We are pleased to introduce the second part of our trilogy of brief commentaries on Investment Treaty Protection & Covid-19 driven State Intervention. In Part I, we saw that states have taken invasive measures in response to the Covid-19 pandemic; some of these give rise to significant claims. While investment treaties are individually negotiated and drafted, they typically include a number of key protections for investors. Provided that foreign individuals or companies meet the definition…
States around the world have adopted measures in reaction to the unprecedented nature and scale of the COVID-19…
Overview In recent years, South Africa has reviewed its BITs on the basis that it believed that the…
Overview Should a foreign investor have its assets expropriated (whether directly, or through creeping expropriation or regulatory encroachment), a qualifying investor would have claims for unlawful expropriation and breach of the FET standard under any applicable investment treaties. A map of those treaties to which Argentina is a party can be seen HERE. The main advantage of being able to pursue such an investment treaty claim would be to avoid having to sue the Argentinian…
For several years there has been turmoil within the EU around the potential termination of bilateral investment treaties…
The case concerns a damage claim between a Luxembourg company and the Republic of Poland. The arbitral tribunal…
In The Republic of Korea v Mohammed Reza Dayyani and others [2019] EWHC 3580 (Comm), the English High Court rejected an application by the Republic of Korea (“Korea”) to set aside an investment arbitration award pursuant to s67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, finding that a London-seated ad hoc tribunal had substantive jurisdiction to hear disputes between Korea and a group of Iranian investors (the “Dayyanis”) arising under a bilateral investment treaty between Korea and…
Overview Should a foreign investor have its assets expropriated (whether directly, or through creeping expropriation or regulatory encroachment),…
Investment in renewable energies is a vital part of the global strategy to address climate change. Many States…
The Federal Court of Australia (FCA) has enforced two ICSID awards against the Kingdom of Spain (Spain) in Eiser Infrastructure Ltd v Kingdom of Spain.[1] The FCA rejected Spain’s argument that it was immune from the jurisdiction of the Australian courts (asserted pursuant to sections 9 and 10(7) of the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) (Immunities Act)). The investors (Investors) involved in two ICSID arbitrations applied under s35(4) of the International Arbitration Act 1974…