Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preventing Frivolous Counterclaims in Investor-State Arbitration: Need for Summary Dismissal Procedures

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2021

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 12))

  • 436 Accesses

Abstract

This article argues in favour of including summary procedures for the dismissal of frivolous counterclaims in arbitral rules and investment treaties. Arbitral tribunals and commentators have consistently recognised the contribution of rules on summary procedures towards screening out unmeritorious claims and enhancing the overall efficiency of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). However, various explicit and implicit restrictions in existing rules bar claimants from seeking early dismissal of frivolous counterclaims. Given the emerging practice of including investors’ obligations in investment treaties and the increasing frequency with which counterclaims are litigated in ISDS proceedings, precluding investors from challenging frivolous counterclaims runs against the current. The article highlights that the rationale for summary dismissal procedures is equally relevant to the adjudication of counterclaims and proposes possible rules in this regard.

The views expressed or implied in this article are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Secretariat.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Black’s Law Dictionary (2010), p. 739. This article uses the terms “frivolous”, “vexatious” and “unmeritorious” interchangeably to refer to the same notion. For an overview of what may be considered a “frivolous” allegation in international adjudication, see Potestà and Sobat (2012), pp. 137 et seq.

  2. 2.

    See for instance ICSID Arbitration Rules, rule 41(5) (“Unless the parties have agreed to another expedited procedure for making preliminary objections, a party may, no later than 30 days after the constitution of the Tribunal, and in any event before the first session of the Tribunal, file an objection that a claim is manifestly without legal merit” (emphasis added)); see however CAFTA-DR, Art. 10.20.4 (“a tribunal shall address and decide as a preliminary question any objection by the respondent that, as a matter of law, a claim submitted is not a claim for which an award in favor of the claimant may be made under Article 10.26” (emphasis added)).

  3. 3.

    In the context of ICSID arbitration, see ICSID, Decisions on Manifest Lack of Legal Merit, https://icsid.worldbank.org/cases/content/tables-of-decisions/manifest-lack-of-legal-merit.

  4. 4.

    Reisman (2009), p. 188. For an overview of such obligations, see Radi (2020), pp. 219 et seq.

  5. 5.

    The only publicly-known instance of a claimant invoking summary dismissal procedures is that of Elsamex v Honduras, where the claimant objected to the respondent’s application to annul an award made in the preceding ICSID arbitration on the basis that the respondent’s application clearly lacked legal merit. See Elsamex SA v Honduras, ICSID Case No ARB/09/4, Decision on Elsamex SA’s Preliminary Objections (7 January 2014). See also Global Trading Resource Corp. and Globex International, Inc. v Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/11, Award (1 December 2010) (“Global Trading v Ukraine”), para. 29 (“Rule 41(5) opens the way – in the absence of agreement between the parties on another expedited procedure – to either party to apply to the tribunal at a very early stage in the arbitral proceedings to rule that ‘a claim is manifestly without legal merit.’”) and footnote 1 (“[T]he drafters [of the ICSID Arbitration Rules] might equally well have said ‘the respondent’, since the procedure is hardly likely to hold much interest for a claimant”).

  6. 6.

    Krajewski (2020), p. 120; Magnarelli (2020).

  7. 7.

    Lotus Holding Anonim Sirketi v Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/30, Award (6 April 2020) (“Lotus v Turkmenistan”), para. 159; Brandes Investment Partners, LP v The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/3, Decision on the Respondent’s Objection Under Rule 41(5) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules (2 February 2009) (“Brandes v. Venezuela”), para. 52; Duong (2021), p. 37.

  8. 8.

    Paradell and Newcombe (2009), p. 42.

  9. 9.

    It has been argued that these tribunals could dismiss a claim as frivolous or vexatious pursuant to their inherent powers, albeit without reference to clear standards and procedures. See de Chazournes (2020), p. 468; Van Harten (2014), p. 48; Puig and Brown (2011), p. 32; Jan Paulsson and Georgios Petrochilos, Revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules: A Report, 2006, www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/news/arbrules_report.pdf, p. 65; ICC, Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration under the ICC Rules of Arbitration, 1 January 2021, https://iccwbo.org/content/uploads/sites/3/2020/12/icc-note-to-parties-and-arbitral-tribunals-on-the-conduct-of-arbitration-english-2021.pdf, pp. 16–17.

  10. 10.

    Schreuer (2009), p. 542; Potestà and Sobat (2012), p. 137.

  11. 11.

    UNCTAD, Investor-State Dispute Settlement and Impact on Investment-Rulemaking, UNCTAD/ITE/IIA/2007/3, https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/iteiia20073_en.pdf, p. 82, also noting that “[i]nvestors may be eager to claim as many violations of the applicable IIA as possible in order to increase their chances of success”; Parra (2007), p. 56. It should be noted here that these interventions do not consider the increase is ISDS claims relative to the proliferation of investment treaties or the increase in foreign investment generally.

  12. 12.

    US Model BIT 2004, Art. 28.

  13. 13.

    Menaker (2005), p. 127; Sampliner (2013), p. 160.

  14. 14.

    Methanex Corp. v United States of America, NAFTA/UNCITRAL, Partial Award (7 August 2002) (“Methanex v US”), paras. 109 and 126.

  15. 15.

    Jin Hae Seo v The Republic of Korea, HKIAC Case No. 18117, Submission of the United States of America (19 June 2019), paras. 2–3; The Renco Group, Inc. v Republic of Peru [I], ICSID Case No. UNCT/13/1, Non-Disputing State Party Submission of the United States of America (10 September 2014), paras. 2–3.

  16. 16.

    Id. See also Vandevelde (2010), p. 454; and Chen (2015), p. 66 explaining that this procedure is modelled after summary judgement procedures in US civil litigation.

