paragraph 2(b) of this Article: (a) where that action is taken by an investor of one Party, the other Party should consent in writing to the submission of the dispute to the Centre within thirty days of receiving such a request from the investor. Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Emphasis added).

  34. 34.

    See, e.g., Agreement on Economic Cooperation between the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Government of the Republic of Kenya, signed 11 September 1970, entered into force 11 June 1979, Article 11. These situations have been recognized as insufficient, without more, to establish the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal: see Sornarajah supra n 32, p. 218.

  35. 35.

    See, e.g., Agreement Between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of the Philippines for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed 3 December 1980, entered into force 2 January 1981, Article X(1): (“The Contracting Party in the territory of which a national or company of the other Contracting Party makes or intends to make an investment shall assent to any request on the part of such national or company to submit, for conciliation or arbitration, to the Centre established by the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States opened for signature at Washington on 18 March 1965 any dispute that may arise in connection with the investment.” Emphasis added).

  36. 36.

    Churchill Mining Plc and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No ARB/12/14 and 12/40, Decision on Jurisdiction (24 February 2014) paras 179, 180, 230 (interpreting the “shall assent” clause as “functionally equivalent to ‘hereby consents’” and as granting consent to arbitration based on the drafting history of the treaty); Millicom International Operations B.V. and Sentel GSM S.A. v. Republic of Senegal, ICSID Case No ARB/08/20, Decision on Jurisdiction (16 July 2010) paras 63–66 (interpreting the “shall consent” requirement as an expression of consent in light of the wording of the relevant article and the origin, object, and purpose of the treaty).

  37. 37.

    See e.g., Duke Energy International Peru Investments No. 1 Ltd. v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No ARB/03/28, Award (18 August 2008) para 46; RSM Production Corporation v. Central African Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/2, Award (11 July 2011); Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No ARB/15/41, Award (11 October 2019); Cambodia Power Company v. Kingdom of Cambodia, ICSID Case No ARB/09/18, Decision on Jurisdiction (22 March 2011); Sornarajah supra n 32, p. 280.

  38. 38.

    For example, according to the Queen Mary University of London and White & Case LLP 2018 International Arbitration Survey: The Evolution of International Arbitration, “[a]n overwhelming 99% of respondents would recommend international arbitration to resolve cross-border disputes in the future”: pp. 2, 5. Further, “97% of respondents indicate that international arbitration is their preferred method of dispute resolution, either on a stand-alone basis (48%) or in conjunction with ADR (49%),” due primarily to the enforceability of arbitral awards, the availability of a neutral forum, the flexibility of the proceedings, and the ability of parties to choose the arbitrators: pp. 2, 5. The survey is available at https://www.whitecase.com/sites/whitecase/files/files/download/publications/qmul-international-arbitration-survey-2018-19.pdf.

  39. 39.

    Born G (2014) International commercial arbitration, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International, pp 1347, 1348. See, e.g., Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited v. Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited, ICSID Case No ARB/10/20, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability (12 February 2014) para 118 (the arbitration clause in the relevant contract provided for the submission to ICSID arbitration of “[a]ny dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement”); Cambodia Power Company v. Kingdom of Cambodia, ICSID Case No ARB/09/18, Decision on Jurisdiction (22 March 2011) (the arbitration clauses in the relevant contracts provided for the submission to arbitration of “any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever,” and “any dispute or difference aris[ing] out of or in connection with [the] [a]greement”): paras 10–14. ICSID has published model submission clauses, including for expressing consent in respect of “any dispute” arising out of or relating to the respective agreement, which are available at http://icsidfiles.worldbank.org/icsid/icsid/staticfiles/model-clauses-en/7.htm.

  40. 40.

    See Dolzer and Schreuer supra n 5, pp. 241–244.

  41. 41.

    ICSID (2019) The ICSID caseload – statistics: issue 2020–1, p 11. Available at https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/resources/The%20ICSID%20Caseload%20Statistics%202020-1%20Edition-ENG.pdf (“ICSID Caseload Statistics 2020–2021”).

  42. 42.

    Schreuer (2010) supra n 16, pp. 357, 358.

  43. 43.

    See, e.g., Law No. 004/2002 of 21 February 2002 on the Investment Code (Democratic Republic of Congo); Law of Georgia on Promotion and Guarantees of Investment Activity (12 November 1996); Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Guarantees and Measures of Protection of Foreign Investors’ Rights, Law No N 611-I (1998).

  44. 44.

    See, e.g., Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/84/3, Decision on Jurisdiction (14 April 1988) para 3; ABCI Investments N.V. v. Republic of Tunisia, ICSID Case No ARB/04/12, Decision on Jurisdiction (18 February 2011) para 69; Potestà M (2011) The interpretation of consent to ICSID arbitration contained in domestic investment laws. Arbitr Int 27(2):149, 150.

  45. 45.

    Nolan and Caivano supra n 26, p. 892.

  46. 46.

    See Potestà supra n 44, pp. 154–160; see Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Guarantees and Measures of Protection of Foreign Investors’ Rights, Law No N 611-I (1998), Article 10; see also Law No. 004/2002 of 21 February 2002 on the Investment Code (Democratic Republic of Congo), Article 38.

  47. 47.

    See Zhinvali Development Ltd. v. Republic of Georgia, ICSID Case No ARB/00/1, Award (24 January 2003) para 342; Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No ARB/03/26, Award (2 August 2006) para 332.

  48. 48.

    See Burgstaller M, Waibel M (2011) Investment codes. In: Max Planck encyclopedias of international law. The authors discuss the investment laws of Albania, Burundi, Central African Republic, and Côte d’Ivoire.

  49. 49.

    ICSID Caseload Statistics 2020–2001, supra n 45, p. 11.

  50. 50.

    On admissibility in this Handbook, see chapters “Emerging Practice on Investor Diligence: Jurisdiction, Admissibility, and Merits”, “Local Litigation Requirements: The Challenges of the Imposition of These Requirements in IIAs”, “Jurisdictional Objections and Defenses (Ratione Personae, Ratione Materiae, and Ratione Temporis)”, “Investment Dispute Settlement Options (Forum Selection and Consent to Arbitration)”, “The Admissibility of Environmental Counterclaims in Investment Arbitration”, and “Relationship Between Domestic Courts and Investment Tribunals”. For other sources, see generally, Fontanelli F (2018) Jurisdiction and admissibility in investment arbitration: the practice and the theory. BRILL; Reinisch A (2018) Jurisdiction and admissibility in international investment law. In: Gattini A, Tanzi A, Fontanelli F (eds) General principles of law and international investment arbitration. BRILL, pp 130–151; Waibel M (2014) Investment arbitration: jurisdiction and admissibility. University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal studies research paper series; Paulsson J (2005) Jurisdiction and admissibility. In: Aksen G et al (eds) Global reflections on international law, commerce and dispute resolution: Liber Amicorum in honour of Robert Briner. ICC Publishing, Paris, pp 601–617.

