nach oben

Erschienen in:

2024 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

6. The Elephant in the Room? Russia and the ISDS Reform

verfasst von : Dmitry K. Labin, Alena V. Soloveva

Erschienen in: International Investment Law at the Juncture

Verlag: Springer Nature Singapore

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Excerpt

The calls for reforming the investment treaty regime are neither novel nor entirely unexpected. The need for that reform has recently reached its pitiful nadir where the UNCITRAL¹ Working Group III gathered for its first meeting in Vienna back in November–December 2017 to discuss states' concerns about investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). These discussions constitute one of the most remarkable occurrences in the field of investment treaty arbitration. Of still greater significance are concerns advanced by the delegates about consistency, predictability and correctness, costs and transparency, facts and perceptions, appointment of arbitrators, etc. …

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Legitimacy Crisis and the ISDS Reform in a Political Economy Context

Nächstes Kapitel Two Bites at the Same Apple?: ‘Derivative’ ISDS Proceedings in the Revised Korea-US FTA

United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.

See, e.g., Arato (2018); Roberts (2018a); Roberts and Bouraoui (2018a, b, c, d); Grill (2017).

Audio Recordings, UNCITRAL, available at https://uncitral.un.org/en/audio.

Bianchi (2013).

Saravanan and Subramanian (2018).

Dolzer and Schreuer (2008).

UNCITRAL, Rep. of Working Group III (ISDS) on the work of its thirty-fourth session, pt. I, 12, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/930/Rev.1 (Dec. 19, 2017).

Supra note 7, at 13.

Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator, UNCTAD, available at https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement.

United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration and Arbitration Rules (as revised in 2010, with new Article 1, paragraph 4, as adopted in 2013), Article 34(5) (Dec. 16, 2013), U.N. Doc. G.A. Res. 68/109.

Cesare Galdabini SpA v. The Russian Federation, Award (May 1, 2011), available at https://www.italaw.com/cases/236.

Luxtona Limited v. The Russian Federation, available at https://www.italaw.com/cases/6625.

Oschadbank v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case Repository No. 2016-14, available at https://www.italaw.com/cases/7491.

Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case Repository No. 2005-04/AA227, available at https://www.italaw.com/cases/1175.

PJSC CB PrivatBank and Finance Company Finilon LLC v. Russian Federation, PCA Case Repository No. 2015-21, available at https://www.italaw.com/cases/3970.

S. Paushok, CJSC Golden East Company and CJSC Vostokneftegaz Company v. The Government of Mongolia, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, (Apr. 28, 2011), available at https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0622.pdf.

Oleg Deripaska v. The Republic of Montenegro, PCA Case Repository No. 2017-07, available at https://www.italaw.com/cases/4785.

See, e.g., Min. of Land and Property of the Republic of Tatarstan v. Ukraine (2016), available at https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/cases/763/tatarstan-v-ukraine; Roscosmos State Corporation for Space Activities, RKTs Progress, KBOM and TsENKI v. French Republic, Case No. 16/01314, available at https://www.italaw.com/cases/4422; Ms. Olga Ovchinnikova v. Kingdom of Sweden (2016), available at https://www.italaw.com/cases/4365.

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes.

Emergofin B.V. and Velbay Holdings Ltd. v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/35, available at https://www.italaw.com/cases/4430. In this case, two subsidiaries of the Russian aluminium producer Rusal, Emergofin BV and Velbay Holdings, incorporated in the Netherlands and Cyprus respectively, filed a request for ICSID arbitration against Ukraine under Article 9 of the Netherlands-Ukraine BIT.

So far, five States have ratified the Convention including Cameroon, Canada, Gambia, Mauritius, and Switzerland.

Regulation on Entering into International Treaties on the Encouragement and Mutual Protection of Investments (No. 992 Regulation of The Russian Federation, Sept. 30, 2016).

See generally Buys (2003).

For a more substantial analysis, see Kochevar (2013).

De Brabandere (2011).

Saravanan and Subramanian (2016).