  17. 17.

    DR-CAFTA, Art. 10.20.4.

  18. 18.

    US-Colombia TPA, Art. 10.20.4.

  19. 19.

    US-Peru TPA, Art. 10.20.4.

  20. 20.

    KORUS FTA, Art. 11.20.6.

  21. 21.

    The TPP never entered into force. However, Article 9.23 of the TPP (concerning procedures for summary dismissal of claims without legal merit) was incorporated by reference into the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) mutatis mutandis. CPTPP, Art. 1.1.

  22. 22.

    ICSID Convention, Art. 36(3).

  23. 23.

    ICSID AF Rules, Art. 4; Robert Azinian, Kenneth Davitian, & Ellen Baca v The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/97/2, Award (1 November 1999), paras. 38–39.

  24. 24.

    Schreuer (2009), p. 468 citing the Report of the Executive Directors on the ICSID Convention, 1 ICSID Reports 27; Parra (2007), p. 65.

  25. 25.

    Puig and Brown (2012), p. 172; Antonietti (2006), pp. 438–439.

  26. 26.

    ICSID Secretariat, Possible Improvements for the Framework of ICSID Arbitration, 22 October 2004, https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/publications/Possible%20Improvements%20of%20the%20Framework%20of%20ICSID%20Arbitration.pdf, p. 7; ICSID Secretariat, Suggested Changes to the ICSID Rules and Regulations, May 2005, https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/publications/Suggested%20Changes%20to%20the%20ICSID%20Rules%20and%20Regulations.pdf, pp. 7–8.

  27. 27.

    The difference between the draft and final versions of these rules was the addition of the word “legal” in the phrase “manifestly without legal merit”. This was done to ensure that factual issues were not litigated at a preliminary stage. See Antonietti (2006), p. 440, cited in Trans-Global Petroleum, Inc. v The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/25, Decision on the Respondent’s Objection Under Rule 41(5) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules (12 May 2008), (“Trans-Global v Jordan”), para. 97.

  28. 28.

    Lion Mexico Consolidated L.P. v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/15/2, Decision on Preliminary Objection under Article 45(6) of the ICSID Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rules (12 December 2016) (“Lion v Mexico”), para. 56.

  29. 29.

    ICSID Arbitration Rules, rule 41(5).

  30. 30.

    Puig and Brown (2011), p. 251; Yeo and Yen (2021), p. 84; Pac Rim Cayman LLC v Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12, Decision on the Respondent’s Preliminary Objections (2 August 2010) (“Pac Rim Cayman v El Salvador”), paras. 84 and 85.

  31. 31.

    See Sects. 2.1.3–2.1.5 below.

  32. 32.

    2012 US Model BIT, Art. 28(4); Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), Art. 8.32.1; see also 2016 Indian Model BIT, Art. 21.1 which refers to the “Defending Party”.

  33. 33.

    2012 US Model BIT, Art. 1 (“‘respondent’ means the Party that is a party to an investment dispute”); CETA, Art. 8.1 (“respondent means Canada or, in the case of the European Union, either the Member State of the European Union or the European Union”); see also 2016 Indian Model BIT, Art. 13.7 (“‘Defending Party’ means a Party against which a claim is made under this Article”) and Art. 16 describing claim in reference to the investor. Moreover, treaty parties may also agree on the limited purpose of summary dismissal rules. See The Renco Group, Inc. v Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. UNCT/13/1, Non-Disputing Party Submission of the United States (10 September 2014) para. 3 (stating that “the United States has negotiated expedited review mechanisms that permit a respondent State to assert preliminary objections in an efficient manner”); Peru’s Comments on the Non-Disputing Party Submission (3 October 2014), paras. 7–11 noting Peru’s agreement with the United States on the function and purpose of Article 10.2.4 of the US-Peru TPA.

  34. 34.

    Bridgestone Licensing Services, Inc. and Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v Republic of Panama, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/34, U.S. Submission Pursuant to Article 10.20.2 of the U.S.-Panama TPA (28 August 2017), paras. 3 and 5.

  35. 35.

    ICSID Secretariat, Possible Improvements of the Framework for ICSID Arbitration, 22 October 2004, https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/publications/Possible%20Improvements%20of%20the%20Framework%20of%20ICSID%20Arbitration.pdf; see also Diop (2010), p. 312; and Parra (2007), p. 65.

  36. 36.

    ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 41(5); 2012 US Model BIT, Art. 28(4); 2016 Indian Model BIT, Art. 21.1.

  37. 37.

    See Black’s Law Dictionary (2010), p. 402, defining a “counterclaim” as “[a] claim for relief asserted against an opposing party after an original claim has been made”. See generally, Canfor Corporation and others v United States of America, UNCITRAL, Order of the Consolidation Tribunal (7 September 2005), para. 107 and Sociedad Anónima Eduardo Vieira v Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/7, Award (21 August 2007), paras. 243–244 favouring broad interpretations of the term “claims” in the NAFTA and the Chile-Spain IIA respectively.

  38. 38.

    Lotus v Turkmenistan, para. 164.

  39. 39.

    2012 US Model BIT, Art. 28(4); EU-Singapore FTA, Art. 3.1; see also 2016 Indian Model BIT, Art. 21.1 which refers to “a claim submitted by the investor”.

  40. 40.

    2012 US Model BIT, Art. 28(4); 2016 Indian Model BIT, Art. 21.1; CETA, Art. 8.32.6; see also ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 41(1).

  41. 41.

    See Sect. 2.1 above discussing the tribunal’s decision in Methanex v US and the impact thereof.

  42. 42.

    For example, in Desert Line Projects LLC v The Republic of Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/17, Award (6 February 2008), para. 97 the tribunal noted that the fact that Rule 41(1) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules provided for objections to be filed “no later” than the deadline for the counter-memorial did not mean that the respondent was not bound to raise them before that date if such objections were or ought to have been already manifest.

