The Government of India has proposed a Joint Interpretative Statement to its bilateral investment treaty (BIT) partners. The statement clarifies key substantive and procedural provisions, bringing them more in line with India’s new foreign investment policy.
Special and Differential Treatment (S&D), originally forged in the trade regime, has evolved in trade negotiations and gained momentum in investment agreements, to provide greater flexibility for developing countries based on their needs and capabilities.
(English) Trump election affects mega-regional negotiations including TTIP, TPP and RCEP
Brazil and India initial Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT); text yet to be published
CETA signed; Canada and European Union to “work expeditiously” on creating a Multilateral Investment Court
(English) Venezuela to Pay Us$1 Billion For Expropriating Canadian Mining Company’s Investment
ICSID Tribunal dismisses MFN Clause in WTO GATS as a means of importing Senegal’s consent to arbitration from third party BIT
PCA tribunal deemed acts of Polish Agricultural Property Agency not attributable to Poland
Claimant not considered Investor due to interpretation of “Seat” under Cyprus–Montenegro BIT
Ecuador’s Levy on extraordinary oil profits at a 99% rate has breached Murphy’s legitimate expectations, decides PCA tribunal
Ecuador ordered by PCA tribunal to pay $24 million to Canadian Mining Company
CEAC Holdings Limited v Montenegro, Caso del CIADI No. ARB(AF)/14/8
Murphy Exploration & Production Company – International vs. La República de Ecuador, Caso de la CPA No. 2012-16 (anteriormente AA 434)
Foreign direct investment became part of the sphere of exclusive competence of the European Union in 2009. Since then, the European Commission has been negotiating investment treaties with a number of countries—as well as authorized several individual EU member states to negotiate BITs.
States’ regulatory powers are the rule, and investors’ rights under international investment law are the exception. Or is it the other way around? Book review of Public Purpose in International Law.
(English) The 14th round of Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations was held in Brussels from July 11 to 15, 2016.
(English) Despite the uncertainties in TTIP negotiations, EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström said they would survive Brexit, and is pushing to conclude negotiations before U.S. President Barack Obama leaves office in early 2017.
(English) On July 8, 2016, Sajid Javid, former Business Secretary for the United Kingdom, launched preliminary talks with India on a future trade relationship between the two countries as soon as Britain formally leaves the European Union.
(English) On July 5, 2016, the European Commission proposed to the Council that the Canada–European Union CETA—agreed to in 2014 and re-concluded in February 2016—be signed as a “mixed agreement,” requiring signature and ratification by each of the EU member states.
La 13ra ronda de negociaciones del Acuerdo de Asociación Económica Integral Regional (RCEP, por sus siglas en inglés) fue celebrada en Auckland, Nueva Zelanda, del 12 al 18 de junio de 2016. El International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) informó que todos los países del RCEP han presentado sus ofertas iniciales para el […]
India ha comenzado a enviar notificaciones formales para cancelar los tratados bilaterales de inversión (TBIs) con 57 países socios que ya han expirado y otros que vencerán en un futuro cercano. Además de los 25 países con los cuales India posee TBIs cuya duración inicial expirará a partir de julio de 2017, India comenzó a […]
(English) The long-expected final award has been rendered in the high-profile case initiated by tobacco giant Philip Morris in early 2010 against Uruguay over its tobacco control measures.
Philip Morris Asia Limited v. The Commonwealth of Australia, PCA Case No. 2012-12
Transglobal Green Energy, LLC y Transglobal Green Panama, S.A. vs. República de Panamá (Caso del CIADI No. ARB/13/28)
Crystallex International Corporation vs. la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, Caso del CIADI No. ARB(AF)/11/2
İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi vs. Turkmenistán, Caso del CIADI No. ARB/10/24
¿Sabían que la red de tratados del Reino Unido es dos veces más consistente que la de Egipto o Pakistán? ¿Han notado que Israel copió los tratados británicos para formular su propio programa de TBI o que el 81 por ciento del contenido del capítulo de inversión de la Asociación Trans-Pacifica (TPP, por sus siglas en inglés) es el mismo que el del tratado de libre comercio (TLC) entre Estados Unidos y Colombia, celebrado diez años antes, en 2006? Estas son solo algunas de las sorpresas que descubrimos en el universo de AII como parte del proyecto mappinginvestmenttreaties.com.
