The prohibition of discriminatory, unreasonable and/or arbitrary measures affecting investors’ investments normally figures among the protection standards provided by bilateral or multilateral investment treaties. Although it is considered as an independent basis for a finding of State responsibility, some arbitral tribunals have considered that the standard of protection against arbitrariness or discrimination is closely linked […]
Interim Measures in International Arbitration: A Need for Irreparable Harm?
It is a well-established rule of international arbitration that arbitral tribunals have the power to grant interim or conservatory measures. This is explicitly provided in all major arbitration rules (see, e.g., Article 28 of the 2017 ICC Rules, Article 25.1 of the 2014 LCIA Rules, Article 26 of the 2010 UNCITRAL Rules, Rule 30 of […]
Publication of ICC Arbitration Awards: 2019 Advancements in Transparency of ICC Arbitration
As most arbitrations are confidential, the publication of ICC arbitration awards has historically been uncommon. In January 2019, however, the ICC International Court of Arbitration adopted changes to its practice that will soon be implemented. In this regard, the ICC released an updated Note to the Parties and Arbitral Tribunals. Its main purposes were to […]
Time Limitations and Stale Claims in Investment Arbitration
Investment arbitration sometimes deals with legal issues that are particularly well-rooted in national laws, whereas their application at the international level is less evident. One of these issues revolves around the concept of time limitations. In fact, host States of investment might build their defence based on this concept, arguing that investors’ claims are stale, […]
Fork in the Road Provision in Investment Arbitration
The fork in the road provision, or Electa una via, non datur recursus ad alteram (English translation: “when one way has been chosen, no recourse is given to another”[1]), belongs to a category of jurisdiction-declining provisions[2] marking “the relationship between international arbitration and adjudication by domestic courts.”[3] However, it should be noted that certain tribunals have […]