  43. 43.

    CETA, Art. 8.32.1.

  44. 44.

    2012 US Model BIT, Art. 28(4)(a); 2016 Indian Model BIT, Art. 21.2; CETA, Art. 8.33.2.

  45. 45.

    ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 41(5). See also Trans-Global v Jordan, paras. 24–29 noting that the two temporal conditions provided in Rule 41(5) are cumulative.

  46. 46.

    Schreuer (2009), p. 526; see also ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 40(2) (“a counter-claim [shall be presented] no later than in the counter-memorial”).

  47. 47.

    Poon and Popova (2015), p. 245; Potestà (2017), p. 254.

  48. 48.

    Mabco Constructions v Republic of Kosovo, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/25, Decision on Jurisdiction (30 October 2020), para. 36. See generally Lotus v Turkmenistan, para. 156 on the strict construction of the time limits under ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 41(5).

  49. 49.

    For instance, see Perenco Ecuador Limited v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6, Decision on Claimant Application for Dismissal of Respondent Counterclaims (18 August 2017), paras. 17 et seq and See also Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH and others v Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/8, Award (1 March 2012), para. 20.

  50. 50.

    ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 41(5); CETA, Art. 8.32.3.

  51. 51.

    2012 US Model BIT, Art. 28(4); 2016 Indian Model BIT, Art. 21.3; CETA, Art. 8.32.4.

  52. 52.

    While this may prolong the summary procedures beyond what is desirable, failure to provide the parties with the opportunity to present their case would constitute a fundamental departure from due process, which could leave the tribunal’s award open to annulment or set-aside proceedings. See Schreuer (2009), p. 543, Global Trading v Ukraine, paras. 32–33.

  53. 53.

    ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 41(5); CETA, Art. 8.32.5.

  54. 54.

    2012 US Model BIT, Art. 28(4)(c); 2016 Indian Model BIT, Art. 21.3; CETA, Art. 8.32.5.

  55. 55.

    ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 41(6); 2012 US Model BIT, Art. 28(4)(b).

  56. 56.

    2012 US Model BIT, Art. 28(4)(b); 2016 Indian Model BIT, Art. 21.3.

  57. 57.

    Diop (2010), p. 335.

  58. 58.

    See Trans-Global v Jordan, para. 74.

  59. 59.

    Elsamex, S.A. v Republic of Honduras, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/4, Decision on Preliminary Objections (7 January 2014), paras. 89–101; Puig and Brown (2011), p. 257.

  60. 60.

    2012 US Model BIT, Art. 28(4); CETA, Art. 8.33.1; EU-Singapore FTA, Art. 3.15.

  61. 61.

    ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 41(5); Article 9.23 TPP; Article 11.20.6 KORUS FTA; CETA, Art. 8.32.1.

  62. 62.

    2016 Indian Model BIT, Art. 21.1.

  63. 63.

    2016 Indian Model BIT, Art. 21.1.

  64. 64.

    Trans-Global v Jordan, paras. 83–88 and 92; Global Trading v Ukraine, para. 35; Lion v Mexico, paras. 62–67, Lotus v Turkmenistan, para. 158.

  65. 65.

    PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd. v. Independent State of Papua New Guinea, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/33, ICSID Decision on Respondent Article 41(5) Objections (28 October 2014) (“PNG v Papua New Guinea”), paras. 88–89; MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Company Plc v Republic of Croatia, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/32, Decision on Respondent Application under ICSID Arbitration Rules 41(5) (2 December 2014) (“MOL v Hungary”), para. 45.

  66. 66.

    Pac Rim Cayman LLC v Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12, Decision on the Respondent’s Preliminary Objections (2 August 2010) (“Pac Rim Cayman v El Salvador”), paras. 108-110. At para. 118, the tribunal considering an objection under Article 10.20.4 of the CAFTA-DR further noted that it was not guided by Rule 41(5) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules due to its “different wording” and the difference in object and purpose of the two provisions. See also Rovine (2016), p. 90; Polonskaya (2017), p. 24.

  67. 67.

    Trans-Global v Jordan, paras. 118–119; Lotus v Turkmenistan, para. 180.

  68. 68.

    Global Trading v Ukraine, para. 51; Lotus v Turkmenistan, para. 195.

  69. 69.

    Ansung Housing Co., Ltd. v People’s Republic of China, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/25, Award (9 March 2017) (“Ansung Housing v China”), paras 142–44; Corona Materials v Dominican Republic, para. 237.

  70. 70.

    Almasyria v Kuwait, para. 34–48.

  71. 71.

    Pac Rim Cayman v El Salvador, para. 110.

  72. 72.

    The Renco Group, Inc. v Republic of Peru [I], ICSID Case No. UNCT/13/1, Decision as to the Scope of the Respondent Preliminary Objections Under Article 10.20.4 (18 December 2014), paras. 184–185. See also Jin Hae Seo v Republic of Korea, HKIAC Case No. HKIAC/18117, Final Award (27 September 2019), para. 82 noting that an objection that a claim is not a claim for which an award may be made under Article 11.26 of the KORUS FTA must relate to “the type of relief requested” by the claimant.

  73. 73.

    This is the case for the ICSID Arbitration Rules, where the terms “without legal merit” in Rule 41(5) have been interpreted to mean lack of legal merit either on jurisdictional grounds or due to substantive defects. Brandes v Venezuela, paras. 50–55; Global Trading v Ukraine, para. 30. See additionally in this regard Diop (2010), pp. 322–323.

  74. 74.

    RSM Production Corporation and others v Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6, Award (10 December 2010), paras. 7.3.6–7.3.7 (“RSM v Grenada”); Brabandere (2012), p. 44.

  75. 75.

    See for instance ICSID Convention, Art. 61(2).

  76. 76.

    2012 US Model BIT, Art. 28(6); 2016 Indian Model BIT, Art. 21.6.

  77. 77.

    2012 US Model BIT, Art. 28(6). While the 2016 Indian Model BIT acknowledges a tribunal’s authority to grant favourable costs only to “the prevailing Defending Party”, it goes on to state that the tribunal may grant such costs “incurred in submitting or opposing the objection [as to a frivolous claim]”. There thus appears to be an internal inconsistency in the Indian Model Treaty.

  78. 78.

    2017 SIAC Investment Arbitration (SIAC IA) Rules. There is no previous iteration of these rules.

  79. 79.

    2017 SCC Rules. The 2007 iteration of the SCC Rules did not contain any rules on summary dismissals. However, the SCC Board of Directors was granted a limited screening power, akin to that enjoyed by the ICSID Secretary General, to dismiss a case over which the SCC Institute manifestly lacked jurisdiction. See 2007 SCC Rules, Art. 10(i).

  80. 80.

    2018 HKIAC Rules. The 2013 and 2008 versions of the HKIAC’s rules did not envisage procedures for summary dismissals.

  81. 81.

    2018 CIETAC International Investment Arbitration (CIETAC IIA) Rules. There is no previous iteration of these rules.

  82. 82.

    SIAC IA Rules, Art. 26.1; 2017 SCC Rules, Art. 39(2)(ii); CIETAC IIA Rules, Art. 26.1; HKIAC Rules, Art. 43.1.

  83. 83.

    CIETAC IIA Rules, Art. 26.1.

  84. 84.

    SIAC IA Rules, Art. 26.1. In this sense, the SIAC IA Rules are broader than the ICSID Arbitration Rules that inspired them. See Boog and Wimalasena (2017), p. 81.

  85. 85.

    HKIAC Rules, Art. 43.1; see also SCC Rules, Art. 39(1) (“A party may request that the Arbitral Tribunal decide one or more issues of fact or law by way of summary procedure”).

  86. 86.

    2012 US Model BIT, Art. 28(4).

  87. 87.

    2017 SCC Rules, Art. 39(2)(ii).

  88. 88.

    See Sect. 2.1.4.

  89. 89.

    Rule 26.4 of the SIAC IA Rules only requires that the Tribunal make its award or order within 90 days of the application.

  90. 90.

    HKIAC Rules, Art. 43.3.

  91. 91.

    CIETAC IIA Rules, Art. 26.3.

  92. 92.

    SIAC IA Rules, Rule 26.2; 2017 SCC Rules, Art. 39(3); CIETAC IIA Rules, Art. 26.2; HKIAC Rules, Art. 43.4.

  93. 93.

    SIAC IA Rules, Art. 26.3; 2017 SCC Rules, Art. 39(6); CIETAC IIA Rules, Art. 26.4; HKIAC Rules, art. 43.5.

  94. 94.

    SIAC IA Rules, Art. 26.4; 2017 SCC Rules, Art. 39(6); CIETAC IIA Rules, Art. 26.5; HKIAC Rules, Art. 43.6.

  95. 95.

    CIETAC IIA Rules, Art. 26.6.

  96. 96.

    CIETAC IIA Rules, Art. 53.3; SIAC IA Rules, Arts. 33 and 35.

  97. 97.

    SCC Rules, Arts. 49 and 50.

  98. 98.

    ICSID Secretariat, Backgrounder on Proposals for Amendment of the ICSID Rules, 2 August 2018, https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/publications/Amendment_Backgrounder.pdf, p. 2.

  99. 99.

    The amendments under consideration only clarify the scope of the rule, the procedure and the time limit for submitting an objection, and the timing of the Tribunal’s ruling. See ICSID Secretariat, Proposals or Amendment of the ICSID Rules—Working Paper, 2 August 2018, https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/publications/WP1_Amendments_Vol_3_WP-updated-9.17.18.pdf (ICSID Amendments Working Paper No. 1), p. 178.

  100. 100.

    ICSID Amendments Working Paper No. 1, p. 102 (“Proposed [rule] 8 concerns time limits specified in the Convention and the AR, for example, the time limit to file an objection that the dispute is manifestly without legal merit (current AR 41(5))… Because these time limits are not fixed by the Tribunal, they cannot be extended by the Tribunal”).

  101. 101.

    See Sect. 2.1.4 above.

  102. 102.

    ICSID Secretariat, Rule Amendment Project—Member State & Public Comments on Working Paper # 1 of August 3, 2018, 15 March 2019, https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/amendments/Compendium_Comments_Rule_Amendment_3.15.19.pdf, p. 254 (“[A]s drafted and in conjunction with the deadline, this Rule appears to preclude the striking out of counterclaims and defenses that are manifestly without legal merit. This creates an unfair distinction between the parties that bring claims and those that defend against them, and exacerbates the problem of unnecessary litigation and added time and expense”).

  103. 103.

    ICSID Amendments Working Paper No. 1, pp. 178–179.

  104. 104.

    ICSID Amendments Working Paper No. 1, p. 179; ICSID Secretariat, Proposals or Amendment of the ICSID Rules—Working Paper #3, 16 August 2019, https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/amendments/WP_3_VOLUME_1_ENGLISH.pdf, pp. 52–53.

  105. 105.

    ICSID Secretariat, Proposals or Amendment of the ICSID Rules—Working Paper, 15 June 2021, https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/publications/WP%205-Volume1-ENG-FINAL.pdf (ICSID Amendments Working Paper No. 5), p. 297.

  106. 106.

    Ansung v China, para. 72 (“registration does not and cannot pre-judge an application under ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5)”).

  107. 107.

    Brandes v Venezuela, para. 53 (“there are actually three levels at which jurisdictional objections could be examined. First by the Secretariat, and if the case passes that level, it would then be under Rule 41(5), and if it passes that level, it might still be under Rule 41(1)”); Global Trading v Ukraine, para. 33 (“the rejection of an objection under Rule 41(5) at the pre-preliminary stage does not stand in the way of its resurrection later in the normal way as if Rule 41(5) did not exist”); Emmis v Hungary, para. 84. See also Brabandere (2012), p. 33.

  108. 108.

    MOL v Hungary, para. 44.

  109. 109.

    Id., para. 44. See also Trans-Global v Jordan, para. 103 (“[ICSID decisions applying the ICJ’s decision in Oil Platforms] were directed at objections based on the tribunal’s jurisdiction or competence under Article 41 of the ICSID Convention and Rule 41(1) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules… Moreover, the procedure for [Rule 41(1)] jurisdictional objections is also different from Rule 41(5): the timing of the respondent’s jurisdictional objection can follow the claimant’s first memorial, long after the request for arbitration and the first session; and the tribunal can postpone its decision or award by joining the objection to the merits of the dispute”); Parra (2015), p. 596.

  110. 110.

    Potestà (2017), p. 254 noting that by contrast to Rule 41(1) proceedings, Rule 41(5) proceedings are considerably accelerated.

  111. 111.

    For example, see Transglobal Green Energy, LLC and Transglobal Green Energy de Panama, S.A. v The Republic of Panama, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/28, Decision on the Admissibility of Respondent Preliminary Objection to the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Rule 41(5) (17 March 2015), para. 32 (“a decision pursuant 41(5) rejecting an objection would be dispositive, but would not deprive Respondent of its right to raise objections under Rule 41(1) that are distinct from the objections already decided under Rule 41(5)”). See also Schreuer (2009), p. 544 (“it is doubtful whether a party should be allowed to insist on the application of the prima facie test at the stage of jurisdiction (…) once its objection that a claim is manifestly without legal merit has been dismissed in summary proceedings”).

  112. 112.

    ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 41(1) permits preliminary objections pertaining to the “jurisdiction of the Centre” or the “competence of the Tribunal”. See also Pac Rim Cayman LLC. v Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12, Award (14 October 2016), paras. 5.41 and 5.42; Peteris Pildegovics and SIA North Star v Kingdom of Norway, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/11, Decision on Bifurcation and Other Matters (12 October 2020), para. 7; Antonietti (2006), p. 439.

  113. 113.

    Urbaser SA and others v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, Award (8 December 2016), para. 1220 (emphasising the lack of legal ground in the treaty or international law for the respondent’s counterclaim). On the other hand, claims may be dismissed as frivolous if they agitate non-existent legal rights of the claimant or non-existent legal obligations of the respondent. See Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P. and Danubius Kereskedöház Vagyonkezelö Zrt. v Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/3, Decision on Respondents Objection Under Arbitration Rule 41(5) (16 January 2013), para. 77; Trans-Global v Jordan, para. 95.

  114. 114.

    Parra (2007), p. 56; Antonietti (2006), p. 440. See for instance, Emmis International Holding, B.V., Emmis Radio Operating, B.V., MEM Magyar Electronic Media Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/2, Decision on Respondent’s Objection Under ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5) (11 March 2013), para. 72; Brandes v Venezuela, para. 52; Global Trading v Ukraine, para. 30.

  115. 115.

    ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 61(2).

  116. 116.

    ICSID Amendments Working Paper No. 5, p. 305. The proposed rules do not provide for a presumption in favour of a claimant that successfully fends off a Rule 41(5) objection.

  117. 117.

    ICSID Amendments Working Paper No. 1, p. 122.

  118. 118.

    See for instance Commerce Group Corp. and San Sebastian Gold Mines, Inc. v The Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/17, Award (14 March 2011), para. 137; Corona Materials LLC v. Dominican Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/14/3, Award (31 May 2016) (Corona Materials v Dominican Republic), para. 277; Daniel W. Kappes and Kappes, Cassiday & Associates v Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/43, Decision on the Respondent’s Preliminary Objection (13 March 2020) (“Kappes v Guatemala”), para. 231.

  119. 119.

    UNCITRAL, Report of Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the work of its 34th session (Vienna, 27 November–1 December 2017)—Part I, 26 February 2018, https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/930/Rev.1, p. 7.

  120. 120.

    UNCITRAL, Report of Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the work of its 34th session (Vienna, 27 November–1 December 2017)—Part II, 26 February 2018, https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/930/Add.1/Rev.1, p. 2.

  121. 121.

    Ibid. See also UNCITRAL, Possible reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS)—Security for cost and frivolous claims, 16 January 2020, https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.192, pp. 6–8.

  122. 122.

    UNCITRAL, Possible reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS)—cost and duration, 31 August 2018, https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.153, p. 2.

  123. 123.

    UNCITRAL, Possible reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS)—Note by the Secretariat, 30 July 2019, https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.166, p. 11.

  124. 124.

    Ibid, p. 21.

  125. 125.

    Ibid., p. 3.

  126. 126.

    Polonskaya (2017), p. 16.

  127. 127.

    UNCITRAL, Report of Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the work of its 40th session (Vienna, 8–12 February 2021), 17 March 2021, https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/1050, p. 12.

  128. 128.

    UNCITRAL, Possible reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS)—Multilateral instrument on ISDS reform, 16 January 2020, https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.194, p. 4.

  129. 129.

    Bungenberg and Reinisch (2018), pp. 65–66.

  130. 130.

    Marc Bungenberg and August Reinisch, Draft Statute of the Multilateral Investment Court, November 2020, https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/bungenberg_reinisch_draft_statute_of_the_mic.pdf, pp. 16–17.

