Bilateral Investment Treaties

Page 18 of 18

Oil exploration around the Falklands (Malvinas)

August 13, 2012

Michael Waibel

In June, I looked at the longstanding sovereignty dispute over the Falklands Islands (Malvinas) on the occasion of the 30-year anniversary of the 1982 war. I revisit this topic today to examine the question of investor protection in areas where sovereignty is disputed, taking the Falklands (Malvinas) as an example. The promise of an oil boom in the South Atlantic has prompted several companies listed in London, including Falkland Oil and Gas, Borders and Southern Petroleum, Rockhopper, Desire Petroleum and Argos Resources, to survey the area. They obtained exploration licenses from the Falklands administration in 2011, which drew strong criticism from Argentina. Shareholders in these inherently risky ventures may wonder whether they have any legal protections should the sovereignty dispute intensify. The sovereignty dispute adds an additional layer of uncertainty for the companies engaged in exploratory drilling and their shareholders, aside from the uncertainty on how much oil, if any, will ultimately be discovered. The listing prospectuses of the companies concerned all mention the pending sovereignty dispute as a risk factor, but likely underplayed its importance. For example, the…

Necessity in Investor-State Arbitration: The Sempra Annulment decision

August 16, 2010

Sahib Singh

Sahib Singh is a member of the international litigation and arbitration group at Skadden and a visiting lecturer at the University of Vienna. This note was prepared before the Enron v. Argentina annulment decision became available at the beginning of August. A note on that case is forthcoming on EJIL: Talk! On 29 June 2010,…

The International Minimum Standard and Investment Law: The Proof is in the Pudding

August 3, 2009

Tolga Yalkin

A Background Fair and equitable treatment provisions are found in almost all bilateral and multilateral investment treaties and many international investment agreements. Throughout the course of the last decade, this treatment standard has been frequently invoked in investor-State arbitrations. Under its aegis, tribunals have developed a number of vaguely defined sub-categories, or what have been referred…

Fools Gold? Legitimate Expectations as Understood in Glamis Gold v USA

July 29, 2009

Tolga Yalkin

The recent decision of Glamis Gold v USA constitutes a leap forward in the articulation of norms of international investment law. Paragraphs 1 through 9 contain an admirable description of the role of ad-hoc international investment tribunals in the determination of claims, a description that is articulate, precise, accurate and well measured. Such a development is to…

International Investment Arbitration: Poisoned at the Root?

June 24, 2009

Tolga Yalkin

Tolga R Yalkin is a graduate student in the Faculty of Law, University of Oxford and President of Oxford Pro Bono Publico, a public interest law program of the Oxford Law Faculty. His Oxford thesis considers the international minimum standard of treatment in international investment law. Earlier…

First
Page 18 of 18

Popular in Bilateral Investment Treaties

Ecuador v. United States Inter-State Arbitration under a BIT: How to Interpret the Word “Interpretation”?

August 31, 2012

Dapo Akande

There is an inter-State arbitration pending between Ecuador and the United States under the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) between those two countries (Treaty between United States of America and the Republic of Ecuador Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment, 27 August 1993). The Ecuador v. US case , which was initiated in June 2011, is, as far as…

Nottebohm Under Attack (Again): Is it Time for Reconciliation?

December 10, 2021

Javier García Olmedo

Introduction The Nottebohm judgment has recently come under attack in the context of the European Commission’s position on investment by citizenship (CBI) schemes, also known as “golden passport” programmes. These schemes allow individuals to obtain a second citizenship in a host country in exchange for financial investments or even just a flat fee. On 20…

Achmea: The principle of autonomy and its implications for intra and extra-EU BITs

March 27, 2018

Angelos Dimopoulos

On 6 March 2018, the CJEU issued its judgment in Case C-284/16 Achmea, where it opined that intra-EU BITs and in particular their ISDS provisions are incompatible with the principle of autonomy of EU law. In a rather brief judgment, the Court found the ISDS provision under the Netherlands-Slovakia BIT has an adverse effect on the autonomy…

Urbaser v Argentina: The Origins of a Host State Human Rights Counterclaim in ICSID Arbitration?

February 10, 2017

Edward Guntrip

Investment tribunals rarely examine host state arguments based on international human rights law in great depth. The ICSID award Urbaser v Argentina is the first to provide a detailed discussion of a host state’s human rights counterclaim. Hence, this decision presents an opportunity to more fully understand the role of human rights in investment arbitration. As the…