El Observatorio es una iniciativa intergubernamental para proporcionar información e intercambio de conocimientos y experiencias sobre arbitraje de inversiones. También tiene como objetivo crear condiciones iguales entre los inversores y los estados para promover una inversión sostenible que respete la soberanía estatal.
La popularidad de los TBI en grandes partes del mundo en desarrollo es dado a una falta de apreciación de su peligro. ¿Por qué tantos gobiernos suscribieran a algunos de los instrumentos más potentes del derecho económico internacional sin saber qué significan los tratados?
Desde 2008, China y los Estados Unidos han participado de 24 rondas de negociación para celebrar un tratado bilateral de inversión (TBI).
El 19 de febrero de 2016, Cosigo Resources (Canadá) y Tobie Mining and Energy (Estados Unidos) presentaron solicitud de arbitraje contra Colombia bajo los tratados de libre comercio (TLCs) suscritos por Colombia con Estados Unidos y Canadá.
El 24 de marzo, el Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias relativas a Inversiones (CIADI) registró una solicitud de arbitraje (Caso No. ARB/16/9) por parte de la empresa de telecomunicaciones estadounidense Italba contra Uruguay
Tenaris S.A. y Talta-Trading e Marketing Sociedade Unipessoal LDA vs. la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, Caso del CIADI No. ARB/11/26
Grupo Francisco Hernando Contreras, S.L. vs. la República de Guinea Ecuatorial, Caso del CIADI No. ARB(AF)/12/2
Bernhard von Pezold y otros vs. Zimbabue, Caso del CIADI No ARB/10/15
Argentina y Ecuador ahora tienen mucha experiencia en la solución de disputas entre inversionistas y estados y han tenido éxito en la defensa de los intereses nacionales contra las reclamaciones de los inversores. Las lecciones de estas experiencias podrían beneficiar a otros países, particularmente a los países en desarrollo, en el desarrollo de sus estrategias de defensa legal.
Tres informes elaborados por CAITISA, la comisión de autoría ciudadana de Ecuador sobre los tratados bilaterales de inversión (TBIs), se filtraron en el periódico online Diagonal el 24 de enero de 2016.
Bolivia promulga la Ley N ° 708, o la Ley de Conciliación y Arbitraje (LCyA). LCyA se promulgó (i) para preservar el interés público y la libertad de las partes, (ii) para proporcionar seguridad jurídica (previsibilidad) tanto al estado como al inversor (iii) en un marco de igualdad y equidad para ambos.
Ping An Life Insurance Company of China, Limited and Ping An Insurance (Group) Company of China, Limited v. Kingdom of Belgium, Caso del CIADI No. ARB/12/29
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A., y InterAguas Servicios Integrales del Agua S.A. v. República Argentina, Caso del CIADI No. ARB/03/17; y AWG Group Ltd. v. República Argentina, CNUDMI
En este libro se examina el derecho de los acuerdos internacionales de inversión, específicamente en relación con sus orígenes, estructura, contenido y efecto así como su impacto en los inversores y la inversión internacional, y en los gobiernos que son parte de los mismos.
Desde la firma del primer Acuerdo de Cooperación y Facilitación de Inversiones (ACFI) por parte de Brasil, en marzo de 2015, se han publicado traducciones al inglés del documento y análisis de sus aspectos innovadores. La pregunta es: ¿hasta qué punto las ACFI de Brasil innovan en la regulación de las inversiones extranjeras?
El 1 de junio de 2015, China y Corea del Sur firmaron un tratado de libre comercio (TLC), después de tres años de negociación. El Capítulo 12 (Inversión) del TLC actualiza el TBI firmado entre China y Corea en 2007, con disposiciones clave que incluyen trato nacional pre- y post-establecimiento, nivel mínimo de trato, denegación de beneficios y solución de controversias.