  131. 131.

    European Union, EU Text Proposal for the Modernisation of the Energy Charter Treaty, 27 May 2020, https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2020/may/tradoc_158754.pdf.

  132. 132.

    Energy Charter Secretariat, Decision on the Energy Charter Conference, Document CCDEC 2019 08 STR, 6 October 2019, p. 30, https://www.energycharter.org/fileadmin/DocumentsMedia/CCDECS/2019/CCDEC201908.pdf.

  133. 133.

    For instance, 2016 Indian Model BIT, Art. 12; 2018 Netherlands Model BIT, Art. 7; Belarus-India BIT, Art. 11(ii); Japan-Argentina BIT, Art. 17; Brazil-UAE BIT, Art. 15(1); Nigeria-Morocco BIT, Art. 18(2).

  134. 134.

    COMESA Investment Agreement, Art. 28(9) sets out that “a Member State against whom a claim is brought by a COMESA investor […] may assert as a defense, counter-claim, right of set off or other similar claim, that the COMESA investor bringing the claim has not fulfilled its obligations’”. See also SADC Model BIT, Arts. 19 and 29(19) and the Draft Pan-African Investment Code, Art. 43.

  135. 135.

    Poon and Popova (2015).

  136. 136.

    The first 10 publicly known counterclaims in ISDS proceedings, in which decisions have been rendered, were filed between 1977 and 2004. The remaining 27 have been filed in the years since.

  137. 137.

    Iberdrola Energía, S.A. v Republic of Guatemala (II), PCA Case No. 2017-41, Final Award (24 August 2020), paras. 391–392 (noting that according to the treaty wording, only the investor was entitled to file claims); Anglo American PLC v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/14/1 (18 January 2019), para. 528 (noting that the wording of the arbitration offer excluded the possibility of filing counterclaims)

  138. 138.

    Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH and others v United Republic of Cameroon and Société Camerounaise des Engrais, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/2, Decision of the Ad Hoc Committee (3 May 1985), para. 5 (with respect to counterclaims alleging contractual breaches); Amco Asia Corporation and others v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on Jurisdiction in Resubmitted Proceeding (10 May 1988), para. 126-127 (in relation to the obligation not to engage in tax fraud arising from Indonesian domestic law); Saluka Investments B.V. v The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Decision on Jurisdiction over the Czech Republic’s counterclaim (7 May 2004) (“Saluka v Czech Republic”), paras. 80–81 (with respect to claims based on violation of Czech law), further noting in para. 36 that the tribunal considered whether the counterclaims, “in their terms as pleaded, and consider whether there is at least a reasonable possibility that they could be determined, after subsequent proceedings on the merits, in the Respondent’s favour”; Sergei Paushok and others v Government of Mongolia, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability (28 April 2011) (“Paushok v Magnolia”), para. 694 (noting that counterclaims arising out of Mongolian public law and raising issues of non-compliance with Mongolian public law would fall within the scope of the exclusive jurisdiction of Mongolian courts); Teinver and others v Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1, Award (21 July 2017), para. 1066 (noting that the Respondent “did not identify any legal right or obligation on which it relied for its Counterclaim”).

  139. 139.

    AMTO LLC v Ukraine, SCC Case No. 080/2005, Final Award (26 March 2008) (“AMTO v Ukraine”), para. 118 (based on the lack of legal basis in the applicable law for a claim of nonmaterial injury to reputation).

  140. 140.

    Damien Charlotin, Looking Back: In Atlantic Triton V. Guinea, Arbitrators Ordered Claimant To Post A Bank Guarantee To Minimize Risk Of Double Recovery; Tribunal Saw Nothing Wrong With Claimant’s Attempt To Get Provisional Measures In French Court, https://www.iareporter.com/articles/looking-back-in-atlantic-triton-v-guinea-case-arbitrators-ordered-claimant-to-post-a-bank-guarantee-to-minimize-risk-of-double-recovery-from-arbitral-and-court-proceedings/, 7 August 2018; Paushok v Magnolia, para. 696 noting that the obligations allegedly breached strictly concerned another entity and not the investor; Hesham Talaat M Al-Warraq v Republic of Indonesia, UNCITRAL, Award (15 December 2014) (“Al-Warraq v Indonesia”), para. 669 (noting that the parties to the claim and the counterclaim must be the same and the respondent’s counterclaim concerned a non-party to the proceedings).

  141. 141.

    Alex Genin, Eastern Credit Limited, Inc. and A.S. Baltoil v The Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/2, Award (25 June 2001) (“Genin v Estonia”), paras. 377–378 (questioning whether the respondent was even the proper party to assert the counterclaim); Desert Line Projects LLC v Republic of Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/17, Award (6 February 2008), para. 224 (in relation to obligations upon the claimant that could no longer be considered to exist); Hamester GmbH & Co KG v Republic of Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24, Award (18 June 2010), para. 356 (on the basis that the losses, if any, would have been suffered by an entity that was not a party to the arbitration and not an organ of the State); Al-Warraq v Indonesia, para. 670 (“the counterclaim is based on frauds committed against Bank Century, and the losses were initially incurred by bank Century and only passed on to the State when a bailout of Bank Century was required. While the subrogation of the State to claims of Bank Century might be juridically possible, the legal basis of the Respondent’s rights to recover these losses has not been demonstrated to the Tribunal in this case”).

  142. 142.

    Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3, Award (20 May 1992), paras. 255–256.

  143. 143.

    Paushok v Magnolia, paras. 696-697; Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25, Decision on Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Liability (21 April 2015), para. 154.

  144. 144.

    For example in Trans-Global v Jordan, paras. 189–119, the tribunal accepted the ICSID Rule 41(5) objection since the essential legal basis for the claim was entirely missing. See also Sect. 2.1.6 above.

  145. 145.

    Mr. Patrick Mitchell v Democratic Republic of the Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/7, Award (9 February 2004), para. 100.

  146. 146.

    RSM Production Corporation v Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/14, Final Award, 13 March 2009, paras. 495–496.

  147. 147.

    Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1, Award (7 December 2011), paras. 881–882.

  148. 148.

    Saluka v Czech Republic, para. 89; Anglo American PLC v Venezuela, para. 557; David Aven and others v Republic of Costa Rica, Case No. UNCT/15/3, Award (18 September 2018), para. 760; Al-Warraq v Indonesia, para. 680.

  149. 149.

    The notion has also garnered support in relation to business and human rights arbitrations. See Lisa E. Sachs, Lise Johnson, Kaitlin Y. Cordes, Jesse Coleman & Brooke Güven, The Business and Human Rights Arbitration Rule Project: Falling Short of its Access to Justice Objectives, 2019, https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/sustainable_investment_staffpubs/152 (“[a] frivolous counterclaim by a defendant company, for example, might be designed to intimidate rights holder claimants”). See also European Commission, Report on the online public consultation on investment protection and investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP), 13 January 2015, p. 22 (“In order to counter the risk of a state systematically raising objections with the purpose of delaying the [arbitral] procedure, certain NGOs, business associations and law firms suggest that the [summary dismissal] procedure should deal also with ‘frivolous objections’”).

  150. 150.

    See Eli Lilly and Company v. The Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2, Final Award (16 March 2017), para. 455.

  151. 151.

    Metalpar S.A. and Buen Aire S.A. v Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/05, Award on the Merits (6 June 2008), para. 11.

  152. 152.

    See Goldsmith (2008), pp. 683–686 also cited in Yeo and Yen (2021), p. 80.

  153. 153.

    Howes et al. (2019), p. 10 (also noting that to date, Rule 41(5) arbitrations have lasted, on average, over a year less than all ICSID arbitrations).

  154. 154.

    Goldsmith (2008), p. 675. Other arbitral tribunals also share this view. See PNG v Papua New Guinea, para. 410 (“The Tribunal also agrees with the Respondent that its Rule 41(5) Application has significantly expedited and focused the discussion on the issues of jurisdiction”). The tribunal in Emmis v. Hungary also pointed to the “narrowing of the issues that has been achieved as a result of the discussions and exchanges of pleadings between the Parties” in relation to ICSID Rule 41(5) objections. Emmis v Hungary, para. 63. The tribunal in MOL v Hungary, para. 53 also indicated to the claimant in the course of ICSID Rule 41(5) proceedings that if it were to mount certain arguments in subsequent submissions, they would not be entertained.

  155. 155.

    Matthew Hodgson, Counting the Costs of Investment Treaty Arbitration, 24 March 2014, https://globalarbitrationreview.com/counting-the-costs-of-investment-treaty-arbitration.

  156. 156.

    See 2017 SCC Rules, Art. 39(2)(ii).

  157. 157.

    See ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 41(5).

  158. 158.

    CIETAC IIA Rules, Art. 26.1.

  159. 159.

    SIAC IA Rules, Art. 26.1.

  160. 160.

    HKIAC Rules, Art. 43.1.

  161. 161.

    Chen (2015), p. 75. See also Polonskaya (2017), p. 17.

  162. 162.

    Bjorklund (2013), p. 465.

  163. 163.

    Damien Charlotin, Ad-Hoc Committee’s Reasoning Surfaces, Thus Illuminating Venoklim’s Failure to Annul Award in the Venezuela Case, 8 February 2018, https://www.iareporter.com/articles/analysis-ad-hoc-committees-reasoning-surfaces-thus-illuminating-venoklims-failure-to-annul-award-in-venezuela-case/.

  164. 164.

    Tomuschat (2006), p. 650. See also van Dijk et al. (2006), p. 198.

  165. 165.

    For an overview, see Vishesh Sharma and Vishakha Choudhary, Do New-Age International Investment Agreements Introduce a Method to the Madness of State Counterclaims in Investment Arbitration?, 30 April 2019, https://efilablog.org/2019/04/30/do-new-age-international-investment-agreements-introduce-a-method-to-the-madness-of-state-counterclaims-in-investment-arbitration/.

  166. 166.

    PNG v Papua New Guinea, paras 94–97; MOL v Hungary, para. 53; Brandes v Venezuela, paras. 71–72; Lion v Mexico, paras. 81–83; Eskosol S.p.A. in liquidazione v Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50, Decision on Respondent’s Application Under Rule 41(5) (20 March 2017) (“Eskosol v Italy”), paras. 41 and 98.

  167. 167.

    PNG v Papua New Guinea, para. 95; See also Almasryia for Operating & Maintaining Touristic Construction Co. L.L.C. v State of Kuwait, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/2, Dissenting Opinion on the Respondent’s Application under Rule 41(5) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules (1 November 2019), para. 79 et seq.

  168. 168.

    MOL v Hungary, para. 48.

  169. 169.

    The Renco Group, Inc. v. Republic of Peru [II], PCA Case No. 2019-46, Decision on Expedited Preliminary Objections (30 June 2020), para. 151; Brandes v Venezuela, para. 75.

  170. 170.

    Eskosol v Italy, para. 120.

  171. 171.

    See for example Kappes v Guatemala, para. 231 resolving the “novel issue” of whether a treaty provision was available for “indirect loss” claims through summary dismissal procedures. Interestingly, the majority’s decision in respect of this complex matter led to a partial dissent. See Kappes v Guatemala, Partial Dissenting Opinion of Zachary Douglas.

  172. 172.

