Comments on: International Investment Arbitration: Poisoned at the Root? http://www.ejiltalk.org/international-investment-arbitration-poisoned-at-the-root/ Blog of the European Journal of International Law Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:55:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Franz Kundmüller http://www.ejiltalk.org/international-investment-arbitration-poisoned-at-the-root/comment-page-1/#comment-301 Franz Kundmüller Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:41:01 +0000 http://www.ejiltalk.org/?p=1225#comment-301 Very interesting post, but in relation with the interpretation of MFN clauses in the Maffezini case, I am shure that it is not a rule, but the exception to the rule. In fact, por example, the MFN clause in chapter X of the new FTA USA - Peru, includes a footnote that expressly excludes the interpretation of MFN to procedural (arbitral) issues, concentrating the effects of MFN to substantive issues. This means that jurisprudence in investment treaty arbitration should be analyzed with more detail. On the one side, it´s possible to identify contradictions (see the excellent papers of Prof. Susan Franck) among awards concerning similar cases, but on the other side, the same jurisprudence is useful for the incorporation of reforms during the negotiation and approval of "last generation" investment chapters in FTA´s or BITs. In fact this has been the case in the abovementined FTA. Kind regards Franz Kundmüller Prof. of Investment and State Arbitration Lima - Peru Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas Universidad de Piura Universidad San Pablo Very interesting post, but in relation with the interpretation of MFN clauses in the Maffezini case, I am shure that it is not a rule, but the exception to the rule.

In fact, por example, the MFN clause in chapter X of the new FTA USA – Peru, includes a footnote that expressly excludes the interpretation of MFN to procedural (arbitral) issues, concentrating the effects of MFN to substantive issues.

This means that jurisprudence in investment treaty arbitration should be analyzed with more detail.

On the one side, it´s possible to identify contradictions (see the excellent papers of Prof. Susan Franck) among awards concerning similar cases, but on the other side, the same jurisprudence is useful for the incorporation of reforms during the negotiation and approval of “last generation” investment chapters in FTA´s or BITs. In fact this has been the case in the abovementined FTA.

Kind regards

Franz Kundmüller
Prof. of Investment and State Arbitration
Lima – Peru
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas
Universidad de Piura
Universidad San Pablo

]]>