Poštová Banka, a.s. e Istrokapital SE v. República Helénica, Caso CIADI No. ARB/13/8
Investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS), a concept much unknown to the broader public and even top policy-makers only a year ago, is making headlines, especially as the European Union and the United States contemplate including the mechanism in the deal they are currently negotiating, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Public awareness is growing of […]
Brasil y Mozambique firmaron el 30 de marzo de 2015 el primer Acuerdo de Cooperación y Facilitación de Inversiones (ACFI) basado en el nuevo modelo de tratado bilateral de inversión (TBI) de Brasil. El segundo se firmó el 1 de abril de 2015 entre Brasil y Angola. A diferencia de los TBI tradicionales, que están orientados a la protección de los inversores, los ACFI se centran principalmente en la cooperación y la facilitación de inversiones. Promueven formas amigables de resolver disputas y proponen la solución de disputas entre estados como respaldo; en particular, no incluyen disposiciones sobre arbitraje inversor-estado.
For policymakers charged with investment portfolios, the challenge is not simply about attracting greater flows of foreign direct investment (FDI). At least as important is trying to maximize the domestic economic and social benefits that result from those investments. This can be achieved with tax policies or targeted recruitment of specific investments with promising potential […]
The Sixth Annual Forum of Developing Country Investment Negotiators was held on October 29-31, 2012, in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. The forum encourages participants to develop their own critical perspectives on issues which are germane to the negotiation of international investment treaties.
In November 2012 the Commonwealth Secretariat completed a practical guide, titled “Integrating Sustainable Development into International Investment Agreements: A Guide for Developing Countries,” to help enable developing countries to design international investment agreements that support their development needs.
Just as Peru has joined the global trend of concluding investment protection agreements, the country has also been no stranger to the considerable increase in international investment disputes observed in recent years. To address this growth in international investment arbitration in line with its investment attraction policy, Peru has created a system for efficiently and effectively resolving potential disputes.
Bilateral investment treaties used to be boilerplate: taken out of a drawer before official visits; signed with pomp and circumstance but not much attention to precise wording. Today, the diversity and ramifications of investment-related treaties are staggering.
Bilateral investment treaties are famously asymmetric. They grant investors rights but not obligations, while imposing upon states obligations unaccompanied by rights. Recent cases suggest, however, that BIT tribunals are poised to recognize a defense to state liability that, in effect, imposes upon investors the obligation to avoid involvement in public corruption in the course of making a treaty-protected investment. Despite these suggestive jurisprudential trends, however, the specific contours of the emerging corruption defense are uncertain.
National investment codes[1] may function as potential sources of international investment law. In other words, states may make unilateral undertakings within the framework of national investment legislations and, as a result, be considered as having “created international obligation[s]”.[2] The addressees of national investment legislations are foreign investors as well as the state that is itself […]
As members of the Eurozone are now acutely aware, the lack of a sovereign debt restructuring regime is one of the most glaring gaps in the international financial architecture. That said, this summer’s decision by a tribunal of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), which grants a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) jurisdiction […]
It is an established fact that many transnational companies choose the jurisdiction of the Netherlands as a base for their global trade and investment operations, at least partly because of the country’s favourable tax regime that facilitates corporate tax avoidance strategies.[1] A new report by the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) entitled “Dutch […]
The Republican victories in U.S. congressional elections on 2 November 2010 are widely assumed to have increased the odds that the Obama administration will proceed with new bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and free trade agreements (FTAs) containing investment chapters. But this assumption bear closer examination. The post-election situation is complex.
The 2010 World Investment Forum (WIF), held on 6-9 September 2010, in Xiamen, China, turned UNCTAD into the global gravity center for open, universal, inclusive and high-level international investment discourse and policy formation. Eight events and conferences were attended by more than 1,800 participants from 120 countries and 16 international organisations, among them nine heads of State, four heads of international organisations, 79 ministerial-level officials, and 116 senior business executives.