Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the remedies available under Iranian investment treaties for settlement of investment disputes. This includes the obligation of the Iranian Government to provide foreign investors access to international arbitration. The sensitivity of the controversial Iranian nuclear program and the imposition of economic and financial sanctions on Iran will lead to the termination of many contracts between companies from Europe and the West and Iran, therefore, a viable solution must exist to address the rights and remedies of foreign investors. This article aims to provide an insight into Iranian treaties.

The main method was a survey of different treaties signed by Iran.

The discussion revealed that there are currently more than 50 treaties signed and ratified by Iran which provide arbitration as a dispute resolution forum. There are many treaties between the member countries of the European Union which make it important for the research. Iranian treaties guarantee international law remedies to foreign companies with investment in Iran by allowing them to seek redress in an international forum.

Iran has not signed the ICS1D Convention, meaning that the arbitration proceedings will be subject to ad hoc arbitration rules of UNCITRAL. Furthermore, ICSID rules on enforcement of the award do not apply. Therefore, the winning party must go through the Iranian courts to enforce its awards.

The value of the paper is to government organization, international institutions and multinational companies with substantial economic interest in Iranian energy and natural resources. For the first time, the topic has been covered in a research paper. There are no articles in Iranian bilateral investment treaties (BITs) addressing dispute resolution through arbitration. This is the first piece of work that actually conducted a thorough analysis of Iranian BITs.

This theme will be addressed through main points: Special Nature of Investment Disputes and its methods of peaceful settlement. International legal framework governing Arbitration in investment disputes: A. Multilateral legal framework. B. Bilateral legal framework/Investment promotion and protection agreementsTypes of arbitration in investment disputes. The Egyptian experience in investment disputes arbitration. The National legal framework. Egypt on the map of investment disputes in the world. A case study. Conclusion: Results related to the legal framework regulating investment disputes in Egypt. Results related to The arbitration cases against Egypt.

The researcher investigates the subject of international arbitration in investment disputes in the framework of voluntary theory, which is based on the premise that the satisfaction of people who are addressing the international legal norm is the basis of the same rule. In other words, the basis of international law is based on the satisfaction of the State and other international legal persons Both, and then express or implied consent.

Despite the availability of domestic and regional arbitration mechanisms in Egypt represented by a large number of cases.

The theme for the study primarily on Egypt and the international arbitration of investment disputes, through theoretical and practical study of disputes arbitration which Egypt is a party defendant in which to focus on what was issued in which the provisions of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, in an attempt to find out the reasons for the verdicts image released it, where it came mostly against Egypt, and whether these judgments against them in investment disputes due to reasons related to the legal framework of the arbitration process, or for reasons of bodies of arbitration issued by those provisions, or to the defense, which represents the Egyptian party, or to the circumstances Economic and political (which represents the investment climate).

The proposed solutions to improve the conditions and factors surrounding the arbitration disputes that Egypt is waging against foreign investors, whether they are initially alleged or accused of drafting agreements and contracts, through amending the relevant legislation and laws, selecting arbitration bodies and defense bodies.

This paper aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the reforming Chinese arbitration judicial review process and supplement the corresponding suggestions and analyze the practical trends of Chinese arbitration.

This paper presents considerable evidence that includes the latest empirical data and iconic cases to demonstrate the Chinese judicial system’s acts of internationalizing Chinese arbitration. This paper then elaborates the Chinese Supreme People’s Court (hereinafter SPC) recent reforms of the mechanisms of arbitration judicial review.

The SPC’s efforts to coordinate Chinese arbitration practice with international standards are effective and fruitful. However, even after recent reforms, there are still inherent deficiencies and important omissions that hinder the efficiency of Chinese arbitration.

The major contributions of this paper are providing latest empirical data to evaluate effectiveness of current Chinese arbitration judicial review and analyzing latest SPC’s legal interpretations.

This article aims to deal with international investment disputes, with a focus on the nature of the law applicable to the merits of such disputes.

The procedure for determining the law applicable in investment disputes, the phases of determination and the impact thereof on the applicable law were analyzed. The diagonality of the disputes and its impact on the law applicable to the merits from the perspective of the interaction between national and international law were also analyzed. Further, the authors focused on the nature of the host state's breach of obligations towards the investor anchored in the investment treaty, and the effect thereof on the law applicable to the merits. In this respect, the notion of the investment itself was analyzed according to the relevant BITs and MITs. Finally, the authors analyzed the applicability of the Ordre Public concept to investment disputes.

The study provided practical demonstrations and examples of choice of law and application issues as resolved by the tribunals established under the ICSID.

The article deals mainly with the ICSID proceedings. Another should be also analyzed.

The paper provides a new insight into issues of the law applicable to investment disputes by analyzing this problematic in relation to all stages of investment arbitration proceedings. Particularly it took an innovative approach in shedding light on and analyzing the applicability of the Ordre Public concept in relation to investment protection, especially in relation to Article 52 of the ICSID Convention, and the recognition and enforcement proceedings of arbitral awards issued in the course of investment arbitration.