Vierucci (2008).

Bartholomeusz (2005).

Id.

Levine (2011).

Krislov (1963).

Supra note 31, at 208.

Aguas del Tunari, S.A. v. Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3, Decision on Respondent’s Objections to Jurisdiction (Oct. 21, 2005), available at https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw10957_0.pdf.

Supra note 31, at 208.

Id. at 200.

Id. See also Choudhury (2008); Newcombe and Lemaire (2001).

Lamb et al. (2017).

Supra note 25, at 112.

See Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Order in response to a Petition for Participation as Amicus Curiae, 13 (May 19, 2005).

Supra note 25, at 106.

Id. at 110.

Id. at 106.

Id. at 111.

Id.

Eli Lilly and Company v. The Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2, Procedural Order No. 4 (Feb. 23, 2016).

Eli Lilly and Company v. The Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2, Respondent’s Observations on Non-Disputing Party Applications (Feb. 19, 2016).

Supra note 38, at 82–3.

Supra note 40. See also Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award (July 24, 2008).

Supra note 25, at 102.

Bjorklund (2009).

Esty (2006). (identifying amicus briefs at the WTO as “a new avenue for participation”).

Id. See also Stewart and Badin (2011). (“The Appellate Body’s embrace of amicus briefs reflects the adoption of global administrative law to boost organizational legitimacy...”).

See, e.g., Dispute Settlement Body Special Session, Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen & Matsu—DOHA Mandated Review of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), WTO Doc. TN/DS/W/25, at 2 (Nov. 27, 2002). (“To allow unsolicited amicus curiae submissions... would create a situation where those Members with the least social resources could be put at a disadvantage.”); Dispute Settlement Body Special Session, Cuba, Honduras, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tanzania & Zimbabwe—Negotiations on the Dispute Settlement Understanding, WTO Doc. TN/DS/W/18, at 4 (Oct. 7, 2002) (“If . . . nongovernmental entities were allowed to influence the process and outcome of disputes, it would severely erode the Member governments’ authority and ability to participate effectively in the dispute settlement process.”); Statement by Uruguay at the General Council, Decision by the Appellate Body Concerning Amicus Curiae Briefs, WTO Doc. WT/GC/38 at 3 (Dec. 4, 2000). (arguing that acceptance of amicus briefs inappropriately altered the dispute settlement mechanism and limited the rights of parties to a dispute).

This controversial correlation is known as the “legal origins thesis.” See, e.g., Curran (2009). (“The legal origins thesis … contrasts countries with common and civil law origins, correlating common law origins with … greater economic well-being.”).

Supra note 51, at 1293.

Supra note 38, at 85.

Id.

Methanex Corp. v. U.S.A., Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions from Third Persons to Intervene as “Amici Curiae” (Jan. 15, 2001), available at https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0517_0.pdf. (The NGOs eventually submitted amicus briefs on the basis of the NAFTA FTC Statement—Final Award of the Tribunal on Jurisdiction and Merits, 3 August 2005, pp. 26–30, pt. II, ch. C).

Pac Rim Cayman LLC v. The Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12, Award (Oct. 14, 2016).

Supra note 38, at 85.

Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd., supra note 50.

Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Award (July 8, 2016).

Id. at pp. 389–410.

Supra note 38, at 87.

Id. at 86.

Id.

See, e.g., Electrabel S.A. v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Award (Nov. 25, 2015); Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, S.C. European Food S.A, S.C. Starmill S.R.L. and S.C. Multipack S.R.L. v. Romania [I], ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Final Award (Dec. 11, 2013).

Supra note 38, at 91.

Shelton (1994).

Id.

Rogers (2006).

Hope (2016).

Supra note 38, at 91.

For details, see 2018 International Arbitration Survey: The Evolution of International Arbitration conducted by the School of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) in partnership with White & Case LLP; White & Case, 2018 International Arbitration Survey: The Evolution of International Arbitration (May 9, 2018), http://www.arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/media/arbitration/docs/2018-International-Arbitration-Survey-report.pdf.

