• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.36
• /
• pp.87-109
• /
• 2007

This Comment explores the ICSID case of CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, awarded on May 12, 2005. The Part II of this Comment first describes the relevant facts of the case including the some background for readers' understanding and the Part III summaries the claimant's requests and the decisions rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal in the Award. At Part IV, the Comment addresses the issue of determinating laws applicable to the merits of dispute in case that the parties of the case have not chosen a governing law, and at Part V, takes a close look into three main issues of (i) the indirect expropriation of the investment, (ii) the breach of fair and equitable treatment and (iii) the protections under umbrella clauses. In this CMS case, we see first that while the Tribunal affirmed that any indirect expropriation can occur from incidental interference depriving the foreign investor of the use or reasonable-to-be-expected economic benefit even if not necessarily to the obvious benefit of the host State, the Tribunal denied the occurrence of indirect expropriation in this case by holding that the Government of Argentina has not breached the standard of protection laid down in the Treaty. Secondly, however, regarding the issue of fair and equitable treatment, we see that the Tribunal, finding Argentina's breach of obligations, affirmed that the foreign investor can expect the host State to act in a consistent manner, free from ambiguity and totally transparently in its relations with the foreign investor, which can give the foreign investor certain degree of foreseeability. Thirdly and finally, we see that, on base of the effect of the umbrella clause, the Tribunal recognized the obligation of the host State undertaken not to freeze the tariff regime or subject it to price controls and not to alter the basic rules governing contracts between the foreign investor and the host State without the first's written consent. However, the protection under the umbrella clause is available only when there is a specific breach of rights and obligations under BIT or a violation of contract rights protected under BIT.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.29-53
• /
• 2013

Chinese ISD has been changed a lot since the reformation policy in 1978 and it is expected that China will present a changed attitude toward its advantage as its industrialization continues to advance. This study generally examines the ISD in BIT and also considers not only the attitude of China with regard to ISD but also the changes on the Chinese side. Moreover, this study determines the areas on which the Chinese government focuses. In order to conduct this study, the author attempts to classify the attitudes on ISD into chronical change and treaty powers based on the analysis of BIT. In addition, the paper examines the main contents of ISD in BIT which previously involved an agreement such as arbitral institution, arbitral range, counter-measures of local country, standard for admitting the nationality of corporate investors, and recognition and enforcement of arbitral award. Based on analysis, this paper mentions matters that require attention and caution in the Korea-China FTA as regards investment negotiation, and also suggests instructions for investors who may face dispute with the Chinese government.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.45-58
• /
• 2014

It is a well recognised rule in international law that the property of aliens cannot be taken. The question of whether indirect expropriation and government regulatory measures require compensation is an important issue in international investment law. Bilateral investment treaties and other investment agreements contain brief and general indirect expropriation provisions. These focus on the effect of government action and do not address the distinction between compensable and non-compensable regulatory actions. It is generally accepted that a state is not responsible for loss of property or for other economic disadvantages resulting from bona fide general taxation accepted as within the police power of states, provided it is not discriminatory. Yukos Oil Company is a Russian oil and gas company engaged in exploration, refining, and marketing activities. It is one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world. Yukos Oil Company has its production operations in Russia and markets its products in Europe. An international tribunal ordered the Russian government to compensate a group of Spanish investors for the losses they suffered when Russia seized the Yukos Oil Company on July 26, 2012. This has been the subject of several judicial proceedings and academic publications. This paper explores which circumstances do not lead to taxation amounting to expropriation. The author suggests that under the following circumstances, taxation would not amount to expropriation. First, taxation should be non-discriminatory. Also a lawful exercise of the taxation powers of governments would not amount to expropriation.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.103-124
• /
• 2012

Because the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (Korea-U.S. FTA) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have an overlapping contracting party, the United States, their provisions have much in common. The investment chapters of these agreements, especially, show many similarities, and thanks to these similarities, it is likely that the Korea-U.S. FTA arbitration tribunal for investor-state disputes regarding the environment will put great weight on the NAFTA tribunals' interpretations of those similar provisions. Since the NAFTA tribunals have already handled many environment-related arbitration cases, their interpretations will help heighten the predictability of environment-related Korea-U.S. FTA arbitration cases. This paper analyzes the environment-related NAFTA cases in which the tribunal has issued an award, which are the Metalclad case, S.D. Myers case, Waste Management case, Methanex case, Glamis Gold case, and Chemtura case. According to this analysis, the most controversial NAFTA provisions have been Article 1102 (national treatment), Article 1105 (minimum treatment standard, fair and equitable treatment), and Article 1110 (expropriation). The NAFTA tribunals applied the requirement of these articles in a strict manner, reducing the possibility of finding a violation. After the aforementioned analysis, this paper proceeds to compare the national treatment, minimum treatment standard (fair and equitable treatment), and expropriation provisions of the Korea-U.S. FTA and NAFTA and to predict the impact that the environment-related awards under NAFTA can have on environment-related Korea-U.S. FTA cases. It is expected that the NAFTA interpretations of the national treatment and minimum treatment provisions are likely be used as they are, but not the interpretations of expropriation, because of the differences in the expropriation provisions of the two agreements.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.35-63
• /
• 2019

Since imposing Performance Requirements (PRs) on investors have been conducted as a means to protect a host state's domestic industry in the short run, with its effect on improving the international balance of payments, it has been implemented mostly in developing countries. From the viewpoint of investors, however, PRs hinder free competition and investment activities and have the effect of distorting international trade activities; therefore, they are expected to bring detrimental effects on the host state's economic development in the long run. PRs provided by International Investment Agreements (IIAs) and WTO-TRIMs, too, included many abstract regulations which are grounded on the host state's economic efficiency in the past; however, those PRs are gradually being more concretely specified, shifting to a form of prohibition with the goals of increasing the protection on investors and realizing investment liberalization. Accordingly, when Korea freshly concludes IIAs or revises them afterwards, one should focus more on following the points regarding PRs. First, to protect Korean companies' investment activities, it is advantageous to list the contents of prohibited PRs extensively and concretely and create a stipulation. Second, it is necessary to list the contents of the PRs prohibited and add the phrases for prohibiting "any other similar requirements" explicitly, as well so as to cover the PRs that can appear newly. Third, as in the cases associated with PRs, issuable matters are mostly either the range of applying PRs or the conditions of applying them (relevance or detrimental effects); therefore, it is necessary to classify the cases accumulated by issues and analyze them thoroughly. In conclusion, as this study has analyzed the theoretical characteristics of PRs provided in IIAs and related cases and suggests exquisite theory regarding PRs, it not only lays fundamental grounds for follow-up research but also gives useful and practical guidelines for the parties concerned and the arbitrators according to the ISDS procedure.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.149-170
• /
• 2015

State's compensation obligation accompanied in case of indirect expropriation of foreign investor's investment asset has been established definite principle under international investment law. But the concrete and unified application criterion regarding valuation methods for measuring compensation have not been established yet. The World Bank investment guideline is adopting the Hull's Formula, which is understood as the full compensation standard with prompt adequate effective compensation and Fair Market Value method. It is a general principle that compensation should be equal to the fair market value of investment asset just before indirect expropriation date. However, there is a problem of the valuation method of fair market value of investment asset. In general, discounted cash flow, liquidation value, replacement value, book value, etc. can be the applicable standards. Arbitral tribunals determine compensation by adopting proper valuation method on a case-by-case basis according to the discretion based on the arbitration parties' experts' review on the presented opinion and by considering fact relevance of the issued dispute. This compensation includes also interest, recently it tends to award according to compound interest rather than simple interest. Beginning of the period to generate interest is the next day of the indirect expropriation occurrence date. And it should be considered that interest until the payment of compensation is also included. In addition, it should be considered that mental damages is available only when there's a basis to prove this or special case. Therefore, this study suggests to review of precedents related to indirect expropriation and concretely specify compensation valuation standard and method of indirect expropriation on investment agreements through enough consultation beforehand.

• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.117-133
• /
• 2019

This paper examines the most-favored-nation treatment clause on the BITs concluded by China and examines the attitudes of China on the application of the most-favored-nation treatment clause to the ISDs by period as the scope of arbitration increases. Moreover, this study pointed out the problems that would be exposed if the most-favored-nation treatment clause applies to ISDs and then also suggested solutions. The conclusions of this study are as follows; if the Chinese government strictly restricts the applicable expansion of the most-favored-nation treatment clause to the dispute settlement procedure by considering only the position of the capital importing country, it implies a contradiction against the development trend of the arbitration system related to international investment disputes. Of course, in order to protect the rights of Chinese investors investing abroad, expanding the applicability of the most-favored-nation treatment clause to the ISDs procedure unconditionally may have a negative impact under China's dual status of being a capital-importing country and a capital-exporting country. Therefore, China should clearly define the scope of application of the most-favored-nation treatment clause, the completion of the local remedy for the host country in cases of BIT to be concluded in the future or amended, and also clearly define that the most-favored-nation treatment clause should not be retroactively applied into BITs already concluded as an exception of applicability of the most-favored-nation treatment.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.4
• /
• pp.139-157
• /
• 2017

Whether an investor can invoke a dispute settlement procedure stipulated in other BIT based on the MFN clause in the original BIT is an important issue. There is a difference in the interpretation of MFN clause in which the scope of the treatment stipulates the slightly different contents for each investment treaty. Therefore, this study considered ICSID arbitration cases related to the applicability of MFN clause for investment dispute settlement provisions. There are two different approaches for the applicability of MFN clause by arbitral tribunals. At first, the expanded interpretation of the MFN clause can be applied to procedural regulations, in that the purpose of the investment treaty is to protect foreign investors and to ensure their status. So, foreign investors can invoke a BIT of a third country that is advantageous to them. Second, the limited interpretation of the MFN clause can not be applied to procedural regulations. Without explicit regulation, the term treatment can not be considered to include dispute resolution provisions. And the BIT that the host state has concluded with third country is a treaty that applies only to the contracting party, so it can not be used by foreign investors of other nationality. Therefore, this study suggests concretely stipulating the scope of MFN clause under the investment treaty, highlighting that certain restrictions should be applied to the MFN clause. Furthermore, it is required continually investigating and analyzing the database of the scope of MFN clause.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.62
• /
• pp.87-109
• /
• 2014

This article examines the regime for the recognition, enforcement and execution of arbitral awards rendered under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes(ICSID). The effectiveness of international arbitration depends on the degree of finality of the award and the ease with which the award may be enforced by the prevailing part. The ICSID Convention provides for rigorous finality and seeks to establish optimal preconditions for the enforcement of awards in manner that distinguishes ICSID from other international arbitral regimes. As with other classes of disputes subject to judical or arbitral jurisdiction, most ICSID cases settle. In the cases that do proceed to award, participants must understand what will happen if the losing party fails to comply with the award voluntarily and the prevailing party takes the award through phases known as "recognition", "enforcement" and "execution". Investors should assess possible execution before finalizing investments and certainly before they initiate collection proceedings on ICSID awards. An investor with a monetary award in hand should attempt to locate assets of the losing State and then obtain comparative law advice to identify jurisdictions that allow attachment of at least certain categories of sovereign assets.