This paper aims to examine two issues: whether provisions on frivolous claims in the European Union (EU)–Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement (EVIPA) would be Vietnam’s intrinsic demand, and to what extent, Vietnam may enjoy the benefits from these provisions.

This paper combines both doctrinal legal analysis and policy research. It offers an in-depth case study of the provisions on frivolous claims in the EVIPA, compares them with those of other existing international investment agreements and arbitrations rules, examines how similar provisions in these instruments are interpreted in available practical international investment disputes, uncovers the Vietnam’s position through interviewing Vietnamese senior experts, who were members of the Vietnamese delegation negotiating the EVIPA, and through available collected data and then evaluates whether these provisions may be favourable to this country.

While the new investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism in the EVIPA can be viewed as explicit evidence of the EU’s achievement, it may also be Vietnam’s benefits to entertain new ISDS provisions on frivolous claims. They were drafted, based on the ISDS arbitration practice, states’ experience and actual situations in Vietnam. These novel provisions, among other things, serve as Vietnam’s prerequisites to consider whether to accept the new two-tier standing mechanism or not. The inclusion of such ISDS provisions in the EVIPA, therefore, is supposed to meet the Vietnam’s intrinsic demands for defending against unfounded frivolous cases.

This is the first time the EU concluded an investment treaty containing innovative ISDS provisions with a developing country. This paper therefore may help envisage Vietnam’s perspective during its negotiation of provisions on frivolous claims in the EVIPA and prove that the avails of these provisions to a frequent respondent State like Vietnam can be realised. The paper’s findings mean for research in investment law as well as for policymakers as far as the frivolous cases are concerned.

Over the past two decades, the application of most-favoured-nation (MFN) clauses in international investment agreements (IIAs) to dispute settlement matters has generated controversy. The purpose of this paper is to help resolve some of the controversies by examining the rule of law issues that may arise from such application of MFN.

The study describes controversies regarding the application of MFN to dispute settlement as per the extant literature on the subject. It explores the elements of rule of law in investor-state arbitration. The paper then analyses the implications of applying MFN to dispute settlement matters for the elements of rule of law. Based on such analysis, the study argues that the application of MFN to dispute settlement matters undermines certain elements of rule of law.

The paper has outlined the relevant elements of rule of law in investor-state arbitration as access to dispute settlement; judicial (or tribunal) independence, fairness and impartiality; consistency and predictability of law and decisions; transparency; accountability and subjection of dispute forums and systems to law. It found that the application of MFN undermines various components of rule of law, in particular of consistency and predictability and the requirement of tribunals to adjudicate within the limits of the law.

The findings of this study will help future investor-state arbitral tribunals to decide on the application of MFN to dispute settlement matters.

The purpose of this study is to examine the nature of the protection afforded to foreign investors and whether this protection has been exercised to the detriment of host states. In other words, is the regulatory authority of host states being compromised by the content of the investment agreements entered into? If so, is there scope for reform? The need to reform investor-state arbitration was recently pushed forward by the European Union Commission in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

It is conceptual.

It proposed an investment court system as a replacement for investor-state arbitration. However, there is great ambivalence on whether these reforms would result in a rebalance of investment agreements in favour of host states. Thus, this paper provides a range of solutions to the challenges posed by investor-state arbitration through proposals for a regional and world investment court.

The findings made in this research will inform both academics and practitioners in the field of international law on whether the investment court proposal will bring about the desired changes.

Secondary sources

The purpose of this study is to provide a firsthand perspective on the challenges and risks that can arise in arbitration proceedings.

To investigate the concrete methods money launderers use, a qualitative study was conducted with 10 alleged money launderers and 18 prevention experts. The results were then tested quantitatively, and it was concluded that among money launderers, the highly regulated financial sector is less popular than other sectors.

Money launderers relocate to unregulated sectors or offshore banks to avoid being questioned by compliance officers. Therefore, it is necessary for arbitrators involved in commercial or investor–state arbitration to have the expertise to readily identify the issues raised by these criminal law concepts and provide answers.

This paper examines the intersection between the areas of international commercial arbitration and money laundering, bribery, as well as embezzlement. At the same time, it draws attention to the need to analyze compliance issues in arbitration proceedings.

International investment law has become a powerful tool of global economic governance. With its global network of international investment treaties and effective arbitration mechanism, it has made an extraordinary leap from a relatively niche and underrated area of international law to one of the most prominent legal regimes. This paper aims to illustrate how the evolutionary trajectories of globalization and international investment law have been intertwined.

This paper follows the historical unfolding of international investment law against the background of the globalization phenomenon, tracing the history of globalization processes since the expansion of European interests and export of capital and the onset of the international investment legal framework.

The evolution of globalization and international investment law has always been intertwined and co-dependent, experiencing similar phases of acceleration, transformation, adjustment and progress. This paper finds that the current era of globalization is characterized by an increasing complexity and diversity of transnational interests and global connections; this is also true for international investment law, which is undergoing changes aimed at including wider contexts and interests in international investment relations.

The analysis contributes to a more holistic understanding of the interdependence of these two phenomena, helping to explain how international investment law has become such a powerful, globally recognized and applied legal regime.