  51. 51.

    Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/00/2, Award (29 May 2003) para 73; Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and Others v. Romania, ICSID Case No ARB/05/20, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (24 September 2008) para 63; SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No ARB/02/6, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (29 January 2004) para 154; HOCHTIEF Aktiengesellschaft v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/31, Decision on Jurisdiction (24 October 2011) para 90; Supervisión y Control S.A. v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No ARB/12/4, Award (18 January 2017) para 269. In contrast, see Daimler Financial Services AG v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/05/1, Award (22 August 2012) paras 192–194; Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/26, Decision on Jurisdiction (19 December 2012) paras 112–129; Kılıç İnşaat İthalat İhracat Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No ARB/10/1, Award (2 July 2013), paras 6.3.4–6.3.15.

  52. 52.

    ICJ Rules of Court, adopted 14 April 1978, entered into force 1 July 1978, Articles 79, 79bis; Söderlund C, Burova E (2018) Is there such a thing as admissibility in investment arbitration? ICSID Rev 33(2):527–528.

  53. 53.

    Hwang M, Lim SC (2018) The chimera of admissibility in international arbitration. In: Kaplan N, Moser MJ (eds) Jurisdiction, admissibility and choice of law in international arbitration: Liber Amicorum Michael Pryles. Kluwer Law International, pp 265–288.

  54. 54.

    Abaclat and Others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (4 August 2011) para 247.

  55. 55.

    Under the ICSID system, awards are reviewable via annulment proceedings, including on the grounds “that the Tribunal has manifestly exceeded its powers”: ICSID Convention, Article 52(1) (b). The availability of annulment or similar review mechanisms in non-ICSID arbitrations will depend on the lex arbitri.

  56. 56.

    Supervisión y Control S.A. v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No ARB/12/4, Award (18 January 2017) para 270.

  57. 57.

    There is an ongoing debate as to whether such cooling-off periods are (i) conditioned expressions of consent, affecting jurisdiction, or (ii) waivable or curable requirements that go to the admissibility of the claims. Cases where the defect was found to affect jurisdiction include: Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Decision on Jurisdiction (14 January 2004) para 88; Consortium Groupement L.E.S.I. – DIPENTA v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No ARB/03/8, Award (10 January 2005) para 32; Murphy Exploration and Production Company International v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No ARB/08/4, Award (15 December 2010) paras 156, 157; Burlington Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No ARB/08/5, Decision on Jurisdiction (2 June 2010) para 315; ICS Inspection and Control Services Limited (United Kingdom) v. The Republic of Argentina, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No 2010-9, Award on Jurisdiction (10 February 2012) paras 273, 326; Daimler Financial Services AG v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/05/1, Award (22 August 2012) paras 193, 194; Kılıç İnşaat İthalat İhracat Sanayi veTicaret Anonim Şirketi v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No ARB/10/1, Award (2 July 2013) para 6.3.15. On the other hand, cases where the defect was deemed to be an issue of admissibility include: Abaclatand Others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (4 August 2011) paras 496, 590; HOCHTIEF Aktiengesellschaft v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/31, Decision on Jurisdiction (24 October 2011) para 96; İçkaleİnşaat Limited Şirketi v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No ARB/10/24, Award (8 March 2016) para 246.

  58. 58.

    SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No ARB/02/6, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (29 January 2004) para 154; Bureau Veritas, Inspection, Valuation, Assessment and Control, BIVAC B.V. v. Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case No ARB/07/9, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (29 May 2009) para 159.

  59. 59.

    Salini Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/15/39, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (23 February 2018) para 149.

  60. 60.

    See Rivkin DV (2005) The impact of parallel and successive proceedings on the enforcement of arbitral awards. In: Cremades BM, Lew JDM (eds) Parallel state and arbitral procedures in international arbitration. International Chamber of Commerce, pp 270, 271; cf. Compañia de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/97/3, Decision on Annulment (3 July 2002); Joy Mining Machinery Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/03/11, Award on Jurisdiction (6 August 2004); SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No ARB/02/6, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (29 January 2004); Impregilo S.p.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No ARB/03/3, Decision on Jurisdiction (22 April 2005).

  61. 61.

    For a discussion of the primary ways in which investors have submitted a state’s breaches of a contract before an investment treaty tribunal, see Malik M (2007) The expanding jurisdiction of investment-state tribunals: lessons for treaty negotiators. International Institute for Sustainable Development. See, e.g., Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, id., para 96; Wena Hotels Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/98/4, Decision on the Application by the Arab Republic of Egypt for Annulment of the Arbitral Award dated December 8, 2000 (5 February 2002) paras 31, 35, 36; SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No ARB/01/13, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (6 August 2003) paras 147, 148; Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case No ARB/02/13, Decision on Jurisdiction (29 November 2004) para 152; SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No ARB/02/6, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (29 January 2004) para 122.

  62. 62.

    See, e.g., Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/02/16, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction (11 May 2005) para 5; Camuzzi International S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/2, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction (11 May 2005) para 4.

  63. 63.

    See Gaillard E (2019) Parallel proceedings: investment arbitration. In: Max Planck encyclopedias of international law, paras 2–4, 6, 7; Wehland H (2016) The regulation of parallel proceedings in investor-state disputes. ICSID Rev 31(3):579–580; Camuzzi International S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/2, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction (11 May 2005); Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/02/16, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction (11 May 2005); Ampal-American Israel Corporation and Others v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/12/11, Decision on Jurisdiction (1 February 2016); OI European Group B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/11/25, Award (10 March 2015) and Fábrica de Vidrios Los Andes, C.A. and Owens-Illinois de Venezuela, C.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/12/21, Award (13 November 2017).

  64. 64.

    See, e.g., Marvin Roy Feldman Karpa v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/99/1, Award (3 December 2002) para 78; Burlington Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No ARB/08/5, Decision on Jurisdiction (2 June 2010).

  65. 65.

    See, e.g., Duke Energy International Peru Investments No. 1 Ltd. v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No ARB/03/28, Award (18 August 2008). See Chaisse J (2015) Investor-state arbitration in international tax dispute resolution – a cut above dedicated tax dispute resolution? Va Tax Rev 41(2):149–222.

  66. 66.