    See Sect. 2.3.1 above.

References

  • Antonietti A (2006) The 2006 amendments to the ICSID Rules and regulations and the additional facility rules. ICSID Rev 21:427–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjorklund AK (2013) The role of counterclaims in rebalancing investment law. Lewis Clark Law Rev 17(2):461–480

    Google Scholar 

  • Boog C, Wimalasena P (2017) The SIAC IA Rules: a new player in the investment arbitration market. Indian J Arbitr Law 6:73–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Brabandere E (2012) The ICSID rule on early dismissal of unmeritorious investment treaty claims: preserving the integrity of ICSID arbitration. Manchester J Int Econ Law 9(1):23–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M, Reinisch A (2018) From bilateral arbitral tribunals and investment courts to a multilateral investment court: options regarding the institutionalization of Investor-State Dispute Settlement. Springer:65–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen TF (2015) Deterring frivolous challenges in investor-state dispute settlement. Contemp Asia Arbitr J 8(1):61–80

    Google Scholar 

  • de Chazournes LB (2020) The proliferation of courts and tribunals: navigating multiple proceedings. In: Mistelis L, Lavranos N (eds) European investment law and arbitration review. Brill, Leiden, pp 447–470

    Google Scholar 

  • Diop A (2010) Objection under Rule 41(5) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 25(2):312–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duong DTB (2021) The evolution of summary procedure in investment arbitration: past, present and future. Arbitr Int 37:35–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith A (2008) Trans-global petroleum: ‘Rare Bird’ or significant step in the development of early merits-based claim-vetting? ASA Bull 26(4):667–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howes BT, Stowell A, Choi W (2019) The impact of summary disposition on international arbitration: a quantitative analysis of ICSID’s Rule 41(5) on its tenth anniversary. Disput Resolut Int 13:7–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski M (2020) A nightmare or a noble dream? Establishing investor obligations through treaty-making and treaty-application. Bus Hum Rights J 5(1):105–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnarelli M (2020) Privity of contract in international investment arbitration: original sin or useful tool? Kluwer Law International

    Google Scholar 

  • Menaker A (2005) Benefiting from experience: developments in the United States’ most recent investment agreements. UC Davis J Int Law Policy 21(1):121–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Paradell L, Newcombe A (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer Law and Business, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Parra A (2007) The development of the regulations and the rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. ICSID Rev 22(1):55–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parra AR (2015) Chapter 42: ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5) Objections. MOL v. Croatia. In: Kinnear M, Fischer GR, Almeida JM, Torres LF, Bidegain MU (eds) Building international investment law, the first 50 years of ICSID. Kluwer Law International

    Google Scholar 

  • Polonskaya K (2017) Frivolous claims in the international investment regime: how CETA expands the range of frivolous claims that may be curtailed in an expedient fashion. Asper Rev Int Trade Bus Law 17(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Poon F, Popova IC (2015) From perpetual respondent to aspiring counterclaimant? State counterclaims in the new wave of investment treaties. BCDR Int Arbitr Rev 2(2):223–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Potestà M (2017) Preliminary objections to dismiss claims that are manifestly without legal merit under Rule 41(5) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules. In: Baltag C (ed) ICSID Convention after 50 years: unsettled issues. Kluwer Law International

    Google Scholar 

  • Potestà M, Sobat M (2012) Frivolous claims in international adjudication: a study of ICSID Rule 41(5) and of procedures of other courts and tribunals to dismiss claims summarily. J Int Disput Settlement 3(1):137–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puig S, Brown C (2011) The power of ICSID Tribunals to dismiss proceedings summarily: an analysis of Rule 41(5) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 10(2):227–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puig S, Brown C (2012) The Secretary General’s power to refuse to register a request for arbitration under the ICSID Convention. ICSID Rev 27(1):172–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radi Y (2020) Rules and practices of international investment law and arbitration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reisman WM (2009) International investment arbitration and ADR: married but best living apart. ICSID Rev 24(1):185–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rovine A (2016) Contemporary issues in international arbitration and mediation: the Fordham Papers 2015. Brill, Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampliner GH (2013) Arbitration innovations in recent US treaties. In: Moore JN (ed) International arbitration: contemporary issues and innovations. Martinus Nijhoff, pp 147–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer CH, Malintoppi L, Reinisch A, Sinclair A (2009) The ICSID Convention: a commentary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C (2006) Article 36. In: Zimmermann A, Tomuschat C, Oellers-Frahm K (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice: a commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk P, van Hoof F, van Rijn A, Zwaak L (eds) (2006) Theory and practice of the European Convention on Human Rights. Intersentia

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Harten G (2014) Why arbitrators not judges? Comments on the European Commission’s approach to investor-state arbitration in TTIP and CETA. SSRN

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandevelde KJ (2010) Bilateral investment treaties: history, policy, and interpretation. Thomas Jefferson School of Law Research Paper No. 3022249

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeo A, Yen KS (2021) Objections of manifest lack of legal merit of claims: ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5). In: Legum B (ed) 2021 Investment treaty arbitration review. Law Business Research Limited, London, pp 79–95

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. World Trade Organization, Legal Affairs Division, WTO Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland

    Vishakha Choudhary

Authors
  1. Vishakha Choudhary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vishakha Choudhary .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jelena Bäumler

  2. Bundeswehr University Munich, Neubiberg, Germany

    Christina Binder

  3. Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Marc Bungenberg

  4. University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

  5. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Giesela Rühl

  6. University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Christian J. Tams

  7. Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte

  8. Université de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Andreas R. Ziegler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Choudhary, V. (2022). Preventing Frivolous Counterclaims in Investor-State Arbitration: Need for Summary Dismissal Procedures. In: Bäumler, J., et al. European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2021. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2022_83

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation