2015-06-29T15:24:44Z

2015-06-29

Default License

masterThesis

Unenforced International Commercial Awards

free

School of Economics, Business Administration and Legal Studies, LLM in Transnational and European Commercial Law, Mediation, Arbitration and Energy Law

Chaika Ioanna ,2015 ,The non-enforcement of International Commercial Awards as a violation of Bilateral Investment Treaties ,Master's Dissertation, International Hellenic University

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... PREFACE ............................................................................................................................ I CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................... III INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 I. INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION AND THE NEW YORK CONVENTION. . 1 II. INVESTMENT ARBITRATION ..................................................................................... 2 III. INVESTOR’S CHALLENGES ...................................................................................... 2 IV. PURPOSE OF PRESENT THESIS ................................................................................. 3 1. JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES ....................................................................... 5 1.1. INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS ON THE ESSENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE BITS AND THE ICSID CONVENTION...................................................................................... 5 1.2. IS THE COMMERCIAL AWARD A PROTECTED INVESTMENT? .................................................. 6 1.2.1. Defining the term “investment” in investor - state arbitration. .............. 6 1.2.2. Tribunals’ approaches ............................................................................. 8 A. Saipem v. The people’s Republic of Bangladesh ................................... 8 B. ATA v. Jordan ...................................................................................... 10 C. Romak v. Uzbekistan ............................................................................ 11 D. White Industries v. India ...................................................................... 12 E. Gea v. Ukraine ..................................................................................... 14 F. Frontier v. Czech Republic .................................................................. 15 1.2.3. Comments on the tribunals’ findings. .................................................... 16 2. ON THE MERITS .................................................................................................... 19 2.1. APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF PROTECTION UNDER THE BITS............................................... 19 2.1.1 Denial of Justice. .................................................................................... 20 2.1.2 Unlawful Expropriation. ......................................................................... 21 2.1.3. Fair and Equitable Treatment. .............................................................. 23 2.1.4. Effective Means of asserting claims and enforcing rights ..................... 26 2.2. THE NEW YORK CONVENTION IN THE PRISM OF APPLICABLE LAW (THE NEW YORK CONVENTION AS AN AUTONOMOUS STANDARD OF PROTECTION?) .............................................................. 28 -iv- 2.3 REMEDIES FOR SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANTS ........................................................................ 30 3. INVESTMENT TRIBUNALS REVIEWING DECISIONS OF NATIONAL COURTS APPLYING THE NEW YORK CONVENTION – ASSESSMENT AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................... 35 3.1. DO TRIBUNALS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR CLAIMS INVOLVING THE APPLICATION OF THE NEW YORK CONVENTION? ...................................................................................................... 35 3.1.1. Tribunals’ positions ............................................................................... 36 3.1.2. The Kaliningrad v. Lithuania Case ........................................................ 37 3.2. INVESTMENT TRIBUNALS AS APPELLATE BODIES/SUPERVISORY FORA ................................... 39 3.3. SHOULD THE INVESTMENT TRIBUNALS PROVIDE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR SUPRANATIONAL SCRUTINY OVER DOMESTIC COURTS? .................................................................................. 40 3.3.1. Where does the threshold lie? ................................................................ 43 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 45 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 49

Kaisis, Athanasios

Komninos, Komnios

ihu

false