    See, e.g., Quiborax S.A. and Non-Metallic Minerals S.A. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, ICSID Case No ARB/06/2, Decision on Jurisdiction (27 September 2012); Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/12/6, Ruling on Motion to Amend the Provisional Measures Order (30 May 2014); Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No ARB/12/14 and 12/40, Procedural Order No 9: Provisional Measures (8 July 2014); Hydro S.r.l. and others v. Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No ARB/15/28, Decision on Claimants’ Request for a Partial Award and Respondent’s Application for Revocation or Modification of the Order on Provisional Measures (1 September 2016); Teinver S.A., Transportes de Cercanías S.A. and Autobuses Urbanos del Sur S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/09/1, Decision on Provisional Measures (8 April 2016); Italba Corporation v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No ARB/16/9, Decision on Claimant’s Application for Provisional Measures and Temporary Relief (15 February 2017); Goh N (2018) Note: the power of tribunals to enjoin criminal proceedings: a widening power or converging high bar? Italba Corporation v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, Hydro Srl and others v Republic of Albania, Teinver and others v. Argentine Republic. ICSID Rev 33(1):88–102.

  67. 67.

    See, e.g., Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), Official Journal of the European Union L 351 (20 December 2012) 1 (as amended) (the “Recast Brussels Regulation”). The jurisdiction provisions of the Recast Brussels Regulation (Articles 4 to 35) establish a hierarchy to determine which court has jurisdiction over civil and commercial matters.

  68. 68.

    This perceived lack of consistency and predictability in investment awards has led to some criticism of the global investor-state dispute settlement (“ISDS”) system. See Franck SD (2005) The legitimacy crisis in investment treaty arbitration: privatizing public international law through inconsistent decisions. Fordham Law Rev 73:1521–1625; Langford M, Behn D, Létourneau-Tremblay L (2019) Empirical perspectives on investment arbitration: what do we know? Does it matter? ISDS Academic Forum working group 7 paper. Available at https://www.cids.ch/images/Documents/Academic-Forum/7_Empirical_perspectives_-_WG7.pdf.

  69. 69.

    See, e.g., CME Czech Republic B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award (14 March 2003) and Ronald S. Lauder v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award (3 September 2001); Charanne B.V. and Construction Investments S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No V 062/2012 and Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.àr.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No ARB/13/36, Award (4 May 2017) (now annulled).

  70. 70.

    In addition to the two investment claims outlined in the text, CME’s local subsidiary, NTS, sued CET21 in the Czech courts, and CME, in turn, initiated a contract-based ICC arbitration against CET21’s controlling shareholder.

  71. 71.

    Lauder supra n 69, paras 173–175, 177–178; CME Czech Republic B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award (13 September 2001) paras 412, 419.

  72. 72.

    Lauder supra n 69, paras 173–175, 177–178; CME id., paras 302, 412, 419.

  73. 73.

    Lauder supra n 69, paras 234–235.

  74. 74.

    CME supra n 69, para 591.

  75. 75.

    CME supra n 69, para 624.

  76. 76.

    Rivkin supra n 60, p. 276.

  77. 77.

    Id.

  78. 78.

    Id.

  79. 79.

    Wehland supra n 63, p. 577; Rivkin supra n 60, pp. 272, 275, 276, 279. See Supervisión supra n 56, para 297.

  80. 80.

    CME supra n 69, paras 410, 419. See also Urbaser supra n 51, para 253; British Caribbean Bank Limited v. The Government of Belize, PCA Case No 2010-18, Award (19 December 2014) para 190; ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V., ConocoPhillips Hamaca B.V. and ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/07/30, Award (8 March 2019) paras 961–965.

  81. 81.

    Rivkin, supra n 60, p. 274.

  82. 82.

    Guven B, Johnson L (2019) The policy implications of third-party funding in investor-state dispute settlement. Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (“CCSI”), CCSI working paper 2019, p 9 (“the economics of providing funding to states is a considerable challenge”).

  83. 83.

    Note by the Secretariat: possible reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) – cost and duration, UNCITRAL Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform), thirty-sixth session, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.153 (31 August 2018) para 8. Available at https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.153.

  84. 84.

    Sabahi supra n 3, para 13.01; Wehland H (2013) The coordination of multiple proceedings in investment treaty arbitration. Oxford international arbitration series, paras 5.46–5.49.

  85. 85.

    Sabahi, supra n 3.

  86. 86.

    Sabahi, supra n 3, para 13.02 (quoting Borchard E (1915) Diplomatic protection of citizens abroad. Bank Law Publication, pp 817–818).

  87. 87.

    Sabahi, supra n 3, para 2.41.

  88. 88.

    Agreement between the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Albania and the Government of the Republic of Lithuania on the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed and entered into force in 2007, Article 8.

  89. 89.

    See IISD Report, Exhaustion of Local Remedies (2017) IISD Best Practices Series: Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Investment Law (“IISD Report”), para 3.1, p 7. Available https://www.iisd.org/library/iisd-best-practices-series-exhaustion-local-remedies-international-investment-law; see also Sabahi, supra n 3.

  90. 90.

    See IISD Report, ibid. See e.g., Bilateral Investment Treaty between the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic and The Government of the Republic of India, signed in 16 June 2019 (not yet in force), Article 15(1).

  91. 91.

    Schreuer C (2011) Interaction of international tribunals and domestic courts in investment law. In Rovine AW (ed) Contemporary issues in international arbitration and mediation: the Fordham papers. Boston, pp 72–73 (“it is well-established that where consent has been given to investor-State arbitration, there is generally no need to exhaust local remedies”); See also Sabahi, supra n 3. See also Schreuer (2009), supra n 27 (noting that art. 26 of the ICSID Convention reverses the situation under traditional customary international law requiring the exhaustion of local remedies unless otherwise stated). See also Helnan International Hotels A/S v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Decision on Annulment (14 June 2010) paras 9, 28–57; CME supra n 69, para 412; Yaung Chi Oo Trading v. Myanmar (ASEAN), Award (31 March 2003) para 40; Mytilineos Holdings v. Serbia and Montenegro (UNCITRAL), Partial Award on Jurisdiction (8 September 2006) paras 220–221; EDF International S.A., SAUR International S.A. and León Participaciones Argentinas S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/23, Award (11 June 2012) para 1127.

  92. 92.

    A requirement to exhaust local remedies may be an element of a claim for denial of justice under the fair and equitable treatment (“FET”) standard that is discussed in chapters “The Standard of Fair and Equitable Treatment in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement Practice” and “FET: View from the South” of this handbook.

  93. 93.

    See, e.g., Mondev International Ltd. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/99/2, Award (11 October 2002). Bekker PHF (2005) The use of non-domestic courts for obtaining domestic relief. ILSA 338.

  94. 94.

    Sabahi, supra n 3. See, e.g., Ambiente Ufficio S.P.A. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/08/9, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (8 February 2013) paras 597–611; Giovanni Alemanni and Others v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/8, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 17 November 2014, paras 316, 317. In contrast, see İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/24, Award (8 March 2016) para 260, and see Partially Dissenting Opinion of Carolyn B. Lamm, dated 8 March 2016.

  95. 95.

    Sabahi, supra n 3, paras 2.39–2.42.