Schill (2001).

Id.

Weiler (2001).

Supra note 76, at 888.

Legum (2005). See also Bjorklund (2007).

Mistelis (2005).

UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules Article 32(5), U.N. G.A. Res. A/65/465 (Dec. 6, 2010).

Supra note 31, at 204.

Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States Article 48(5), Oct. 14, 1966, 575 U.N.T.S. 159 (hereinafter the “ICSID Convention”).

Supra note 31, at 204.

Supra note 76, at 889.

Id.

Tribunals presided over by public international lawyers, e.g., appear to make reference more frequently to decisions by the ICJ or the PCIJ than tribunals presided over by commercial arbitrators. See supra note 76, at 889.

Wälde (2009).

Schill (2010).

For details, see Labin and Soloveva (2018).

Recording: UN Comm’n. on Int’l Trade Law, 34th Sess. (Nov. 27–Dec. 1, 2017), available at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/audio/meetings.jsp.

Roberts (2018b).

Id.

IIA Issues Note—Issue 1, Reforming Investment Dispute Settlement: A Stocktaking UNCTAD (Mar. 2019), available at https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcbinf2019d3_en.pdf.

Id.

Supra note 93, at 415.

Roberts and Bouraoui (2018b).

Sauvant (2016).

100

Recording: UN Comm’n. on Int’l Trade Law, 35th Sess. (Apr. 23–27, 2018), available at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/audio/meetings.jsp.

101

Supra note 92; supra note 100.

102

UN Comm’n. on Int’l Trade Law, 36th Sess. (Oct. 29–Nov. 2, 2018), available at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/audio/meetings.jsp.

103

Blythe (2013).

104

Alvarez (2008) (reviewing Gus van Harten, Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law (2007)).

105

Kapeliuk (2010).

106

Supra note 103, at 278.

107

Finizio and Beale (2014).

108

United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (June 10, 1958), U.N. Doc. E/CONF.26/8Rev.1.

109

Kiev Convention on Settling Disputes Related to Commercial Activities (Mar. 20, 1992), available at http://cisarbitration.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Kiev-Convention-on-Settling-Disputes-Related-to-Commercial-Activities-russian.pdf.

110

Energy Charter Treaty (December 17, 1994), I-36116 https://treaties.un.org/Pages/UNTSOnline.aspx?id=2&clang=_en

111

For details, see Mironova (2014).

112

Supra note 107, at 21.

113

Federal Law On Arbitration Proceedings (Arbitration Courts) in the Russian Federation (No. 382-FZ, Dec. 29, 2015) (Russia); Federal Law On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation and Repeal of Article 6.1(3) of the Federal Law on Self-Regulating Organization in Connection with the Adoption of the Federal Law On Arbitration Proceedings (Arbitration Courts) in the Russian Federation (No. 409-FZ, Dec. 29, 2015).

114

Supra note 107, at 21.

115

Id.

116

Wenjing (2017).

117

ICSID Convention, Articles 50–52.

118

Mexico signed the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention last January 11, 2018. Upon the Senate’s approval of the Convention, Mexico’s president published the instrument in Mexico’s Public Gazette (Diario Oficial de la Federación) and submitted the ratification instrument to ICSID on July 27, 2018. As a result, based on Article 68(2) of the ICSID Convention, this instrument formally came into force for Mexico on August 26, 2018. With Mexico, there are now 162 signatory states of the ICSID Convention, and 154 members.

119

Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation on Entering into International Treaties on the Encouragement and Mutual Protection of Investments between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Governments of Foreign States (Collection of Russian Federation Legislation, June 18, 2001, No. 25. at 2578).

120

Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 395 (June 11, 1992)

121

Adopted on Sept. 27, 1978.

122

See, e.g., CIS (Moscow) Convention for the Protection of Investors' Rights 1997; EurAsEc Convention for the Promotion and Mutual Protection of Investments 2008; Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union 2014.

123

China-Russian Federation BIT 2006, Article 9(1)(b).

124

Supra note 116.

125

Kryvoi (2018).

126

Addendum 2 to the Regulation 2016, Article 53.

127

Supra note 116.

128

Roberts (2018a).

129

See Blind men and an elephant. Bruce Goldstein (2010).

Alvarez J (2008) Recent book on international law: book review. Am J Int’l L

Arato J (2018) A watershed moment for ISDS reform. International Economic Law and Policy Blog (Nov. 4, 2018). Available at https://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2018/11/a-watershed-moment-for-isds-reform.html#_edn1

Bartholomeusz L (2005) The Amicus Curiae before international courts and tribunals. Non-St. Actors Int’l L 5:211

Bianchi A (2013) On power and illusion: the concept of transparency. In: Bianchi A, Peters A (eds) International law in transparency in international law, vol 1

Bjorklund A (2007) Private rights and public international law: why competition among international economic law tribunals is not working. Hastings L J 59:251

Bjorklund A (2009) The emerging civilization of investment arbitration. Penn St L Rev 113(4):1290–1294

Blythe S (2013) The advantages of investor-state arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism in Bilateral investment treaties. Int’l Law 47:278

Bruce Goldstein E (2010) Encyclopedia of perception, vol 492. SAGE Publications

Buys C (2009) The tensions between confidentiality and transparency in international arbitration. Am Rev Int’l Arb 14:121

Choudhury B (2008) Recapturing public power: is investment arbitration’s engagement of the public interest contributing to the democratic deficit? Vand J Transnat’l L 41:775

Curran V (2009) Comparative law and the legal origins thesis: “[N]on scholae sed vitae discimus. Am J Comp L 57(4):865

de Brabandere E (2011) NGOs and the “Public Interest”: the legality and rationale of Amicus Curiae interventions in international economic and investment disputes. Chi J Int’l L 12:86–87 & 94 (2011)

Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2008) Principles of international investment law, vol 133

Esty D (2006) Good governance at the supranational scale: globalizing administrative law. Yale L J 115:1546

Finizio S, Beale K (2014) Russian arbitration reforms. Repatriating Russian disputes. Comm Disp Res 5:21

Grill A (2017) Mind the label: loyalists and reformists and ISDS. Kluwer Arbitration Blog (29 Dec 2017). Available at http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2017/12/29/uncitral-isds-working-group-vienna-11-12-2017

Hope J (2016) Transparency in international arbitration, commercial dispute resolution, commercial dispute resolution (May 11, 2016). Available at https://www.cdr-news.com/categories/expert-views/6376-transparency-in-international-arbitration

Kapeliuk D (2010) The repeat appointment factor: exploring decision patterns of elite investment arbitrators. Cornell L Rev 96:89–90

Kochevar S (2013) Amici Curiae in civil law jurisdictions. Yale L J 122:1653

Krislov S (1963) The Amicus Curiae brief: from friendship to advocacy. Yale L J 72:704

Kryvoi Y (2018) Ratification of arbitration-related conventions by CIS states: global and regional framework. CIS Arb F. Available at http://www.cisarbitration.com/2018/05/18/ratification-of-arbitration-related-conventions-by-cis-states-global-and-regional-framework/

Labin D, Soloveva A (2018) International investment law as international law: Russian and western approaches. AJIL Unbound 112:202

Lamb S et al (2017) Recent developments in the law and practice of Amicus Briefs in investor-state arbitration. Ind J Arb L 5(2):90

Legum B (2005) Investment treaty arbitration’s contribution to international commercial arbitration. Disp Res J 60:73

Levine E (2011) Amicus Curiae in international investment arbitration. Berkeley J Int’l L 29:208

Mironova I (2014) Russia and the energy charter treaty. International Energy Charter, 7 Aug 2014. Available at https://energycharter.org/what-we-do/knowledge-centre/occasional-papers/russia-and-the-energy-charter-treaty

Mistelis L (2005) Confidentiality and third-party participation: UPS v. Canada and Methanex Corp. v. USA. In: International investment law and arbitration, vol 169. Cameron

Newcombe A, Lemaire A (2001) Should Amici Curiae participate in investment treaty arbitrations? Vindobona J Int’l Comm L Arb 5:22

Roberts A, Bouraoui Z (2018a) UNCITRAL and ISDS reforms: what are states’ concerns? EJIL: TALK! (June 5, 2018). Available at https://www.ejiltalk.org/uncitral-and-isds-reforms-what-are-states-concerns

Roberts A, Bouraoui Z (2018b) UNCITRAL and ISDS reforms: concerns about consistency, predictability and correctness. EJIL: TALK! (June 5, 2018). Available at https://www.ejiltalk.org/uncitral-and-isds-reforms-concerns-about-consistency-predictability-and-correctness

Roberts A, Bouraoui Z (2018c) UNCITRAL and ISDS reforms: concerns about arbitral appointments, incentives and legitimacy. EJIL: TALK! (June 6, 2018). Available at https://www.ejiltalk.org/uncitral-and-isds-reforms-concerns-about-arbitral-appointments-incentives-and-legitimacy

Roberts A, Bouraoui Z (2018d) UNCITRAL and ISDS reforms: concerns about costs, transparency, third party funding and counterclaims. EJIL: TALK! (June 6, 2018). Available at https://www.ejiltalk.org/uncitral-and-isds-reforms-concerns-about-costs-transparency-third-party-funding-and-counterclaims

Roberts A (2018) UNCITRAL and ISDS reforms: moving to reform options… the process. EJIL: TALK! (Nov. 7, 2018). Available at https://www.ejiltalk.org/uncitral-and-isds-reforms-moving-to-reform-options-the-process/#more-16626

Roberts A (2018b) Incremental, systemic, and paradigmatic reform of investor-state arbitration. Am J Int’l L 112(3):410

Rogers C (2006) Transparency in international commercial arbitration. U Kan L Rev 54:1301

Saravanan A, Subramanian SR (2016) The participation of Amicus Curiae in investment treaty arbitration. J Civil Legal Serv 5:4

Saravanan A, Subramanian S (2018) Transparency and confidentiality requirements in investment treaty arbitration. Brics L J 5(4):115

Sauvant K (2016) Lessons from the negotiations of the United Nations code of conduct on transnational corporations and related instruments. In: Lim C (ed) Alternative visions of the international law on foreign investment: essays in honour of Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah, vol 192

Schill S (2001) W(h)ither fragmentation? On the literature and sociology of international investment law. Eur J Int’l L 22:887

Schill S (2010) Crafting the international economic order: the public function of investment treaty arbitration and its significance for the role of the arbitrator. Leiden J Int’l L 23:401

Shelton D (1994) The participation of nongovernmental organizations in international judicial proceedings. Am J Int’l L 88(4):612

Stewart R, Badin M (2011) The world trade organization: multiple dimensions of global administrative law. Int’l J Const L 9:582

Vierucci L (2008) NGOs before international courts and tribunals. In: Dupuy P, Vierucci L (eds) NGOs in international law: efficiency in flexibility? p 160

Wälde T (2009) Interpreting investment treaties: experiences and examples. In: International investment law for the 21st century—essays in honour of Christoph Schreuer, vol 724. Oxford University Press

Weiler J (2001) The rule of lawyers and the ethos of diplomats. J World Trade 35(2):194–197

Wenjing T (2017) Investing in Russia? Lessons learnt from the Yukos and Sanum cases. Lexology China L Insight 24 Mar 2017. Available at https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bfbafe0f-1486-429f-99a9-cedf908adaaa

Titel: The Elephant in the Room? Russia and the ISDS Reform
verfasst von: Dmitry K. Labin
Alena V. Soloveva
Verlag: Springer Nature Singapore
Buch: International Investment Law at the Juncture
Print ISBN: 978-981-9721-82-5

Electronic ISBN: 978-981-9721-83-2

Copyright-Jahr: 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-2183-2_6

Springer Professional

Excerpt

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner