nach oben

Erschienen in:

2023 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

14. Equality and Asymmetry in Treaty-Based Investment Arbitration: Counterclaims by Host States

verfasst von : Carlo de Stefano

Erschienen in: More Equal than Others?

Verlag: T.M.C. Asser Press

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This contribution addresses the topical issue of the host State’s right to submit a counterclaim in treaty-based investment arbitration in light of the principle of equality, especially equality of arms in the international process. While the traditional approach of arbitral tribunals has upheld a strict limitation of the opportunity to present counterclaims, respondent States have recently intensified their attempts to avail themselves of such remedies in investment arbitration. The prospective trend in the arbitral case law may accommodate more liberal solutions as to the practicability for sovereigns to enforce investor’s commitments at the international level vis-à-vis the domestic level of court litigation, also and decisively due to the insertion in international investment agreements of innovative substantive provisions establishing obligations also upon foreign entrepreneurs. Such solutions are analysed herein under the jurisdictional, admissibility and merits perspective. Interestingly, the study of counterclaims by States in treaty-based investment arbitration, which involves procedural as well as substantive issues, seems to be currently embedded in the broader phenomena of the advancement of the “business and human rights movement”. To this extent, investor-State dispute settlement may constitute a viable international arena for the enforcement of human rights related claims.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Residual Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters Through the Lens of Non-discrimination and Reciprocity

Nächstes Kapitel Animal Farm, International Law: A Fictional Epilogue

Reisman and Arsanjani 2010, p. 597.

However, the trend in investment treaty practice seems to gradually (festina lente) favour the insertion in IIAs of provisions establishing also investors’ commitments. See Footnotes 13–18 and Sect. 14.3 of this chapter.

Paulsson 1995, p. 232.

See International Law Institute, Report on the Equality of Parties before International Investment Tribunals (Rapporteur: Campbell McLachlan), 9 December 2018, available at idi-iil.org/app/uploads/2019/06/Commission-18-Equality-of-parties-before-international-investment-tribunals-McLachlan-Travaux-La-Haye-2019.pdf. Traditionally, this procedural inequality was justified by the so-called “hostage factor”, namely the subjection of foreign investments to the sovereign powers of the host State in the latter’s territory. See, e.g., de Stefano 2016, p. 156. Moreover, the “grand bargain” underlying the stipulation of BITs, including their ISDS clauses, was historically based on the proposition that legal advantages benefitting foreign investors will attract capital and other economic resources (technology, know how, etc.) to the territory of the host State, thus advancing its economic development. See Salacuse and Sullivan 2005, pp. 67 ff. The empirical foundation of this proposition, namely the direct relationship between the stipulation of BITs and the attraction of foreign direct investment (FDI) remains unclear. See, ex multis, Tobin and Rose-Ackerman 2009, p. 132.

Koskenniemi 2017, p. 343: “[w]hen one of the parties, and only one of them, may say to the other ‘if you do not agree with my conditions, then see you in the court’, then the balance of power has shifted decisively in favour of that party”.

Bjorklund 2013, p. 462.

Ishikawa 2019, p. 33.

Zarra 2020, pp. 59–64.

On this topic, see Crivellaro 2019, especially pp. 702–703.

Alexandrov 2005, p. 19.

See Di Benedetto 2013, pp. 9 ff.; Acconci 2014, p. 165; Titi 2014, p. 76. See generally Dupuy et al. 2009. Non-trade values are expressly contemplated under the regulation of “general exceptions” under Article XX of the GATT 1994 since the establishment of the WTO. A rare example of IIAs providing for general exceptions is represented by the recent Japan-Georgia BIT, signed on 29 January 2021. See Japan-Georgia BIT (2021), Article 15(1). This provision mirrors the wording of Article XX of the GATT 1994. See also Iran-Slovakia BIT (2016), Article 11.

Muchlinski 2008, p. 637.

Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016), Article 18 (Post-establishment obligations): “(1) Investments shall, in keeping with good practice requirements relating to the size and nature of the investment, maintain an environmental management system. Companies in areas of resource exploitation and high-risk industrial enterprises shall maintain a current certification to ISO 14001 or an equivalent environmental management standard. (2) Investors and investments shall uphold human rights in the host state. (3) Investors and investments shall act in accordance with core labour standards as required by the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights of Work, 1998. (4) Investors and investments shall not manage or operate the investments in a manner that circumvents international environmental, labour and human rights obligations to which the host state and/or home state are Parties.”

Argentina-Qatar BIT (2016), Article 12 (Corporate social responsibility): “Investors operating in the territory of the host Contracting Party should make efforts to voluntarily incorporate internationally recognized standards of corporate social responsibility into their business policies and practices.”

Iran-Slovakia BIT (2016), Article 10 (Environmental and labor rights and other standards): “1. The Contracting Parties recognize that it is inappropriate to encourage investment by relaxing labor, public health, safety or environmental measures. They shall not waive or otherwise derogate from, or offer to waive or otherwise derogate from, such measures as an encouragement for the establishment, acquisition, expansion or retention in their territories, of an investment. 2. Recognizing the right of each Contracting Party to establish its own level of environmental protection and its own sustainable development policies and priorities, and to adopt or modify its environmental laws and regulations, each Contracting Party shall ensure that its laws and regulations provide for appropriate levels of environmental protection and shall strive to continue to improve those laws and regulations. 3. Investors and investments should apply national, and internationally accepted, standards of corporate governance for the sector involved, in particular for transparency and accounting practices. Investors and their investments should strive to make the maximum feasible contributions to the sustainable development of the Host State and local community through appropriate levels of socially responsible practices.”

Dutch Model BIT (2019), Articles 6 and 7, available at https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/treaty-files/5832/download.

See infra Footnote 63.

See infra Footnote 62.

See https://www.oecd.org/corporate/mne/.

See https://www.unglobalcompact.org.

See https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf.

See https://www.cilc.nl/project/the-hague-rules-on-business-and-human-rights-arbitration/.

van Aaken and Desierto 2021.

See, e.g., Declaration on the Right to Development, Adopted by General Assembly resolution 41/128 of 4 December 1986.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edn. (1990), p. 349. Decisively, the fate of a counterclaim is no longer dependent on the original claim after its presentation.

Ishikawa 2019, p. 33; Lalive and Halonen 2011, p. 142; Ben Hamida 2013b, p. 68; Kjos 2007, p. 1; Atanasova et al. 2014, p. 357; Popova and Poon 2015, p. 223; Kalicki 2013; Lampo 2020, p. 439; Bonetto 2021, p. 3; Scherer 2021, p. 413; Shao 2021, p. 157.

Ishikawa 2019, p. 33.

Schabas 2015, p. 265.

Palombino 2020, p. 748.

See infra, Sect. 14.4.3.

Ex multis, see Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH et al v. Cameroon, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/2, Decision on Annulment, 3 May 1985, paras 17 and 65.

Ishikawa 2019, p. 34.

See https://uncitral.un.org/en/working_groups/3/investor-state.

Anzilotti 1930, p. 857; Kolb 2006, pp. 871 ff.; Arcari 2018.

Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Counter-Claim, Order, 6 July 2010, Dissenting Opinion of Judge A.A. Cançado Trindade, para 4.

Behring Sea Seal Fishing arbitration, in Ralston 1926.

Antonopoulos 2011, p. 10.

Rosenne 2001, p. 87.

Murphy 2012, p. 1000.

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Counter-claims, Order, 17 December 1997, I.C.J. Reports (1997), p. 243, para 27.

See Declaration of the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria Concerning the Settlement of Claims by the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 19 January 1981, Article II.2. See The Islamic Republic of Iran v. The United States of America, IUSCT Case No. B1 (Counterclaim), Award No. ITL No. 83-B1-FT, 9 September 2004, para 76.

Another notable example is found in Article 98 of the Rules of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: “1. A party may present a counter-claim provided that it is directly connected with the subject-matter of the claim of the other party and that it comes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 2. A counter-claim shall be made in the counter-memorial of the party presenting it and shall appear as part of the submissions of that party. 3. In the event of doubt as to the connection between the question presented by way of counter-claim and the subject-matter of the claim of the other party the Tribunal shall, after hearing the parties, decide whether or not the question thus presented shall be joined to the original proceedings”.

De Brabandere 2014, p. 15.

ICSID Convention Article 46. See Schreuer et al. 2009, p. 731. See also Rule 40 of the ICSID Arbitration Rules and Article 47 of the ICSID Additional Facility Arbitration Rules.

In Burlington v. Ecuador, Ecuador raised counterclaims against the investor relating to alleged environmental contamination and infrastructure. In this case, the tribunal merely had to acknowledge the ad hoc submission agreement of the parties in dispute to devolve the environmental and infrastructure counterclaim to the cognizance of the arbitrators. See Burlington Resources v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Counterclaims, 7 February 2017, paras 58 ff. See also Perenco Ecuador Ltd. v. Republic of Ecuador and Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador), ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6, Interim Decision on the Environmental Counterclaim, 11 August 2015.

See ICSID Convention Article 36(1): “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”. It is evident that the wording of Article 36 of the ICSID Convention was not originally designed to apply to a model of treaty-based arbitration (arbitration without privity), but instead to a model of contract-based arbitration (arbitration with privity), in which the parties to the dispute were also parties to the underlying transaction or contract.

E.g., Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH et al v. Cameroon, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/2, Decision on Annulment, 3 May 1985, paras 17 and 65.

It is submitted that a most-favoured-nation (MFN) clause, which however may pertain to the treatment of foreign investors or investments only, forms part of the full terms of an IIA. See Reinisch and Schreuer 2020, pp. 686 ff. In this respect, it should also be noted that the predominant position in the tribunals’ case law is that MFN provisions do not cover investors’ procedural rights, as opposed to substantive rights. See, for instance, Itisaluna Iraq LLC et al. v. Republic of Iraq, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/10, Award, 3 April 2020, paras 140–225.

Veenstra-Kjos 2007, at 17–8.

Sempra Energy International v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Award, 18 September 2007, para 289.

Czech Republic—United Kingdom BIT (1990), Article 8(1).

Czech Republic—Canada BIT (2009), Article X.1.

Rusoro Mining Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/5, Award, 22 August 2016.

Canada—Venezuela BIT (1996), Article XII(1).

Saluka Investments B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Decision on Jurisdiction over the Czech Republic’s Counterclaim, 7 May 2004.

Czech Republic—Netherlands BIT (1991), Article 8.

Argentina—United Arab Emirates BIT (2018), Article 28(4), last sentence.

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), Article 9.19.2.

Ishikawa 2019, p. 33.

Investment Agreement for the COMESA Common Investment Area (2007), Article 28(9). This treaty was signed on 23 May 2007, but did not yet enter into force.

SADC Model BIT (2012), Articles 10, 11, 13, 15, available at http://iisd.org/itn/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/SADC-Model-BIT-Template-Final.pdf.

India Model BIT (2016), Article 14(11), available at https://www.mygov.in/sites/default/files/master_image/Model%20Text%20for%20the%20Indian%20Bilateral%20Investment%20Treaty.pdf.

See supra the IIAs cited at Footnotes 13–18.

Ben Hamida 2013a, p. 270.

United States-Uruguay BIT (2005), Article 24(7).

Lalive and Halonen 2011, p. 142.

See supra Sect. 14.2.

In Genin v. Estonia, a case under the Estonia-USA BIT (1994), the State submitted a counterclaim for sums allegedly transferred out of claimants’ bank by claimant, although the legal basis for the counterclaim remained unclear. The tribunal rejected the claim on the merits, questioning in a footnote whether the respondent was even the proper party to assert the counterclaim. See Genin and others v. Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/2, Award, 25 June 2001, para 378, Footnote 101. See also Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH and Others v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/8, Award, 1 March 2012, para 432. In Gavazzi v. Romania, the tribunal rejected on jurisdictional grounds the State’s counterclaim of breach by the Italian investors of a privatization contract governed by Romanian law. See Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25, Decision on Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Liability, 21 April 2015. Instead, in Desert Line v. Yemen, the respondent submitted a counterclaim for restitution of amounts received under an ineffective contract, and damages and/or set-off for the value of contractual non-performance, including damages for unfulfilled construction obligations and obligations to maintain the bank guarantees. The tribunal, formed under the Oman-Yemen BIT (1998), partially upheld the restitution claim and rejected the contractual non-performance claim on the grounds of estoppel: “the Respondent cannot claim benefit from the nullity of a document—i.e. the Settlement Agreement—that it imposed on the Claimant. In the present case, the doctrine of estoppel (venire contra factum proprium) serves as a shield to prevent the Respondent from obtaining compensation for the failure of the Claimant to execute its maintenance and repair obligations as well as for its failure to maintain the two bank guarantees”. See Desert Line Projects v. Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/17, Award, 6 February 2008, para 224.

See supra, Sect. 14.3.