  96. 96.

    Finish Ships Arbitration (Finland v. U.K.) 3 UNRIAA 1479 (1934). The Arbitrator concluded that, indeed, the claimant had exhausted local remedies offered by English law, even if they did not appeal the decision of the Arbitration Board before the Court of Appeal and House of Lords, since the appeals would not have changed the decision “of fact” reached by the Arbitration Board. The same approach was taken in the Case of Certain Norwegian Loans (France v. Norway) (1957) ICJ Reports, Judgement 9, paras 41–2 (separate opinion of Lauterpacht, J.).

  97. 97.

    ILC, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection with commentaries (2006), Article 14 commentary No 6.

  98. 98.

    Id., p. 45.

  99. 99.

    Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy) (1989) ICJ Reports, Judgment 15.

  100. 100.

    Id., p. 46, para 59.

  101. 101.

    Siemens A.G. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/02/8, Decision on Jurisdiction (3 August 2004) para 104; Wintershall Aktiengesellschaft v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/04/14, Award (8 December 2008) paras 124, 127; Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/17, Award (21 June 2011) paras 90, 94; Daimler Financial Services AG v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/05/1, Award (22 August 2012) para 193; ICS Inspection and Control Services Limited (United Kingdom) v. The Republic of Argentina, PCA Case No 2010-09, Award on Jurisdiction (10 February 2012) paras 262, 326–327.

  102. 102.

    Abaclat and Others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (4 August 2011) para 247; HOCHTIEF Aktiengesellschaft v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/31, Decision on Jurisdiction (24 October 2011) paras 96, 584–591; Teinver S.A., Transportes de Cercanías S.A. and Autobuses Urbanos del Sur S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/09/1, Decision on Jurisdiction (21 December 2012) paras 135–136.

  103. 103.

    Söderlund and Burova supra n 52. See, e.g., Article X(2) of the Agreement between the Republic of Argentina and the Kingdom of Spain for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed 23 August 1995, entered into force 11 January 1997; See also Article X(2) of the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Argentina for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed 5 November 1991, entered into force 24 April 1993.

  104. 104.

    See, e.g., Aznar P (2016) Local litigation requirements in investment agreements: their characteristics and potential in times of reform in Latin America. J World Invest Trade 17:536–561; Fernandez de Gurmendi S (1993) Los convenios bilaterales de promoción y protección de inversiones. In: Gutiérrez Posse H (ed) Los convenios para la promoción y protección recíproca de inversiones. Universidad de Buenos Aires, p 32.

  105. 105.

    See, e.g., Emilio Agustín Maffezini v. The Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Decision on Jurisdiction (25 January 2000), para 28; Siemens A.G. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/Decision on Jurisdiction (3 August 2004), para 104; Gas Natural v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/10, Decision on Jurisdiction (17 June 2005), para 230.

  106. 106.

    Kılıç İnşaat İthalat İhracat Sanayive Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No ARB/10/1, Decision on Treaty Authenticity and Interpretation (7 May 2012) paras 6.3.14, 6.3.15; Daimler Financial Services AG v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/05/1, Award (22 August 2012) paras 193–194.

  107. 107.

    BG Group Plc. v. The Republic of Argentina, UNCITRAL, Final Award (24 December 2007); İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No ARB/10/24, Award (8 March 2016) para 261; Supervision y Control S.A. v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No ARB/12/4, Final Award (18 January 2017) para 299; HOCHTIEF Aktiengesellschaft v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/31, Decision on Jurisdiction (24 October 2011) para 90.

  108. 108.

    BG Group plc v. Republic of Argentina 572 US (2014) 9, para 17. See however Rosenfeld F (2016) Arbitral praeliminaria – reflections on the distinction between admissibility and jurisdiction after BG v. Argentina. Leiden J Int Law 29:137.

  109. 109.

    Philip Morris Brand Sàrl (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products S.A. (Switzerland) and AbalHermanos S.A. (Uruguay) v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No ARB/10/7, Decision on Jurisdiction (2 July 2013) para 142; TSA Spectrum de Argentina, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/05/5, Award (19 December 2008) paras 112, 113.

  110. 110.

    Schreuer C (2004) Travelling the BIT route – of waiting periods, umbrella clauses and forks-in-the-road. J World Invest Trade 5(2):240.

  111. 111.

    Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden and the Government of the Republic of Argentina on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, signed 22 November 1991. See also Energy Charter Treaty, Article 26(3); Bilateral Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Republic of Colombia, signed 17 March 2010, Article IX(9); Agreement between the Swiss Confederation and the Arab Republic of Egypt on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, dated 7 June 2010, Art. 12(6); Agreement among the Government of Japan, the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the People’s Republic of China for the Promotion, Facilitation and Protection of Investment, signed 13 May 2005, Art. 15(5).

  112. 112.

    Wehland, supra n 84, para 3.01.

  113. 113.

    Investors may, at times, need to resort to the domestic courts of the host state in order to preserve the status quo or to challenge governmental measures to avoid acquiescence under local law. It has been contended that this, however, should not be taken as them having foreclosed their right to international arbitration. See, Wehland, supra n 84 para 3.141; see Yannaca-Small K (2008) Parallel proceedings. In: Muchlinski P et al (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, p 1027. See, also, Sabahi R et al (2019) Investor-state arbitration, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, p 371 (citingCMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision on Jurisdiction of July 17, 2003), para78; see, also, Alex Genin v. Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/2, Award of June 25, 2001, 17 ICSID Rev.-F.I.L.J. 395 (2002), paras 332–333.

  114. 114.

    Alex Genin and others v. Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case No ARB/99/2, Award (25 June 2001) para 332.

  115. 115.

    Quiborax S.A. and Non-Metallic Minerals S.A. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, ICSID Case No ARB/06/2, Award (16 September 2015) paras 157–158; Mytilineos Holdings SA v. The State Union of Serbia & Montenegro and Republic of Serbia, UNCITRAL, Partial Award on Jurisdiction (8 September 2006) paras 220–221.

  116. 116.

    Wehland, supra n 84, para 3.119.

  117. 117.

    UNCTAD. Investment Policy Hub. Available at https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements. This percentage is based on a review of all investment treaties in force in the English or Spanish language.

  118. 118.

    Azurix Corp. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/12, Decision on Jurisdiction (8 December 2003) paras 88–90; Alex Genin and others v. Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case No ARB/99/2, Award (25 June 2001); CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/8, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (17 July 2003) paras 77–80; Toto Costruzioni Generali S.p.A. v. Lebanese Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/12, Decision on Jurisdiction (11 September 2009) para 211; Pan American Energy LLC and BP Argentina Exploration Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/13, Decision on Preliminary Objections (27 July 2006) para 157; Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2005-04/AA227, Award on Jurisdiction (30 November 2009) para 598; and see Charanne and Construction Investments v. Spain, SCC Case No. V 062/2012, Award (21 June 2006) paras 90–93.

  119. 119.

    Toto Costruzioni Generali S.p.A. v. Lebanese Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/12, Decision on Jurisdiction (11 September 2009), para 211. See generally Schreuer C (2004) supra n 110, pp. 231–256.

  120. 120.

    Supervision y Control S.A. v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No ARB/12/4, Final Award (18 January 2017) para 330; McLachlan C et al (eds) (2017) International investment arbitration: substantive principles, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, paras 4.106–4.107; Turner P (2006) The fork in the road revisited. In: Ortino F et al (eds) Investment law – current issues, vol 1. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, pp 177–182; Wang G (2015) International investment law: a Chinese perspective. Routledge, pp 248–251; Yannaca-Small K (2008) supra n 113, p. 1027; Sabahi, supra n 3, paras 14.05–14.24.

  121. 121.

    See, e.g., Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation (formerly Enron Corporation) and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/3, Decision on Jurisdiction (14 January 2004) paras 96; 97; Ronald S. Lauder v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award (3 September 2001) paras 161–166; CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/8, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (17 July 2003) paras 89; 90; Azurix Corp. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/12, Decision on Jurisdiction (8 December 2003); Schreuer C (2004) supra n 110, p. 248.

  122. 122.

    Wehland, supra n 84, para 3.135. See also CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/8, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (17 July 2003) paras 78–82.

  123. 123.

    Alex Genin and others v. Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case NoARB/99/2, Award (25 June 2001) para 322 (Estonia’s legal expert, Prof. Andreas F. Lowenfield pointed out that Claimants, Eurocapital Group, and EIB “(…) are affiliated with one another, and that they are or were all controlled or managed by Mr. Alex Genin and/or his associate Mr. Michael Dashkovsky.” It then contended that “If I am correct that all of the corporate entities are affiliated with one another and are or have been under common control, it follows, in my view, that any resort to local administrative or judicial remedies by any member of the group is attributable to all members of the group and to the group itself. It would be wholly inconsistent with the principle [of “election of remedies”] and in particular with the objective of avoiding inconsistent decisions, for one member of the group to try a domestic court, for another member of the group to try an administrative proceeding, and for still another member of the group (or its controlling shareholders) to submit the dispute to arbitration pursuant to the BIT and the ICSID Convention.”. See Wehland, supra n 84, para 3.133.

  124. 124.

    See CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/8, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (17 July 2003) para 80; Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/97/3, Award (21 November 2000) paras 53–55; Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co. S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/99/6, Award (12 April 2002) para 71; Pan American Energy LLC and BP Argentina Exploration Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/13, Decision on Preliminary Objections (27 July 2006) para 157.

  125. 125.

    Alex Genin and others v. Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case No ARB/99/2, Award (25 June 2001).

  126. 126.

    Id., paras 330–334.

  127. 127.

    Id.

  128. 128.

    Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co. S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/99/6, Award (12 April 2002) paras 70, 71.

  129. 129.

    CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/8, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (17 July 2003) paras 80; 81.

  130. 130.

    Id..

  131. 131.

    Toto Costruzioni Generali S.p.A. v. Lebanese Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/12, Decision on Jurisdiction (11 September 2009) paras 211–212.

  132. 132.

    Wehland supra n 84, para 3.127.

  133. 133.

    See Petsche MA (2018) The fork in the road revisited: an attempt to overcome the clash between formalistic and pragmatic approaches. Wash Univ Glob Stud Law Rev 18:391, 407.

  134. 134.

    Eudoro A. Olguín v. Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case No ARB/98/5, Decision on Jurisdiction (8 August 2000) para 30.

  135. 135.

    Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/97/3, Decision on Annulment (3 July 2002) para 55.

  136. 136.

    Id.

  137. 137.

    Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v. Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No ARB/07/21, Award (30 July 2009); H&H Enterprises Investments, Inc. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/09/15, Award (6 May 2014) paras 370–387; Yuri Bogdanov and Yulia Bogdanov v. Republic of Moldova, SCC Case No V091/2012, Final Award (16 April 2013) paras 172–174.

  138. 138.

    Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v. Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No ARB/07/21, Award (30 July 2009) para 61.

  139. 139.

    Id., para 62.

  140. 140.

    Id., para 67.

  141. 141.

    Id.

  142. 142.

    Id.

  143. 143.

    H&H Enterprises Investments, Inc. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/09/15, Award (6 May 2014) paras 368–370. See also, Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Corporation v. The Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No 2009-23, Third Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (27 February 2012).

  144. 144.

    Id., para 371.

  145. 145.

    H&H Enterprises Investments, Inc. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/09/15, Excerpts of the Award of May 6, 2014 made pursuant to Rule 48(4) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules of 2006. Available at http://icsidfiles.worldbank.org/icsid/ICSIDBLOBS/OnlineAwards/C720/DC9652_En.pdf.

  146. 146.

    H&H Enterprises Investments, Inc. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/09/15, Award (6 May 2014) paras 378–382.

  147. 147.

    Supervision y Control S.A. v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No ARB/12/4, Final Award (18 January 2017) para 308.

  148. 148.

    Id., para 66.

  149. 149.

    Id., para 118.

  150. 150.

    Id., paras 313–315.

  151. 151.

    Id., para 315.

  152. 152.

    Desierto D (2016) Host state controls over the offer to Arbitrate: waivers against parallel actions in investor-state arbitration. Kluwer Arbitration, paras 1–2 (“Waivers were in use as early as 1992 through NAFTA Chapter 11, Article 1121(2)(b)”). See also Sabahi, supra n 3, para 14.08 (“One of the most important waiver clauses in investment treaties is NAFTA Article 1121”). Yannaca-Small, supra n 113, p. 1028 (“NAFTA has introduced a straightforward solution to the issue of competing domestic and international proceedings: it does not include a ‘fork-in-the-road’ provision, but a waiver.”). See also McLachlan C et al (2017) supra n 120, para 4.111 (“The main example in practice of the adoption of such a method [waiver] is art 1121 of NAFTA”).

  153. 153.

    See North American Free Trade Agreement, signed 17 December 1992, entered into force 1 January 1994, Article 1121(2)(b). The provision required that the investor submit, often together with the Notice of Institution to ICSID, an express waiver echoing the language of NAFTA’s Article 1121(2)(b). The relevant part of the new US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (which replaced the NAFTA) is similar.

  154. 154.

    See Puig S, Kinnear M (2010) NAFTA Chapter Eleven at fifteen: contributions to a systemic approach in investment arbitration. ICSID Rev 25(2):257.

  155. 155.

    International Thuderbird Gaming Corporation v. The United Mexican States, UNCITRAL, Arbitral Award (26 January 2006) para 118. See Renco Group, Inc. v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No UNCT/13/1, Second Non-Disputing State Party Submission of the United States of America, dated 1 September 2015, para 5 (“The purpose of the waiver provision is to avoid the need for a respondent to litigate concurrent and overlapping proceedings in multiple forums with respect to the same measure and to minimize not only the risk of double recovery, but also the risk of “conflicting outcomes.”); see Gramercy Funds Management LLC and Gramercy Peru Holdings LLC v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. UNCT/18/2, United States of America Written Submission pursuant to Article 10.20.2 of the TPA, dated 21 Jun 2019, para 15 (“[T]his [] is consistent with the purpose of this waiver provision: to avoid the need for a respondent State to litigate concurrent and overlapping proceedings in multiple forums, and to minimize not only the risk of double recovery”); see, also, Lion Mexico Consolidated L.P. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/15/2, Submission of the United States of America, dated 21 June 2019, para 25 (“The purpose of the waiver provision is to avoid the need for a respondent Party to litigate concurrent and overlapping proceedings in multiple forums and to minimize not only the risk of double recovery, but also the risk of conflicting outcomes and thus legal uncertainty”); International Thuderbird Gaming Corporation v. The United Mexican States, UNCITRAL, Arbitral Award (26 January 2006) para 118.

  156. 156.

    Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, signed 5 August 2004, entered into force 1 January 2009, Article 10.18(2)(b).

  157. 157.

    Australia-Hong Kong Investment Agreement, signed 26 March 2019, entered into force 17 January 2020, Article 27(2)(b). See also United States Model BIT (2012), Article 26(b). See Free Trade Agreement between the Government of the United States and the Government of the Republic of Chile, signed on 6 June 2003, entered into force on 1 January 2004, Article 10.17(2)(b). See USA – Morocco, Free Trade Agreement, Chapter Ten Investment, signed on 15 June 2004, entered into force on 1 January 2006, Article 10.17(2)(b). See also Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part and the Republic of Singapore, of the other part, signed on 19 October 2018, not yet in force, Article 3.7(1)(f).

  158. 158.

    Dodge W (2011) Local remedies under NAFTA Chapter 11. In: Gaillard E, Bachand F (eds) Fifteen years of NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration. JurisNet, LLC, p 6.

  159. 159.

    Wehland, supra n 84, paras 3.159–3.163.

  160. 160.

    Wehland, supra n 84, para 3.161.

  161. 161.

    See Desierto D (2016) supra n 152.

  162. 162.

    The Renco Group, Inc. v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No UNCT/13/1, Partial Award on Jurisdiction (15 July 2016). See also European American Investment Bank AG v. Slovakia, PCA Case No 2010-17, Second Award on Jurisdiction (4 June 2014) paras 261–267.

  163. 163.

    Id., para 58.

  164. 164.

    Id., para 138 (“the defective waiver goes to the heart of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction”) and para 189.

  165. 165.

    Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States (“Number 2”), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Decision of the Tribunal on Mexico’s Preliminary Objection concerning the Previous Proceedings (26 June 2002) (“Waste Management II”).

  166. 166.

    Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/98/2, Award of the Tribunal (2 June 2000) (“Waste Management I”).

  167. 167.

    Id., para 4.

  168. 168.

    Waste Management II, supra n 165, para 27.

  169. 169.

    Waste Management II, supra n 165, paras 22; 23.

  170. 170.

    Kauffmann-Kohler G et al (2006) Consolidation of proceedings in investment arbitration: how can multiple proceedings arising from the same of related situations be handled efficiently. Final Report on the Geneva Convention held on 22 April 2006, p 64.

  171. 171.

    Crivellaro A (2005) Consolidation of arbitral and court proceedings in investment disputes. Law Pract Int Courts Trib 4(3):371–420.

  172. 172.

    Signed 8 March 2018, entered into force 30 December 2018.

  173. 173.

    US Department of State (2020) Entry into force of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, Press Statement, 1 July 2020. Available at https://www.state.gov/entry-into-force-of-the-united-states-mexico-canada-agreement/. The USMCA is the revised version of the NAFTA. Unlike NAFTA’s Article 1126, which allowed for mandatory consolidation, the new text now states that a consolidation order can only be sought “with the agreement of all the disputing parties sought to be covered by the order”: see Article 14.D.12 of USMCA.

  174. 174.

    Article 28 of the Argentina-Japan BIT, signed 1 December 2018, not in force.

  175. 175.

    See, e.g., Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, arts 14, 15; Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, Art, 10.

  176. 176.

    Although Article 17.5 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2013) allows joinder of third parties as parties to the pending arbitration proceedings even without party consent provided that the tribunal is satisfied that such third parties are bound by the arbitration agreement. See Gaillard E (2019) supra n 63, para 81.

  177. 177.

    See, e.g., BSG Resources Limited (in administration), BSG Resources (Guinea) Limited and BSG Resources (Guinea) SÀRL v. Republic of Guinea, ICSID Case No ARB/14/22, Procedural Order No 5 (14 February 2016); Churchill Mining Plc and Planet Mining Pty Ltd, formerly ARB/12/40 v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No ARB/12/40 and 12/14.

  178. 178.

    See, e.g., Wehland, supra n 84, para 4.09; Commission J, Moloo R (eds) (2018) Procedural issues in international investment arbitration. Oxford University Press, para 9.75; Gaillard E (2019) supra n 63, para 82. Quasi-consolidated investment cases include Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No ARB/00/4; Sempra Energy International v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/02/16; Camuzzi International S.A. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/2. Some commentators have raised due process and confidentiality concerns over quasi-consolidation as evidence adduced in one set of proceeding may be used and relied on in the other: See Gaillard E (2019) supra n 63, para 81. See Schreuer C (2009) supra n 27, section 131; Kauffmann-Kohler, supra n 170 (Consolidation), p. 75; Abu Dhabi Gas Liquefaction Co. Ltd v. Eastern Bechtel Corp. 2 Lloyd’s Rep 425, CA (1982); XXI International Legal Materials 1057 (1982); Rev Arb 119 (1983); Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 448 (1984).

  179. 179.

    Sanum Investments Limited v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2013-13; Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/6.

  180. 180.

    The Tribunal in the Sanum arbitration was comprised of Dr. Andres Rodrigo Sureda (Chairperson), Professor Bernard Hanotiau and Professor Brigitte Stern, while the tribunal in the Lao Holdings case included Ian Binnie CC QC (Chairperson) and the same co-arbitrators. Sanum Investments Limited v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2013-13 (“From and after 23 February 2017 the two cases (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/6 and PCA Case No. 2013-13) proceeded in parallel although, as mentioned, not consolidated”).

  181. 181.

    Order of Consolidation Tribunal, 7 September 2005, granting the consolidation of the cases Canfor Corporation v. United States of America, Tember and ors v. United States of America and Terminal Forest Products v. United States of America.

  182. 182.

    See Kaufmann-Kohler supra n 170, p. 83.

  183. 183.

    See Wehland supra n 84, para 4.17. See Canfor v. USA, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/04/1, NAFTA, Order of the Consolidation Tribunal (20 May 2004) para 79; Pan American Energy LLC and BP Argentina Exploration Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/13, Decision on Preliminary Objections (27 July 2006). See, however, Burlington Resources Inc. v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No ARB/08/5, Decision on Ecuador’s Counterclaims (7 February 2017); Perenco Ecuador Ltd. v. Republic of Ecuador and Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador), ICSID Case No ARB/08/6 and Corn Products International, Inc. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/04/1,NAFTA, Order of the Consolidation Tribunal (20 May 2005) para 12. For commentary on cases concerning the principles of consolidation arising from the rules of arbitral institutions, see Born G (2014) International commercial arbitration, consolidation, joinder and intervention in international arbitration, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International, pp 2564–2613; Blackaby N et al (2015) Redfern and Hunter on international arbitration, 6th edn. Oxford University Press; Sutton D et al (2015) Russell on arbitration, 24th edn. Sweet & Maxwell.

  184. 184.

    See Giovanni Alemanni and others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/8, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (17 November 2014); Ambiente Ufficio S.P.A. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/08/9, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (8 February 2013). For the majority in Alemanni and Ambiente, the structure of the ICSID Convention did not require the investors an additional consent requirement to allow a plurality of claimants, beyond the requirement of consent in respect of each claim. Nor did the underlying investment treaties in question require so. See McLachlan C et al (2017) supra n 120, para 4.212. See also Theodoros Adamakopoulos and others v. Republic of Cyprus, ICSID Case No ARB/15/49 (“a mass claim by more than 900 Greek bondholders against Cyprus”).

  185. 185.

    Abaclat and Others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (4 August 2011) paras 501, 660; McLachlan et al (2017), supra n 120, para 4.208.

  186. 186.

    See Sabahi, supra n 3, paras 7.131, 7.132.

  187. 187.

    Abaclat and Others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (4 August 2011) para 660. See also Donovan D (2012) Abaclat and others v Argentine Republic: as a collective claims proceeding. ICSID Rev 27(2):261–267.

  188. 188.

    Abaclat and Others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (4 August 2011) paras 521, 547; Abaclat and Others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/5, Procedural Order No 12 (7 July 2012).

  189. 189.

    Giovanni Alemanni and others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/8, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (17 November 2014) p 6.

  190. 190.

    Id. See also McLachlan C et al (2017) para 4.213.

  191. 191.

    Giovanni Alemanni and others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/8, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (17 November 2014) paras 292, 294.

  192. 192.

    See McLachlan C et al (2017) supra 120, para 4.214.

  193. 193.

    Crivellaro, supra n 171, pp. 389, 390.

  194. 194.

    Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No ARB/81/1, Award (20 November 1984), para 177.

  195. 195.

    Crivellaro, supra n 171, p. 391.

  196. 196.

    Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No ARB/81/1, Award (20 November 1984), para 177.

  197. 197.

    Id.

  198. 198.

    Holiday Inns S.A. and Others v. Morocco, ICSID Case No ARB/72/1. This decision is not public, but has been reported in detail in Lalive P (1980) The first “World Bank” arbitration (Holiday Inns v. Morocco) – some legal problems. Br Yearb Int Law 51(1):123.

  199. 199.

    Holiday Inns, supra n 198.

  200. 200.

    Id.

  201. 201.

    Gami Investments Inc. v. Mexico, UNCITRAL (Ad-hoc), Final Award, 15 November 2004.

  202. 202.

    Helnan International Hotels A/S v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/05/19, Award (3 July 2010) and Helnan International Hotels A/S v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/05/19, Decision of the Tribunal on Objection to Jurisdiction (17 October 2006).

  203. 203.

    Wehland, supra n 84, paras 5.42, 5.75, 5.81.

  204. 204.

    See, e.g., Article 32 of the ILC’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted in 2001; Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, signed 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980, 1155 UNTS 331.

  205. 205.

    Maritime International Nominees Establishment (MINE) v. The Republic of Guinea, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/4, Final Award (6 January 1988) pp. 82–92. See also Delaume G (1984) ICSID arbitration in practice. Int Tax Bus Lawyer 58:64; See Schreuer C (2009) supra n 27, p. 389.

  206. 206.

    See ICSID Convention, Article 26.

  207. 207.

    Maritime International Nominees Establishment (MINE) v. The Republic of Guinea, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/4, Final Award (6 January 1988).

  208. 208.

    S.A.I.M.I Case: Franco-Italian Conciliation Commission Decision (13 November 1951), 18 International Law Reports (1951), 471 et seq.

  209. 209.

    Id., at 477 et seq. This decision was expressly followed by the Commission in the Gillemoi-Jacquemin Claim Case No 127.

  210. 210.

    Reinisch A (2004) The use and limits of res judicata and lis pendens as procedural tools to avoid conflicting dispute settlement outcomes. Law Pract Int Courts Trib 3:37–77, 43; Cheng B (1987) General principles of law as applied by international courts and tribunals, reprinted. Cambridge University Press, p 337; see Hobér (2014), supra n 27, pp. 120, 121; Waste Management II supra n 165, para 39 (“There is no doubt that res judicata is a principle of international law, and even a general principle of law within the meaning of Article 38 (1) (c) of the Statute of the [ICJ].”); Elsamex, S.A. v. Republic of Honduras, ICSID Case No ARB/09/4, Award (16 November 2012) para 212; Petrobart Limited v. The Kyrgyz Republic, SCC Case No 126/2003, Award (29 March 2005) p. 64.

  211. 211.

    Hobér supra n 27, p. 120.

  212. 212.

    Hobér supra n 27, pp. 121, 190, 258, 263.

  213. 213.

    Hobér supra n 27, pp. 154, 155.

  214. 214.

    Hobér supra n 27, p. 264.

  215. 215.

    De Ly F, Sheppard A (2009) ILA Recommendations on Lis Pendens and Res Judicata and Arbitration. Arbitr Int 25(1):83–86, 85; The US Restatement (Second) Judgments §13 deems as “final judgments,” with the corresponding preclusive effects, “any prior adjudication of an issue in another action that is determined to be sufficiently firm to be accorded conclusive effect.”

  216. 216.

    See Reinisch (2004) supra n 210, p. 72; Hobér supra n 27, pp. 121, 122.

  217. 217.

    Helnan International Hotels A/S v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/05/19, Award (3 July 2008) para 124; Industria Nacional de Alimentos, S.A. and Indalsa Perú, S.A. (formerly Empresas Lucchetti, S.A. and Lucchetti Perú, S.A.) v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No ARB/03/4, Decision on Annulment (5 September 2007) para 87; Adel A Hamadi Al Tamimi v. Sultanate of Oman, ICSID Case No ARB/11/33, Award, (3 November 2015) para 358; Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/26, Decision on Jurisdiction (19 December 2012) para 191; Emilio Agustín Maffezini v. The Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No ARB/97/7, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, para 29; Robert Azinian, Kenneth Davitian, & Ellen Baca v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/97/2, Award (1 November 1999) para 86.

  218. 218.

    Helnan International Hotels id, para 163 (holding that a domestic arbitration award rendering decision on a contractual claim under Egyptian law had res judicata effect within “the Egyptian legal order.”); Desert Line Projects LLC v. Republic of Yemen, ICSID Case No ARB/05/17, Award (6 February 2008) para 136.

  219. 219.

    Helnan International Hotels supra n 232, para 125. See also the dissenting opinion by Professor Cremades in Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. The Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No ARB/03/25, Award (16 August 2007) para 26.

  220. 220.

    See Hobér supra n 27, pp. 126–190 for an overview of lis pendens (as well as res judicata) in national law.

  221. 221.

    Reinisch (2004) supra n 210, pp. 48–50. C.f. Wehland (2013) supra n 84 para 6.99.

  222. 222.

    Ivan Peter Busta and James Peter Busta v. Czech Republic, SCC Case No. V 2015/014, Final Award (10 March 2017) paras 210, 211; S.A.R.L. Benvenuti&Bonfant v. People’s Republic of the Congo, ICSID Case No ARB/77/2, Award, 8 August 1980, para 1.14. See also Hobér, supra n 23, p. 190.

  223. 223.

    Ivan Peter Busta, id., paras 4–6.

  224. 224.

    Id., paras 180, 194–196.

  225. 225.

    Id., para 217.

  226. 226.

    E.g., As cited in Crivellaro (see supra n 171), pp. 393–394, the tribunal in the case E-Systems Inc. v. Iran and Bank Melli, Decision of 4 February 1983, Iran–US Claims Tribunal Reports, vol 2, pp 51 et seq held that: “the award to be rendered [by the Tribunal] … will prevail over any decision inconsistent with it rendered by Iranian or [US] courts.” The tribunal added further that “in order to ensure the full effectiveness of the Tribunal’s decisions, the Government of Iran should request that actions in the Iranian Court be stayed until proceedings in [the] Tribunal have been completed.”

  227. 227.

    See De Ly F, Sheppard A (2009) ILA final report on Lis Pendens and arbitration. Arbitr Int 25(1):3–34, para 4.49.

  228. 228.

    Gaillard E (2018) Coordination or chaos: do the principles of comity, lis pendens, and res judicata apply to international arbitration? Am Rev Int Arbitr 29(3):205–242, 207–212.

  229. 229.

    Gaillard (2018) supra n 228, p. 208. See however Stacher M, Feit M (2018) Parallel proceedings and lis pendens. In: Arroyo M (ed) Arbitration in Switzerland: the practitioner’s guide, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International, pp 2636–2638; see, also, Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas S.A. v. Colon Container Terminal S.A., 127 III 279, 286.

  230. 230.

    Wehland supra n 84, para 7.29. See also HM Attorney General v. Barker [2000] EWHC, para 19. Abuse of process (or “procedure”) is considered to be a “special application” of the doctrine of abuse of rights, as it concerns the abuse of a procedural right by a party: see Kolb R (2019) General principles of procedural law. In: Zimmermann A et al (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice: a commentary, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, pp 998–1002.

  231. 231.

    See, e.g., Philip Morris Asia Limited (Hong Kong) v. The Commonwealth of Australia, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (17 December 2015) paras 414, 423, 527, 535–588; Pac Rim Cayman LLC v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No ARB/09/12, Decision on the Respondent’s Jurisdictional Objections (1 June 2012) paras 2.1–2.111; Fukunaga Y (2018) Abuse of process under international law and investment arbitration. ICSID Rev 33(1):181–211.

  232. 232.

    See, e.g., Chevron Corporation (USA) and Texaco Petroleum Company (USA) v. The Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No 34877, Interim Award (1 December 2008) para 143 (“the doctrines of abuse of rights, estoppel and waiver are subject to a high threshold”). As Wehland notes, “[s]o far the practice of treaty tribunals has failed to deliver a case where the assertion of related claims in multiple proceedings would have been qualified as abusive”: Wehland supra n 84, para 7.30.

  233. 233.

    See, e.g., Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France) (2018) ICJ Reports, Preliminary Objections, Judgment 292, para 150. See also Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) (2019) ICJ Reports, Preliminary Objections, Judgment 7, para 114; Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan), Judgment (17 July 2019), para 49.

  234. 234.

    Lauder supra n 69, para 174; CME supra n 69, para 412.

  235. 235.

    Waste Management IIsupra n 165, para 49.

  236. 236.

    Id., para 50.

  237. 237.

    Orascom TMT Investments S.àr.l. v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No ARB/12/35, Award (31 May 2017) paras 544, 545.

  238. 238.

    Id.

  239. 239.

    Gaillard E (2018) supra n 228, p. 222.

  240. 240.

    Orascom supra n 237, para 543.

  241. 241.

    Airbus Industrie G.I.E. v. Patel and Others [1999] 1 AC 119; Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. Lee Kui Jak [1987] AC 871.

  242. 242.

    Gaillard (2018) supra n 228, p. 207; Paul JR (1991) Comity in international law. Harv Int Law J 32(1):1–79, 15; Slaughter A (2003) A global community of courts. Harv Int Law J 44(1):191–220, 205.

  243. 243.

    Gaillard (2018) supra n 228, p. 206.

  244. 244.

    Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/84/3, Decision on Preliminary Objections to Jurisdiction (27 November 1985).

  245. 245.

    Id., para 81.

  246. 246.

    Id., paras 83, 84.

  247. 247.

    Id., para 84. See also Egyptian Gen. Petroleum Corp. v. E. Mediterranean Gas S.A.E. CRCICA Case 829/2012, Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Procedural Ruling on Stay Application (11 November 2013) (unpublished) in Gaillard (2018) supra n 223, pp. 221, 222.

  248. 248.

    British Caribbean Bank supra n 80, para 187.

  249. 249.

    Id., paras 177–180.

  250. 250.

    Id., para 189.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York, USA

    Catherine Amirfar

  2. Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, London, UK

    Nelson Goh

Authors
  1. Catherine Amirfar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nelson Goh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nelson Goh .

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

Amirfar, C., Goh, N. (2020). Tribunal Jurisdiction and the Relationship of Investment Arbitration with Municipal Courts and Tribunals. 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_62-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5744-2_62-1

  • 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