• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.31-52
• /
• 2019

As international transactions have grown more numerous, situations of disputes related to the transactions are getting more complicated and more diverse. Cost-effective remedies to settle the disputes through traditional methods such as adjudications of a court will be insufficient. There fore, nations are attempting to more efficiently solve investor-state disputes through arbitration under organizations such as the ICSID Convention, the ICSID Additionary Facility Rules, and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules by including the provisions on investor-state dispute settlement at the conclusion of an investment agreement. In case of an arbitration under the ICSID Convention, ICSID directly exercises the supervisorial function on arbitral proceedings, and there is no room for the intervention of national courts. In time of the arbitration where the ICSID Convention does not apply, however, the courts have to facilitate the arbitral proceedings. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention are guaranteed by the Convention, it should be considered that the New York Convention does not apply to them under the Convention Article 7 (1) fore-end. In exceptional cases in which an arbitral award under the ICSID Convention cannot be recognized or enforced by the Convention, the New York Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement because the award is not a domestic award of the country in which the recognition or enforcement is sought. It is up to an interpretation of the New York Convention whether the New York Convention applies to ISDS arbitral awards not based on the ICSID Convention or not. Although an act of the host country is about sovereign activities, a host country and the country an investor is in concurring to the investment agreement with the ISDS provisions is considered a surrender of sovereignty immunity, and it will not suffice to exclude the investment disputes from the scope of application of the New York Convention. If the party to the investment agreement has declared commercial reservation at its accession into the New York Convention, it should be viewed that the Convention applies to the recognition and enforcement of the ISDS awards to settle the disputes over an investitive act, inasmuch as the act will be considered as a commercial transaction. When the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award on investment disputes about a nation's sovereign act have been sought in Korea and Korea has been designated the place of the investment agreement arbitration as a third country, it should be reviewed whether the disputes receive arbitrability under the Korean Arbitration Act or not.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.123-156
• /
• 2004

Settlement of investment disputes is quite different from that of commercial disputes arising from ordinary commercial transactions in view of disputing parties, applicable laws and rules, etc.. Therefore, it is very important to consider the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States(Washington Convention) of 1965. The creation of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes(ICSID), which was established under the Washington Convention, was the belief that an institution specially designed to facilitate the settlement of investment disputes between governments and foreign investors could help to promote increased flows of international investment. Pursuant to the Washington Convention, ICSID provides facilities for the conciliation and arbitration of disputes between member countries and investors who qualify as nationals of other member countries. Recourse to ICSID conciliation and arbitration is entirely voluntary. However, once the parties have consented to arbitration under the Washington Convention, neither can unilaterally withdraw its consent. Moreover, all Contracting States of the Washington Convention are required by the Convention to recognize and enforce ICSID arbitral awards. Provisions on ICSID arbitration are commonly found in investment contracts between governments of member countries and investors from other member countries. Advance consents by governments to submit investment disputes to ICSID arbitration can also be found in many bilateral investment treaties including the Korea-China Agreement on the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments(1992), the Korea-Japan Agreement for the Liberalization, Promotion and Protection of Investment(2003) and the Korea-Chile FTA, the latter was signed as of February 15, 2003 and is still pending in the National Assembly for its ratification. Arbitration under the auspices of ICSID is similarly one of the main mechanism for the settlement of investment disputes under the bilateral treaties on investment. Therefore, it is a problem of vital importance that Korean parties interested in investment to foreign countries should understand and cope with the settlement mechanism of investment disputes under the Washington Convention and bilateral investment treaties.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.68
• /
• pp.65-87
• /
• 2015

This article examines the Stay of Enforcement of ICSID Arbitration Award. The effect of the stay is that the award is not subject to enforcement proceedings under Article 54 of the ICSID Convention pending the outcome of the annulment application. The annulment committee must decide the stay, unless the applicant sought the stay with the request for annulment, in which case the ICSID Secretary -General must grant it automatically. This automatic stay -which can only relate to the entire award-remains in force until the committee is constituted and issues a decision on the request for stay. ICSID committees have taken different positions on whether a stay of enforcement is exceptional or not. Some committees have held that because the ICSID Convention explicitly recognizes that the rights of the award creditor could be subject to a stay, stays are not exceptional. ICSID practice shows that most committees have rejected the proposition that the merits and prospects of the application for annulment should influence the committee's decision whether to grant a stay. In addition, ICSID practice regarding the specific circumstances that will justify a stay of enforcement is unclear, and committees have focused on different factors to decide whether to grant a stay such as prospect of prompt compliance with the ward, hardship to one of the parties, risk of non-recovery and irreparable harm to the award debtor. Also, ICSID practice shows that even though the Convention is silent on this issue, committees have generally held that they are empowered to condition the stay of enforcement on the granting of security by the requesting party.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.27-42
• /
• 2018

Due to the increasing number of foreign investments made by state-owned enterprises, there has been a growth in the number of investment arbitration claims submitted by them. However, international investment treaties including the ICSID Convention are intended to apply to investor-state disputes and according to Article 25 of the ICSID Convention, the claimant has to be "a national of another Contracting State." This raises the question of whether state-owned companies can be considered as "nationals of another Contracting State" or private investors. This issue has been discussed in the ICSID Decision on Jurisdiction in BUCG v. Yemen which has been released in 2017. Since there would be more claims related to the standing of state-owned enterprises as claimants, it is required to understand whether state-owned enterprises could be permitted access to the ICSID under the ICSID Convention Article 25. Moreover, the ICSID cases addressing the jurisdictional issues including BUCG v. Yemen has to be closely analyzed. In particular, as the Broches test was applied in order to decide the standing of state-owned companies, it is necessary to examine how the Broches criteria has been interpreted and adopted in the ICSID cases.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.9 no.4
• /
• pp.141-158
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this paper is to examine the validity or effectiveness of the Arbitration Clause such as Model Clause I, and to confirm how other issues such as arbitrable "investment", appointment of arbitrators and law governing the agreement be reflected in the agreement. However, the parties should be sure that the arbitration clause is valid if they have checked whether, for their particular situation, the ICSID Centre has jurisdiction. For the validity of the Arbitration Clause, first the host country and the country which the investor belong to must be "contracting states" to the ICSID Convention. Second, the specific consent to arbitrate must be expressed in writing in the investment contract or in a national investment law or in an investment protection treaty. The issue of "nationality" of an other contracting state is determined by the place of incorporation or the location of the head office. In case the parties have doubts about a valid consent to arbitrate, Art. 41 of the ICSID Convention provides, regarding ICSID jurisdiction, that the tribunal shall be the judge of its own competence. It follows that ICSID Arbitration has an autonomous and exclusive character. As a consequence, domestic courts may not interfere with the question of ICSID's jurisdiction, which is called as "rule of abstention".

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.543-566
• /
• 2016

This article examines the Annulment Procedure of ICSID Arbitration Award. Although the ICSID annulment procedure is not substantially different from arbitration procedure, it does have certain unique features. Article 52 of the Convention provides that the application for annulment must be made within 120days after the date on which the award was rendered. ICSID Arbitration Rule 50, in turn, stipulates that a request for annulment of a award must: i)be addressed in writing to the Secretary-General; ii)identify the award to which it relates; iii)indicated the date of the application; and iv)state in detail the grounds for annulment on which it is based. The grounds for annulment are limited to those in Article 52(1) of the Convention. With respect to the possibility of waiving the right to annulment in advance, commentators are divided. Some authors admit the possibility of agreements eliminating the right to request annulment. Other authors, instead, have taken the position that parties cannot waive their right to annulment in advanced because no provision in the Convention allows the parties to do so, and thus the right to request annulment is inalienable. In accordance with Article 52(4), annulment decisions must comply with the requirements for awards stipulated in Article 48. Therefore; i)the committee decide questions by majority; ii)the decision must be in writing and must be signed by the members of the committee who voted for it; iii)any member of the committee may attach his individual opinion to the award; and iv)ICSID must not publish the decision without the consent of the parties. Finally, under Article 52(4), parties are not allowed to request the interpretation, revision, or annulment of a decision on annulment. Even if the committee allegedly manifestly exceeded its powers or engaged in any conduct sanctioned by Article 52(1), the parties cannot request the annulment of the decision on annulment.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.3-28
• /
• 2014

This article examines the Annulment Mechanism of arbitral awards rendered under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). The primary feature in the ICSID and non-ICSID arbitration regarding the review of awards involves the unified nature of the ICSID system, as compared to the scattered and multi-layered system of review existing under arbitration rules, national legislation, and international convention. This unity can be perceived at different levels. The ICSID annulment mechanism entails only a set of rules; thus, only one set of application standards of review will be implemented, as opposed to sometimes conflicting layers of application rules, laws, and convention, as in the case of non-ICSID arbitration. However, some of the recent annulment decisions have raised serious questions about the breadth of annulment in practice, as opposed to its original design. Nonetheless, implementing a new system under the ICSID awards to be reviewed by an appellate court appears to create more problems than it solves. The potential impact of introducing that mechanism could result in a longer and more complex proceeding, with uncertain benefits.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.38
• /
• pp.181-226
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to describe the settling procedures of the investor-state disputes in the FTA Investment Chapter, and to research on the international arbitration system for the settlement of the investor-state disputes under the ICSID Convention and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The UNCTAD reports that the cumulative number of arbitration cases for the investor-state dispute settlement is 290 cases by March 2008. 182 cases of them have been brought before the ICSID, and 80 cases of them have been submitted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The ICSID reports that the cumulative 263 cases of investor-state dispute settlement have been brought before the ICSID by March 2008. 136 cases of them have been concluded, but 127 cases of them have been pending up to now. The Chapter 11 Section B of the Korea-U.S. FTA provides for the Investor_State Dispute Settlement. Under the provisions of Section B, the claimant may submit to arbitration a claim that the respondent has breached and obligation under Section A, an investment authorization or an investment agreement and that the claimant has incurred loss or damage by reason of that breach. Provided that six months have elapsed since the events giving rise to the claim, a claimant may submit a claim referred to under the ICSID Convention and the ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings; under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules; or under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The ICSID Convention provides for the jurisdiction of the ICSID(Chapter 2), arbitration(Chapter 3), and replacement and disqualification of arbitrators(Chapter 5) as follows. The jurisdiction of the ICSID shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment, between a Contracting State and a national of another Contracting State, which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to submit to the ICSID. Any Contracting State or any national of a Contracting State wishing to institute arbitration proceedings shall address a request to that effect in writing to the Secretary General who shall send a copy of the request to the other party. The tribunal shall consist of a sole arbitrator or any uneven number of arbitrators appointed as the parties shall agree. The tribunal shall be the judge of its own competence. The tribunal shall decide a dispute in accordance with such rules of law as may be agreed by the parties. Any arbitration proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Convention Section 3 and in accordance with the Arbitration Rules in effect on the date on which the parties consented to arbitration. The award of the tribunal shall be in writing and shall be signed by members of the tribunal who voted for it. The award shall deal with every question submitted to the tribunal, and shall state the reason upon which it is based. Either party may request annulment of the award by an application in writing addressed to the Secretary General on one or more of the grounds under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention. The award shall be binding on the parties and shall not be subject to any appeal or to any other remedy except those provided for in this Convention. Each Contracting State shall recognize an award rendered pursuant to this convention as binding and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award within its territories as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State. In conclusion, there may be some issues on the international arbitration for the settlement of the investor-state disputes: for example, abuse of litigation, lack of an appeals process, and problem of transparency. Therefore, there have been active discussions to address such issues by the ICSID and UNCITRAL up to now.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2018

This article examines whether parties may agree to contractually waive the right to bring annulment proceedings. Alternately it looks at whether certain grounds of annulment may be waived. The ability for parties to resolve this issue contractually by waiving this element of Article 52(1)(b) ICSID offers a potentially powerful solution. For parties to agree beforehand to the circumstances where tribunals have not 'manifestly exceeded their power' could allow them to remove the unpredictability of annulment on this foundation. Even in the event that an ad hoc committee is against the validity of waiver, it may be possible for a party to frame this restriction as an interpretative agreement by the parties rather than strictly as waiver of a ground of annulment. Ultimately, the wish to enter into such an agreement would likely only be driven by a few exceptional commercial need or prior negative experience with the remedy of annulment. In that cases, and depending on the nature of the specific concern with annulment, a limited waiver or interpretative agreement on certain Article 52(1) ICSID grounds may certainly be appropriate.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.37-57
• /
• 2017

On 9 March 2017, a Tribunal constituted under the ICSID Convention issued its ruling in the case of Ansung Housing v. People's Republic of China, dismissing with prejudice all claims made by the Claimant, Ansung Housing Co., Ltd., in its Request for Arbitration, pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5). Ansung Housing v. PRC has drawn attention since it is the first case where an investor with Korean nationality initiated an ICSID arbitration on the basis of the Korea-China Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) as amended in 2007 between the Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China. The Tribunal finds that its ruling is about a lack of jurisdiction of the ICSID and of its own competence as well as regarding manifest lack of legal merit due to a lack of temporal jurisdiction, since a Respondent's Rule 41(5) objection is concerned with the three-year limitation period in Article 9(7) of the Korea-China BIT. The Tribunal held that, under Article 9(7) of the Korea-China BIT, the limitation period begins with an investor's first knowledge of the fact that it has incurred loss or damage, not with the date on which it gains knowledge of the quantum of that loss or damage. Finally, the Tribunal held that Ansung submitted its dispute to ICSID and made its claim for purposes of Article 9(3) and (7) of the BIT after more than three years had elapsed from the date on which Ansung first acquired knowledge of loss or damage and that the claim is time-barred and, as such, is manifestly without legal merit. It remains to be seen whether the aggrieved Claimant initiates annulment proceedings before an ad hoc committee under the ICSID Convention. It is quite interesting to see whether the decisions by the Tribunal should be reversed on the basis of the Claimant's arguments as to the start date as well as the end date of the limitation period under the Korea-China BIT.