See infra, Sects. 14.4.1 and 14.4.2. That the ICSID Convention establishes rules that represent an expression of principles that are applicable in general in international investment arbitration, even if under the aegis of different institutions and where other arbitration rules are at issue, is broadly admitted. With regard to the application of the doctrine of jurisdictional “outer limits” in ISDS also outside ICSID arbitration in relation to the objective notion of “investment”, see Romak S.A. (Switzerland) v. The Republic of Uzbekistan, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA280, Award, 26 November 2009, para 207; Alps Finance and Trade AG (AFT) v. The Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Award, 5 March 2011, para 243; Christian Doutremepuich and Antoine Doutremepuich v. Republic of Mauritius, PCA Case No. 2018-37, Award on Jurisdiction, 23 August 2019, para 118. Contra, Mytilineos Holdings SA v. The State Union of Serbia & Montenegro and Republic of Serbia, UNCITRAL, Partial Award on Jurisdiction, 8 September 2006, paras 117–118 (holding that the only requirements that have to be fulfilled in order to confer ratione materiae jurisdiction on a non-ICSID tribunal are those under the BIT).

Oxus Gold v. Republic of Uzbekistan, UNCITRAL, Award, 17 December 2015, para 952; Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Company and CJSC Vostokneftegaz Company v. The Government of Mongolia, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 28 April 2012, para 693.

See supra, Sect. 14.3.

Saluka Investments B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Decision on Jurisdiction over the Czech Republic’s Counterclaim, 7 May 2004, para 39.

Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v. Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24, 18 June 2010, para 353.

Ibid., para 354.

Israel—Uzbekistan BIT (1994), Article 8(1).

Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3, Award, 4 October 2013, para 410.

Ibid., paras 411–413.

Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/11/12, para 468: “The Tribunal therefore considers that there is no legal dispute arising out of, or a divergence concerning, an “investment” and, moreover, that Respondent has not consented to the arbitration of Claimant’s claims with respect to its investment. Accordingly, the Tribunal holds that it lacks jurisdiction over Claimant’s claims pursuant Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention and Article 9 of the BIT. It also follows that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over Respondent’s counterclaims in view of their necessary connection with the subject matter of the dispute pursuant to Article 46 of the ICSID Convention.”

OIC Agreement (1981), Article 17.

OIC Agreement (1981), Article 9.

Hesham T. M. Al Warraq v. Republic of Indonesia, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 15 December 2014, para 663.

Ibid.

Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, 8 December 2016, para 1143.

Spain—Argentina BIT (1991), Article X(1).

Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, 8 December 2016, para 1145.

See supra, Sect. 14.3.

Rusoro Mining Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/5, Award, 22 August 2016, para 627.

Amto LLC v. Ukraine, SCC Case No. 080/2005, Award, 26 March 2008, para 118.

Ibid.

See supra, Sect. 14.3.

Greece-Romania BIT (1997), Article 9.

Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1, Award, 7 December 2011, para 869.

Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1, Declaration of W. Michael Reisman, 28 November 2011, p.

Ibid.

Burundi—Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union (1989), Article 8(1)(b).

Antoine Goetz e.a. et SA Affinage des métaux c. Burundi, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/2, 21 June 2012, para 274.

Ibid., para 287

E.g., Article 21(3) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.

100

ICSID Convention, Article 46; ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 40; ICSID Additional Facility Arbitration Rules, Article 47.

101

Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3, Award, 4 October 2013, para 407.

102

This conclusion seems to be warranted also by consolidated national and supranational practice that frame the scope of the right to counterclaims as general principle of law. For instance, Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (“Brussels I-bis”) refers in Article 8(3) to counterclaims “arising from the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based”. Moreover, see United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (UNCSI), Annex to A/RES/59/38, 2 December 2004, Article 9.1: “A State instituting a proceeding before a court of another State cannot invoke immunity from the jurisdiction of the court in respect of any counterclaim arising out of the same legal relationship or facts as the principal claim”. This provision refers to counterclaims lodged against States and may also be illustrative of a general principle of law.

103

Antoine Goetz e.a. et SA Affinage des métaux c. Burundi, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/2, 21 June 2012, para 274.

104

Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, 8 December 2016, para 1151.

105

Saluka Investments B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Decision on Jurisdiction over the Czech Republic’s Counterclaim, 7 May 2004, para 79.

106

Ibid.

107

Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Company and CJSC Vostokneftegaz Company v. The Government of Mongolia, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 28 April 2012, para 694.

108

See supra, Sect. 14.3.

109

Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, 8 December 2016, para 1186.

110

Spain—Argentina BIT (1991), Article VII(1).

111

Spain—Argentina BIT (1991), Article X(5).

112

Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, 8 December 2016, para 1192.

113

Ibid., paras 1194–1195.

114

Ibid., para 1200 (emphasis added).

115

Ibid., para 1204.

116

Ibid., para 1208.

117

Ibid., paras 1196–1199, 1210. Notably, the tribunal relied on the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 30), the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 5), and General Comment No. 15 (2002) on “Substantive Issues Arising in the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,” relating to “The right to water (Arts. 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)”, para 3. This General Comment was submitted to the Economic and Social Council on 20 January 2003 (E.C.12/2002/11, CUL-186, LARA-236).

118

David R. Aven and Others v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. UNCT/15/3, Award of the Tribunal, 18 September 2018, para 737.

Ibid., para 739.

Ibid., para 743.

Ibid., para 738.

See supra, Sect. 14.3.

123

Murphy 2012, p. 1000.

124

Ex multis, Crawford 2008, p. 351.

125

See, e.g., Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement—CETA (2016), Article 8.31(2).

126

Ex multis, see Belenergia S.A. v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/40, Award, 6 August 2019, para 319 (interpreting Article 16(2) of the ECT).

127

For an overview, see de Stefano 2019, pp. 137 ff.

Acconci P (2014) The integration of non-investment concerns as an opportunity for the modernization of international investment law: is a multilateral approach desirable? In: Sacerdoti G (ed) Acconci P, Valenti M, De Luca A (co-eds) General interests of host States in international investment law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 165–193

Alexandrov S (2005) The baby boom of treaty-based arbitrations and the jurisdiction of ICSID tribunals: Shareholders as investors and jurisdiction ratione temporis. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 4:19–59

Antonopoulos C (2011) Counterclaims before the International Court of Justice. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

Anzilotti D (1929) La riconvenzione nella procedura internazionale. Rivista di diritto internazionale 21:309–327

Anzilotti D (1930) La demande reconventionnelle en procédure internationale. Journal du Droit International Clunet 57:857–877

Arcari M (2018) Counterclaim: International Court of Justice (ICJ). Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law

Arsanjani M, Reisman WM (2010) Interpreting treaties for the benefit of third parties: The “Salvors” doctrine” and the use of legislative history in investment treaties. American Journal of International Law 104(4):597–604

Atanasova D, Martínez Benoit A, Ostransky J (2014) The legal framework for counterclaims in investment treaty arbitration. Journal of International Arbitration 31(3):357–392

Ben Hamida W (2013a) L’arbitrage Etat-investisseur cherche son équilibre perdu: Dans quelle mesure l’Etat peut introduire des demandes reconventionnelles contre l’investisseur privé. International law forum du droit international 7(4):261–272

Ben Hamida W (2013b) Les demandes reconventionnelles dans la jurisprudence arbitrale récente relative aux investissements. Revista Brasileira de Arbitragem 10(37):68–80

Bjorklund AK (2013) The role of counterclaims in rebalancing investment law. Lewis Clark Law Review 17(2):461–480

Bonetto D (2021) Counterclaims in investment treaty arbitration: an analysis of the procedural hurdles. Diritto del commercio internazionale 35(1):3–25

Bubrowski H (2013) Balancing IIA arbitration through the use of counterclaims. In: de Mestral A, Lévesque C (eds) Improving international investment agreements. Routledge, London, pp 212–229

Crawford J (2008) Treaty and contract in investment arbitration. Arbitration International 24(3):351–374

Crivellaro A (2019) Arbitrato internazionale e corruzione. Rivista dell’arbitrato 4:663–707

De Brabandere E (2014) Investment treaty arbitration as public international law. Procedural aspects and implications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

de Nanteuil A (2018) Counterclaims in Investment Arbitration: Old questions, new answers? The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 17(2):374–392

de Stefano C (2016) Denial of benefits clauses in international investment agreements. Burden of proof and notice to claimant. Diritto del commercio internazionale 30(1):143–159

de Stefano C (2019) From arbitrators to judges? Reflections on the reform of investor-State dispute settlement. The Italian Yearbook of International Law 29:137–161

Di Benedetto S (2013) International Investment Law and the Environment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

Di Benedetto S (2020) Valori non commerciali e sovranità dello Stato nella prassi arbitrale sugli investimenti. In: Mantucci D (ed) L’arbitrato negli investimenti internazionali. Trattato di diritto dell’arbitrato, vol. XIII. Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Naples, pp 891–933

Douglas Z (2013) The enforcement of environmental norms in investment treaty arbitration. In: Dupuy PM, Viñuales J (eds), Harnessing foreign investment to promote environmental protection: incentives and safeguards. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 415–444

Dudas S (2017) Treaty counterclaims under the ICSID Convention. In: Baltag C (ed) ICSID Convention after 50 years: unsettled issues. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 385–405

Dupuy PM, Francioni F, Petersmann EU (eds) (2009) Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Hoffmann AK (2013) Counterclaims in investment arbitration. ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 28(2):438–453

Hoffmann AK (2016) Counterclaims. In: Kinnear M et al (eds) Building international investment law: The first 50 years of ICSID. Kluwer Law International, Alphen an den Rijn, pp 505–520

Ishikawa T (2019) Counterclaims and the Rule of Law in Investment Arbitration. AJIL Unbound, 113:33–37

Kalicki J (2013) Counterclaims by States in investment arbitration. Investment Treaty News (Jan. 4, 2013)

Kendra T (2013) State counterclaims in investment arbitration – A new lease of life? Arbitration International 29(4):576–606

Kjos EH (2007) Counterclaims by host States in investment treaty arbitration. Transnational Dispute Management 4(4):1–48

Kolb R (2006) General principles of procedural law. In: Zimmermann A, Tomuschat C, Oellers-Frahm K, Tams C (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice. A commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 871–908

Koskenniemi M (2017) It’s not the cases, it’s the system. Journal of World Investment & Trade 18(2):343–353

Laborde G (2010) The case for host state claims in investment arbitration. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 1(1):97–122

Lalive P, Halonen L (2011) On the availability of counterclaims in investment treaty arbitration. Czech Yearbook of International Law II:141–156

Lampo G (2020) Le domande riconvenzionali. In: Mantucci D (ed) L’arbitrato negli investimenti internazionali. Trattato di diritto dell’arbitrato, vol. XIII. Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Naples, pp 439–463

Muchlinski P (2008) Corporate social responsibility. In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) International Investment Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 637–687

Murphy SD (2012) Counter-claims. Article 80 of the Rules. In: Zimmermann A, Tomuschat C, Oellers-Frahm K, Tams C (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice. A commentary, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1000–1025

Palombino FM (2020) Revisiting the “Humanization of International Law” argument through the lens of international investment law. Diritto del commercio internazionale 34(3):745–750

Paulssson J (1995) Arbitration without privity. ICSID Rev Foreign Investment Law J 10(2):232–257

Popova I, Poon F (2015) From perpetual respondent to aspiring counterclaimant? State counterclaims in the new wave of investment treaties. BCDR International Arbitration Review 2(2):223–260

Ralston JH (1926) The law and procedure of international tribunals. Stanford University Press, Stanford

Rose-Ackerman S, Tobin J (2009) Do BITs benefit developing countries? In: Rogers C, Alford R (eds) The future of investment arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 131–143

Reinisch A, Schreuer C (2020) International protection of investments. The substantive standards. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Rosenne S (2001) The International Court of Justice: Revision of Articles 79 and 80 of the Rules of Court. Leiden Journal of International Law 14(1):77-87

Salacuse J, Sullivan N (2005) Do BITs really work? An evaluation of bilateral investment treaties and their grand bargain. Harvard International Law Journal 46(1):67–130

Schabas W (2015) The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Scherer M, Bruce S, Reschke J (2021) Environmental counterclaims in investment treaty arbitration. ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal 36(2):413–440

Schreuer C, Malintoppi L, Reinisch A, Sinclair A (2009) The ICSID Convention. A Commentary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Shao X (2021) Environmental and human rights counterclaims in international investment arbitration: At the crossroads of domestic and international law. Journal of international economic law 24(1):157–179

Titi A (2014) The right to regulate in international investment law. Nomos, Baden-Baden

Toral M, Schultz T (2010) The State, a perpetual respondent in investment arbitration? Some unorthodox considerations. In: Waibel M et al (eds) The backlash against investment arbitration. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 577–602

van Aaken A, Desierto D (2021) The Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration. In: Sauvant KP (ed) Columbia FDI Perspectives. Perspectives on topical foreign direct investment issues, No. 304 (3 May 2021)

Zarra G (2020) International investment treaties as a source of human rights obligations for investors. In: Buscemi M et al (eds) Legal sources in business and human rights: Evolving dynamics in international and European law. Brill, Leiden, pp 52–73

Titel: Equality and Asymmetry in Treaty-Based Investment Arbitration: Counterclaims by Host States
verfasst von: Carlo de Stefano
Verlag: T.M.C. Asser Press
Buch: More Equal than Others?
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-538-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-94-6265-539-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-539-3_14

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner