Abstract
This Chapter shows that there are historical reasons that led States to design an investment arbitration system characterised by confidentiality, similarly to commercial arbitration. It illustrates that there are various stages of investment arbitration where a certain degree of transparency could be attained while at the same time protecting sensitive or confidential information, including the registration of the notice of arbitration, the accessibility of procedural orders and the publication of the final award, the participation of non-disputing parties, amicus curiae submissions, and the openness of hearings to the public. The research highlights that the first-generation IIAs did not include such details, being succinctly drafted, and often even the most recently signed IIAs do not contain specific provisions, although they use a more precise wording. However, the reference to the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency is a promising development in this field.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Limited v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3, 29 September 2006 at 121. The same Procedural Order No. 3 noted that while the proceedings remain pending, there is an obvious tension between the interests in transparency and in procedural integrity; and lists several occasions where the interests of transparency are outweighed by the interests of procedural integrity. See paragraphs 140, 157, and 161.
- 2.
Telefónica S.A. v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/4, Procedural Order No. 1, 8 July 2013 at 20–26.
- 3.
Vattenfall AB, Vattenfall Europe AG, Vattenfall Europe Generation AG & Co. KG (Sweden and Germany) v the Federal Republic of Germany (‘Vattenfall v Germany I’), Request for Arbitration 1.
- 4.
ICSID (2006).
- 5.
Vattenfall v Germany I, Available Documents.
- 6.
Vattenfall v Germany I, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/6.
- 7.
Vattenfall AB and others v Federal Republic of Germany (‘Vattenfall v Germany II’), ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12.
- 8.
Bert (2016).
- 9.
Knahr and Reinisch (2007), p. 97.
- 10.
Bevilacqua and Spagnuolo (2015).
- 11.
Zoellner (2006), pp. 580–581.
- 12.
Maupin (2013), pp. 142, 147.
- 13.
Pauwelyn (2004), p. 903.
- 14.
Research analysed the concept of transparency as applied to the several fields of international law (international environmental law, international economic law, international human rights law, international health law, international humanitarian law, international peace and security law), showing that a general definition of ‘transparency in international law’ does not exist. See, among others, Bianchi and Peters (2013).
- 15.
Behn (2015), p. 413.
- 16.
Bevilacqua and Spagnuolo (2015), p. 3.
- 17.
Neumann and Simma (2013), pp. 436, 437.
- 18.
Feliciano (2013), p. 19.
- 19.
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), Report: Settlement of commercial disputes: preparation of a legal standard on transparency in treaty-based investor-state arbitration, Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) of the work of its fifty-third session (Vienna, 4–8 October 2010), A/CN9/712, 20 October 2010, para. 31.
- 20.
Some programs, promoting accountability through transparency, have been launched by major international organizations; see, among others, the United Nations’ Strengthening Accountability, and the European Commission’s Transparency Portal.
- 21.
The online public consultation on investment protection and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement has been launched by the European Commission on 27 March 2014. This initiative shows that international and regional organisations acknowledge the importance of including all stakeholders interested in the negotiation of multilateral treaties. See European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document, Report on Online public consultation on investment protection and investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP), SWD(2015) 3 final, 13 January 2015.
- 22.
Delaney and Magraw Jr (2008), p. 722.
- 23.
McLachlan et al. (2007), p. 57.
- 24.
UNCITRAL, Report of the Working Group on arbitration and Conciliation on the work of its fifty-third session (Vienna, 4–8 October 2010) (A/CN.9/712), in Yearbook Volume XLII: 2011, New York: United Nations, 2014, 181.
- 25.
Franck (1995), pp. 7–8.
- 26.
Franck (1988), p. 712.
- 27.
UNCITRAL (2014).
- 28.
Mitchell (1998), p. 111.
- 29.
Ortino (2013), p. 132.
- 30.
Knahr and Reinisch (2007), p. 109.
- 31.
Bevilacqua and Spagnuolo (2015), p. 22.
- 32.
Ruscalla (2015), p. 6.
- 33.
Knahr and Reinisch (2007), p. 109.
- 34.
Knahr and Reinisch (2007), p. 110.
- 35.
Ortino (2013), p. 132.
- 36.
Ortino (2013), p. 132.
- 37.
- 38.
Horn (2014), p. 339.
- 39.
Loquin (2006), p. 344.
- 40.
Knahr and Reinisch (2007), p. 109.
- 41.
The availability of conciliation under Articles 28–35 of the ICSID Convention stresses this aspect.
- 42.
Cf. Shihata (1986), p. 5.
- 43.
See Rubins (2006).
- 44.
Bevilacqua and Spagnuolo (2015), p. 21.
- 45.
Ortino (2013), p. 132.
- 46.
Blackaby (2002), pp. 145, 149.
- 47.
Ortino (2013), p. 133.
- 48.
Risse (2015).
- 49.
Cf. European Commission, White Paper on European Governance, COM (2001) 428 final, [2001] OJ C 287/1; Harlow (2006), pp. 195, 202.
- 50.
Section 5.2.1 focuses specifically on the advantages of confidentiality.
- 51.
Schreuer et al. (2009), pp. 697–698.
- 52.
See, for example, Article 20 Energy Charter Treaty: “2. Laws, regulations, judicial decisions and administrative rulings of general application made effective by any Contracting Party, and agreements in force between Contracting Parties, which affect other matters covered by this Treaty shall also be published promptly in such a manner as to enable Contracting Parties and Investors to become acquainted with them. […].” 34 ILM 360 (1995); See also UNCTAD, Transparency, Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements (2004).
- 53.
- 54.
Knahr and Reinisch (2007), p. 110.
- 55.
- 56.
This policy aspect was highlighted in the famous Australian case of Esso/BHP v Plowman, (1995) 128 ALR 391. See also Tweeddale (2005), p. 61.
- 57.
See Mistelis (2005).
- 58.
Plagakis (2013), pp. 88–89.
- 59.
Plagakis (2013), pp. 88–89.
- 60.
Plagakis (2013), pp. 88–89.
- 61.
Delaney and Magraw Jr (2008), p. 724.
- 62.
Delaney and Magraw Jr (2008), p. 724.
- 63.
Plagakis (2013), p. 88.
- 64.
Bevilacqua and Spagnuolo (2015), p. 4.
- 65.
Bevilacqua and Spagnuolo (2015), p. 4.
- 66.
Bevilacqua and Spagnuolo (2015), p. 18.
- 67.
Bevilacqua and Spagnuolo (2015), p. 18.
- 68.
Bevilacqua and Spagnuolo (2015), p. 18.
- 69.
Bevilacqua and Spagnuolo (2015), p. 18.
- 70.
- 71.
- 72.
It is thus not surprising to see that the Biwater Gauff v Tanzania tribunal decided that its “Procedural Order No. 3 shall be subject to no confidentiality restrictions and may be freely disclosed to third parties.” Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3, 29 September 2006, para. 164.
- 73.
- 74.
Ortino (2013), p. 119.
- 75.
- 76.
Bevilacqua and Spagnuolo (2015), p. 4.
- 77.
Anonymous expert, in an interview with the author in 2018.
- 78.
Knahr and Reinisch (2007), p. 111.
- 79.
Knahr and Reinisch (2007), p. 111.
- 80.
Knahr and Reinisch (2007), pp. 111–112.
- 81.
Knahr and Reinisch (2007), p. 112.
- 82.
See, for example, Art. 2 (2) Pakistan-Italy BIT: “Both Contracting Parties shall at all times ensure fair and equitable treatment of the investments of investors of the other Contracting Party.” or Art 1105 NAFTA: “Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment in accordance with international law, including fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security.”
- 83.
See Schreuer (2006), p. 2.
- 84.
See also OECD (2005) according to which publication of arbitral awards would “contribute to the further development of a public body of jurisprudence which would allow investors and host States to understand how investment agreements are interpreted and applied and ultimately contribute to a more predictable and consistent system.” (para. 42).
- 85.
Knahr and Reinisch (2007), p. 112.
- 86.
See the famous characterisation of NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals made by Anthony DePalma on the New York Times: “Their meetings are secret. Their members are generally unknown. The decisions they reach need not be fully disclosed. Yet the way a small group of international tribunals handles disputes between investors and foreign governments has led to national laws being revoked, justice systems questioned, and environmental regulations challenged. And it is all in the name of protecting the rights of foreign investors under the North American Free Trade Agreement.” De Palma (2001).
- 87.
Knahr and Reinisch (2007), p. 112.
- 88.
- 89.
Delaney and Magraw Jr (2008), p. 762; OECD (2005), p. 11.
- 90.
Triantafilou (2010).
- 91.
Ortino (2013), p. 119.
- 92.
Buys (2003), p. 136.
- 93.
- 94.
Knahr and Reinisch (2007), p. 112.
- 95.
Lew (1982), p. 227.
- 96.
OECD (2005); Delaney and Magraw Jr (2008), p. 762.
- 97.
Buys (2003), pp. 134–135.
- 98.
Marisi (2021).
- 99.
Bevilacqua and Spagnuolo (2015), p. 13.
- 100.
Mollestad (2014).
- 101.
Dragana Nikolić, international arbitration practitioner, in an interview with the author in 2018.
- 102.
Magraw and Amerasinghe (2008–2009), p. 345.
- 103.
Anonymous expert, in an interview with the author in 2018.
- 104.
Knahr and Reinisch (2007), p. 112.
- 105.
Knahr and Reinisch (2007), p. 112.
- 106.
Delaney and Magraw Jr (2008), pp. 761–762.
- 107.
Specific cases are described in Sect. 5.3.2.2.
- 108.
Ruscalla (2015), p. 1.
- 109.
Cassese (2012), p. 160.
- 110.
Bevilacqua and Spagnuolo (2015), p. 23.
- 111.
Bobbio (2005), p. 6.
- 112.
Bevilacqua and Spagnuolo (2015), p. 23.
- 113.
Balcerzak and Hepburn (2015), p. 153.
- 114.
Balcerzak and Hepburn (2015), p. 153.
- 115.
Feliciano (2013), p. 20.
- 116.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3, 29 September 2006, para. 122.
- 117.
Among them are the following: China-Pakistan 2006, China-New Zealand 2008, China-Peru 2009, China-ASEAN 2009.
- 118.
Out of a total of 3266 international investment agreements, 2827 are Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), and 439 are Treaties with Investment Provisions (TIPs). See UNCTAD Investment Policy Hub, International Investment Agreements Navigator, August 2023.
- 119.
Salacuse (2006), p. 20.
- 120.
OECD (2003).
- 121.
Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI).
- 122.
Germany-Pakistan BIT (1959).
- 123.
Meyer (2012), p. 1065.
- 124.
OHCHR, EU Trade agreements: UN rights expert warns against bypassing national parliaments, press release, 2016.
- 125.
Caplan and Sharpe (2013), p. 838. Although the reference is to the US policy, the same can be said about Canada.
- 126.
Villarreal and Fergusson (2015).
- 127.
Canada Population, Worldometers, 2017; Mexico Population, Worldometers, 2017; US Population, Worldometers, 2017.
- 128.
Estimated numbers for 2016, The CIA World Factbook.
- 129.
Gantz (2003), p. 683.
- 130.
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
- 131.
Article 1120(2) NAFTA.
- 132.
North American Free Trade Agreement.
- 133.
Article 1126(13) NAFTA: “13. The Secretariat shall maintain a public register of the documents referred to in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12.”
- 134.
Article 1127 NAFTA.
- 135.
NAFTA Free Trade Commission, ‘Note on Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions’ (31 July 2001).
- 136.
See, for instance, the BITs ratified by France, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom.
- 137.
Foreign direct investments are part of the EU Common Commercial Policy since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, on 1 December 2009. See Articles 3 and 207(1), European Union, Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2012) C326/01.
- 138.
Ruscalla (2015), p. 26.
- 139.
See European Commission, Investment Protection and Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement in EU agreements, March 2014.
- 140.
Comprehensive Economic And Trade Agreement (CETA).
- 141.
See European Commission (26 September 2014).
- 142.
European Commission (2004), p. 4.
- 143.
CETA, Article 8.36.
- 144.
European Commission (2022).
- 145.
Ruscalla (2015), p. 25.
- 146.
TTIP, Commission draft text, Article 18.
- 147.
Investment Agreement for the COMESA Common Investment Area, 2007.
- 148.
ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA), 2007.
- 149.
Mollestad (2014), p. 13.
- 150.
UNCTAD, Investment Policy Hub.
- 151.
WTO, Regional Trade Agreements Database.
- 152.
Mollestad (2014), pp. 20–21.
- 153.
Dolzer and Schreuer (2012), pp. 28–34.
- 154.
See e.g. Colombia–Japan BIT article 26–41, which exhibits a high level of detail in its regulation of the arbitral process, but besides providing some transparency in relation to the non-disputing party, cf. article 32, does not touch upon transparency issues.
- 155.
The study examined 71 bilateral investment treaties: only one does not provide for any sort of international arbitration, namely the Australia–New Zealand Protocol on Investment to the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement (2011). Mollestad (2014).
- 156.
- 157.
E.g. Estonia–Azerbaijan BIT (2010) article 10, paragraph 2, Egypt–Switzerland BIT (2010) article 12, paragraph 4 and Papua New Guinea–Japan article 16, paragraph 4 d). A somewhat distinct solution can be found in Colombia–UK BIT (2010), which in article IX, paragraph 4 makes the choice of arbitral regime subject to party consensus, but in the case that no agreement is reached the dispute is to be submitted to arbitration under the ICSID Convention or ICSID Additional Facility Rules.
- 158.
The 5 treaties that do feature provisions on procedural transparency are all treaties to which Canada is party. Mollestad (2014).
- 159.
Brown (2013).
- 160.
There are many examples where procedural orders focused merely on decisions centred on transparency issues. Among them are the following: Philip Morris Asia Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2012/12, Procedural Order No. 5 (Regarding Confidentiality), 30 November 2012; Abaclat and Others v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Procedural Order 3 (Confidentiality Order), 27 January 2010.
- 161.
Mollestad (2014), p. 41.
- 162.
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2010.
- 163.
ICSID Convention, Art. 25(1).
- 164.
International Institute for Sustainable Development, New UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules on Transparency: Application, Content and Next Steps 2013.
- 165.
ICSID Convention, Regulations and Rules (ICSID, April 2006c) Article 36(3).
- 166.
Regulation 22(1) of the ICSID Administrative and Financial Regulations (ICSID, April 2006b).
- 167.
Regulation 23(2) of the ICSID Administrative and Financial Regulations (ICSID, April 2006b).
- 168.
Asteriti and Tams (2010), p. 790; OECD (2005).
- 169.
ICSID, Cases Database.
- 170.
A case recently added to the ICSID database is BA Desarrollos LLC v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/23/32, registered on 4 August 2023.
- 171.
Mollestad (2014), p. 81.
- 172.
ICSID Additional Facility Rules (2006a).
- 173.
UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (Transparency Rules) (2014).
- 174.
UNCITRAL (2014) Article 1.
- 175.
UNCITRAL (2014) Article 2.
- 176.
Article 1.3, UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency.
- 177.
Transparency Rules, Article 1(1).
- 178.
Transparency Rules, Article 1(2)(b).
- 179.
Transparency Rules, Article 1(2)(a).
- 180.
UNCITRAL, Report of Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) on the work of its fifty-eighth session, Records of the UNCITRAL, 46th Session, UN Doc. A/CN.9/765 (13 February 2013), paras. 75–78.
- 181.
UN, Report of the UNCITRAL – Forty-sixth session, Official Records of the General Assembly, 68th session, Supplement No. 17, UN Doc. A/68/17, para. 127.
- 182.
UN, United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, General Assembly, 69th session, Resolution A/69/116 (18 December 2014).
- 183.
UN, United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, General Assembly, 69th session, Resolution A/69/116 (18 December 2014).
- 184.
Article 1(1) of the Transparency Rules.
- 185.
Article 2(1) of the Mauritius Convention on Transparency.
- 186.
Article 2(2) of the Mauritius Convention on Transparency.
- 187.
ICC Rules of Arbitration 2021.
- 188.
SCC Arbitration Rules 2017.
- 189.
SCC Arbitration Rules 2017.
- 190.
See the US Model BIT, Article 29 (1), litra a-e for a comprehensive listing of the basic procedural documents.
- 191.
Australia – China FTA, 2015.
- 192.
Canada – Republic of Korea FTA, 2014.
- 193.
New Zealand – Taiwan economic Cooperation Agreement, 2013.
- 194.
Protocol Pacific Alliance, 2014.
- 195.
Republic of Korea – New Zealand FTA, 2015.
- 196.
Rwanda – United States of America BIT, 2008.
- 197.
United States of America – Uruguay BIT, 2005.
- 198.
Benin – Canada BIT, 2013.
- 199.
Canada – Côte d’Ivoire BIT, 2014.
- 200.
Canada – Czech Republic BIT, 2009.
- 201.
Canada – Jordan BIT, 2009.
- 202.
Canada – Kuwait BIT, 2011.
- 203.
Canada – Latvia BIT, 2009.
- 204.
Canada – Mali BIT, 2014.
- 205.
Canada – Peru BIT, 2006.
- 206.
Canada – Senegal BIT, 2014.
- 207.
Canada – Serbia BIT, 2014.
- 208.
Canada – Slovakia BIT, 2010.
- 209.
Canada – United Republic of Tanzania BIT, 2013.
- 210.
Canada – Honduras FTA, 2013.
- 211.
Canadian Model FIPA 2004.
- 212.
Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the People’s Republic of China for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, 2012.
- 213.
US Model BIT 2012, Article 29.1 paras. a–e.
- 214.
Canadian Model FIPA 2004, Article 38 (3).
- 215.
LCIA Arbitration Rules 2020.
- 216.
SCC Arbitration Rules 2017.
- 217.
- 218.
Mollestad (2014), p. 84.
- 219.
Mollestad (2014), p. 84.
- 220.
- 221.
Asteriti and Tams (2010), p. 789.
- 222.
Asteriti and Tams (2010), pp. 791–792.
- 223.
Feliciano (2013), p. 20.
- 224.
Amco Asia Corporation and others v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on Provisional Measures, 9 December 1983, para. 4.
- 225.
Metalclad Corporation v The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1.
- 226.
Metalclad Corporation v The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, Decision on a Request by the Respondent for an Order Prohibiting the Claimant from Revealing Information, 27 October 1997, para. 9. See also Loewen Group, Inc. and Raymond L. Loewen v United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3, Decision on Hearing of Respondent’s Objection to Competence and Jurisdiction, 5 January 2001, para. 26.
- 227.
S.D. Myers, Inc. v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Procedural Order 16, 13 May 2000, para. 8.
- 228.
The Chapter 11 Consolidation tribunal in Softwood noted “a general trend” of procedural transparency; see Canfor Corp. v United States of America, Terminal Forest Products Ltd. v United States of America, and Tembec Inc. et al. v United States of America, NAFTA (UNCITRAL), Order of the Consolidation tribunal, 7 September 2005, para. 139. It is important to keep in mind, however, that after the 2001 FTC Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions, the issue of a fundamental notion of confidentiality in Chapter 11 arbitration is nearly resolved. Transparency problems in Chapter 11 proceedings are now resolved against the background of the FTC statements. For an example of how this plays out in practice, see Chemtura Corporation v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL (formerly Crompton Corporation v Government of Canada), Confidentiality Order, n. 2, 21 January 2008, in particular paras. 10–14.
- 229.
Amco Asia Corporation and others v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1.
- 230.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order 3, 29 September 2006, para. 121.
- 231.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order 3, 29 September 2006, para. 122.
- 232.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order 3, 29 September 2006, paras. 126–133.
- 233.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order 3, 29 September 2006, para. 133.
- 234.
E.g., Philip Morris Asia Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2012-12, Procedural Order 5, 30 November 2012, para. 51; Abaclat and Others v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5 (formerly Giovanna Beccara and Others v The Argentine Republic), Procedural Order 3, 27 January 2010, para. 67; British Caribbean Bank Ltd. v Belize, PCA Case No. 2010/18, Procedural Order 1, 6 September 2010, para. 13.
- 235.
See Sect. 2.7 on Analogies and differences between commercial arbitration and investment arbitration.
- 236.
Mollestad (2014), p. 89.
- 237.
Amco Asia Corporation and others v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on Provisional Measures, 9 December 1983, 1 ICSID Reports 410.
- 238.
Metalclad Corporation v The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1 Decision on a Request by the Respondent for an Order Prohibiting the Claimant From Revealing Information, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, 27 October 1997.
- 239.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3, 29 September 2006.
- 240.
Loewen Group Inc and Raymond L Loewen v United States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3, Decision on Hearing of Respondent’s Objection to Competence and Jurisdiction, 5 January 2001.
- 241.
Abaclat and Others v Argentine Republic (formerly Giovanna Beccara and Others v The Argentine Republic) ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Procedural Order No. 3, 27 March 2010.
- 242.
Telefónica S.A. v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/4, Procedural Order No. 1, 8 July 2013.
- 243.
Philip Morris Asia Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2012/12, Procedural Order No. 5 (Regarding Confidentiality), 30 November 2012.
- 244.
Philip Morris v Australia, Procedural Order 5, para. 53E.
- 245.
Philip Morris v Australia, Procedural Order 5, para. 48.
- 246.
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A., and Vivendi Universal S.A. (Claimants) and The Argentine Republic (Respondent) ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, award, 9 April 2015, para. 2.
- 247.
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A., and Vivendi Universal S.A. (Claimants) and The Argentine Republic (Respondent) ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, award, 9 April 2015, para. 3.
- 248.
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A., and Vivendi Universal S.A. (Claimants) and The Argentine Republic (Respondent) ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, award, 9 April 2015, para. 4.
- 249.
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A., and Vivendi Universal S.A. (Claimants) v The Argentine Republic (Respondent) ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Order In Response To A Petition By Five Non-Governmental Organizations For Permission To Make An Amicus Curiae Submission, 12 February 2007, para. 1.
- 250.
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A., and Vivendi Universal S.A. (Claimants) v The Argentine Republic (Respondent) ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Order In Response To A Petition By Five Non-Governmental Organizations For Permission To Make An Amicus Curiae Submission, 12 February 2007, para. 23.
- 251.
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A., and Vivendi Universal S.A. (Claimants) v The Argentine Republic (Respondent) ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Order In Response To A Petition By Five Non-Governmental Organizations For Permission To Make An Amicus Curiae Submission, 12 February 2007, para. 25.
- 252.
Ortino (2013), p. 124.
- 253.
NAFTA Article 1137.4.
- 254.
Gantz (2003), p. 747.
- 255.
Mexico-Australia (2005), Mexico-Bahrain (2012), Mexico-India (2007), Mexico-Kuwait (2013), Mexico-Panama (2005), Mexico-Singapore (2009), Mexico-Slovakia (2007), Mexico-Spain (2006), Mexico-Trinidad and Tobago (2006).
- 256.
See Mexico–UK BIT (2006) article 18, paragraph 4, Mexico–Iceland BIT (2005) article 17, paragraph 4, Mexico–Australia BIT (2005) article 19, paragraph 4 (the treaty uses the word “decision”, not award), Mexico–India BIT (2007) article 19, paragraph 4, Mexico–Panama BIT (2007) article 20, paragraph 4, Mexico–Slovakia BIT (2007) article 20, paragraph 4, Mexico–Trinidad & Tobago BIT (2006), article 20, paragraph 4, Mexico–Belarus (2008) article 20, paragraph 4. The treaties with the UK, India, Panama, Slovakia, Trinidad & Tobago and Belarus, as well as the treaty with China, all require final awards to be published unless the parties otherwise agree. Mexico’s treaties with Iceland and Australia establish the opposite starting position.
- 257.
Agreement For The Reciprocal Promotion And Protection Of Investments Between The United Mexican States And The Kingdom Of Spain, 2006.
- 258.
Iran-US Claims tribunal, Rules of Procedure, 3 May 1983.
- 259.
CAFTA-DR.
- 260.
Canada Model FIPA 2004 Article 38.4.
- 261.
ICSID (2006) Article 48(5).
- 262.
ICSID (2006) Rule 48(4).
- 263.
Regulation 22 Publication, ICSID Administrative and Financial Regulations 2006.
- 264.
ICSID (2006) Rule 6(2).
- 265.
Article 34(5) UNCITRAL (2013).
- 266.
PCA (2012).
- 267.
LCIA Arbitration Rules 2020.
- 268.
SCC (2017) Article 3.
- 269.
Article 9 Appendix 1 Organisation 2017 SCC Arbitration Rules.
- 270.
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (2013).
- 271.
UNCITRAL Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation), ‘Settlement of Commercial Disputes, Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, Compilation of Comments by Governments’, Note by the Secretariat, Addendum No. 2 (4 August 2010) (A/CN.9/WG.II/WP.159/Add.2), UNCITRAL Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation), Settlement of Commercial Disputes, Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, Compilation of Comments by Governments, Note by the Secretariat, Addendum 3 (4 August 2010) (A/CN.9/WG.II/WP.159/Add.3).
- 272.
Feldman (2016), p. 18.
- 273.
Jansen Calamita (2014), p. 652.
- 274.
Lew (1982), p. 229.
- 275.
Schreuer et al. (2009), p. 828.
- 276.
Schreuer et al. (2009), p. 827.
- 277.
OECD (2005), p. 11.
- 278.
OECD (2005), pp. 24–25.
- 279.
Rogers (2006), p. 1325.
- 280.
OECD (2005).
- 281.
Fry and Repousis (2015), p. 807.
- 282.
Knahr and Reinisch (2007), p. 115; OECD (2005).
- 283.
Marisi (2021).
- 284.
Schill (2014).
- 285.
Feldman (2016).
- 286.
Alschner (2014), p. 192.
- 287.
UNCTAD (2023).
- 288.
- 289.
China and Denmark Agreement concerning the encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments. Signed at Bei**g on 29 April 1985, Article 7.
- 290.
ICSID (2006) Article 27(1).
- 291.
ICSID (2006) Article 27(2).
- 292.
Case Concerning Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (US v Italy), 1989 I.C.J. Reports 15, Judgment, 20 July 1989.
- 293.
DS435: Australia – Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging, WT/DS435/1, 10 April 2012, and WT/DS/434/1, 23 July 2012; and Philip Morris Asia Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2012-12.
- 294.
OECD, Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property, 2 ILM 241, 1963, Article 7(a) and (b).
- 295.
OECD, Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property, 1962, Annex, Article 6(b)(i).
- 296.
Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, Tribunal Rules of Procedure, 1983.
- 297.
NAFTA (1994) Article 1128.
- 298.
NAFTA (1994) Article 1131(2).
- 299.
The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (‘MAI’), 1995–1998, Article D 12.
- 300.
CAFTA, Article 10.20(2).
- 301.
Kaufmann-Kohler (2012), p. 319.
- 302.
Article 8.1 CETA.
- 303.
Article 8.38 CETA.
- 304.
Article 8.1, Section 3, TTIP.
- 305.
Article 2.2, Section 3, TTIP.
- 306.
Article 22, Section 3, TTIP.
- 307.
Alschner (2014), p. 211.
- 308.
United States Model BIT 2004; United States Model BIT 2012.
- 309.
Article 2, Annex 8, EU-Singapore IPA.
- 310.
United States of America-Uruguay BIT (2005).
- 311.
Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Rwanda Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment (2008).
- 312.
Article 35, Canada Model FIPA 2004.
- 313.
Article 33, Canada Model FIPA 2004.
- 314.
Article 34, Canada Model FIPA 2004.
- 315.
Article 30, Canada – Tanzania FIPA.
- 316.
Article 31, Canada – Tanzania FIPA.
- 317.
Glamis Gold, Ltd. v The United States of America, UNCITRAL, Award, 8 June 2009.
- 318.
Glamis Gold, Ltd. v The United States of America, UNCITRAL, Procedural Order No. 6 October 15, 2005, para. 13.
- 319.
Merrill & Ring Forestry L. P. Claimant v The Government Of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/07/1, Award, 31 March 2010.
- 320.
Merrill & Ring Forestry L. P. Claimant v The Government Of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/07/1, Submission of the United States of America, 14 July 2008.
- 321.
Merrill & Ring Forestry L. P. Claimant v The Government Of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/07/1, Government of Canada Rejoinder Memorial, 27 March 2009.
- 322.
- 323.
Angell (1967), p. 1017.
- 324.
Francioni (2009), p. 740.
- 325.
Viñuales (2006).
- 326.
Cited in Krislov (1963), pp. 694–695.
- 327.
Cited in Krislov (1963), pp. 694–695.
- 328.
Bellhouse and Lavers (2004), p. 190.
- 329.
Bellhouse and Lavers (2004), pp. 3–6.
- 330.
Green v Biddle, 21 US 1, 17 (1823).
- 331.
O’Connor and Epstein (1983), p. 36.
- 332.
Collins Jr. (2004), p. 828.
- 333.
Simpson and Vasaly (2011), p. 8.
- 334.
Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 149 (2d Cir. 2010).
- 335.
De Brabandere (2011), p. 85.
- 336.
Paust (2011), p. 977.
- 337.
McCorquodale (2004), p. 497.
- 338.
Levine (2011), pp. 214–215.
- 339.
Triantafilou (2009).
- 340.
Blanke (2006), p. 155.
- 341.
Blanke (2006), p. 155.
- 342.
Blanke (2006), p. 161.
- 343.
See, for example, Center For Individual Freedom, Amicus Curiae Briefs.
- 344.
De Brabandere (2011), pp. 103–104.
- 345.
Francioni (2009), p. 742.
- 346.
Francioni (2009), p. 738.
- 347.
Biglan (2009).
- 348.
OECD, Glossary of Statistical Terms, 2003.
- 349.
OECD, Glossary of Statistical Terms, 2003.
- 350.
Fach Gómez (2012), p. 558.
- 351.
Fach Gómez (2012), p. 558.
- 352.
Kochevar (2013), pp. 1654–1655.
- 353.
West and Roberts (2003), p. 3.
- 354.
Art. 31.1, European Convention on Human Rights, 1950.
- 355.
Article 2.3, Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
- 356.
Levine (2011), p. 222.
- 357.
Harper and Etherington (1953), p. 1172.
- 358.
Rule 37.2, ICSID Arbitration Rules, ICSID Convention, Regulations and Rules.
- 359.
Rule 32.2, ICSID Arbitration Rules, ICSID Convention, Regulations and Rules.
- 360.
DS248: United States — Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products, Appellate Body Report, 10 November 2003.
- 361.
DS248: United States — Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products, Appellate Body Report, 10 November 2003.
- 362.
DS257: United States — Final Countervailing Duty Determination with respect to certain Softwood Lumber from Canada, WT/DS257/AB/R, para. 9 (2004).
- 363.
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A., and Vivendi Universal S.A. v Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Order in Response to a Petition for Transparency and Participation as Amicus Curiae in Suez (July 30, 2010), para. 21.
- 364.
De Brabandere (2011), p. 108.
- 365.
DS252: United States — Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products, WT/DS248/AB/R, 10 December 2003, para. 9.
- 366.
Among others: DS265: European Communities — Export Subsidies on Sugar, WT/DS265/AB/R, para. 9, 2005; DS252: United States — Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products, WT/DS248/AB/R, 10 December 2003, para. 9, DS269: European Communities — Customs classification of frozen boneless chicken cuts, WT/DS269/AB/R, para. 12, 2005; DS308: Mexico — Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, WT/DS308/AB/R, para. 8, 2006; DS332: Brazil — Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, para. 7, 2007; DS342: China — Measures Affecting Imports of Automobile Parts, WT/DS339/AB/R, para. 11, 2009.
- 367.
De Brabandere (2011), p. 111.
- 368.
Fach Gómez (2012), pp. 545–546.
- 369.
Franck (2005), p. 1586.
- 370.
Newcombe and Lemaire (2001), p. 30.
- 371.
Ishikawa (2010), pp. 402–403.
- 372.
Francioni (2009), p. 740.
- 373.
Friedland (2006), p. 321.
- 374.
Friedland (2006), p. 321.
- 375.
Marisi (2020).
- 376.
Fach Gómez (2012), pp. 543–544.
- 377.
De Brabandere (2011), p. 102.
- 378.
Sands and Mackenzie (2011), pp. 29–31.
- 379.
Francioni (2009), p. 742.
- 380.
Fach Gómez (2012), p. 545.
- 381.
Fach Gómez (2012), p. 545.
- 382.
Magraw and Amerasinghe (2008–2009), p. 345.
- 383.
Levine (2011), p. 217.
- 384.
Bartholomeusz (2005), p. 211.
- 385.
Ishikawa (2010), pp. 402–403.
- 386.
See also Chap. 6. Legitimacy.
- 387.
Newcombe and Lemaire (2001), p. 32.
- 388.
Boralessa (2004), p. 253.
- 389.
Fach Gómez (2012), p. 553.
- 390.
Tienhaara (2007), p. 230.
- 391.
Ishikawa (2010), p. 393.
- 392.
Fach Gómez (2012), p. 549.
- 393.
Magraw and Amerasinghe (2008–2009), p. 355.
- 394.
Bastin (2012), p. 226.
- 395.
Bjorklund (2009), pp. 1292–1293.
- 396.
Schliemann (2013), p. 380.
- 397.
UNCITRAL, Report of Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) on the work of its fifty-seventh session, UN Doc. A/CN.9/760, para. 77.
- 398.
Pouget (2013). Contra, UNCTAD (2010), 18, and Plama Consortium v Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 February 2005.
- 399.
Fach Gómez (2012), p. 552.
- 400.
Levine (2011), p. 219.
- 401.
UNCITRAL, Transparency Rules, Art. 4(5).
- 402.
Newcombe and Lemaire (2001), p. 33.
- 403.
Friedland (2006), p. 321.
- 404.
Vujanic (2011).
- 405.
Tienhaara (2007), p. 230.
- 406.
Rubins (2006).
- 407.
Levine (2011), pp. 220–221.
- 408.
Ishikawa (2010), p. 393.
- 409.
Zuleta (2015), p. 420.
- 410.
Aguas dal Tunari SA v The Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/02, Decision on Respondent’s Objections to Jurisdiction, 21 October 2005.
- 411.
Methanex Corporation v United States of America, Decision of the tribunal on Petitions from Third Persons to Intervene as “amici curiae”, 15 January 2001, para. 46.
- 412.
UNCTAD, Investment Policy Hub, International Investment Agreements Navigator.
- 413.
Benin - Canada BIT, 2013, in force, Article 34.
- 414.
Burkina Faso – Canada BIT, 2015, signed but not in force, Article 33.
- 415.
Cameroon – Canada BIT 2014, signed but not in force, Article 31.
- 416.
Canada – Côte d’Ivoire BIT 2014, in force, Article 31.
- 417.
Canada – Kuwait BIT 2011, in force, Article 31.
- 418.
Canada – Mali BIT 2014, in force, Article 31.
- 419.
Canada – Peru BIT, 2006, in force, Article 39.
- 420.
Canada – Senegal BIT, 2014, in force, Article 32.
- 421.
Canada – Serbia BIT 2014, in force, Article 32.
- 422.
Canada – United Republic of Tanzania BIT 2013, in force, Article 31.
- 423.
Canada – Jordan BIT 2009, in force, Article 39.
- 424.
Canada – Latvia BIT, 2009, in force, Annex C.III 1.
- 425.
Canada – Republic of Korea FTA, 2014, in force, Article 8.36.
- 426.
Canada – Slovakia BIT 2010, in force, Annex B.III.
- 427.
Canada – Honduras FTA, 2013, in force, Article 10.36.
- 428.
Canada – Latvia BIT, 2009, in force, Annex C.II.
- 429.
Canada – Czech Republic BIT 2009, in force, Annex B.II.
- 430.
Schliemann (2013), p. 389.
- 431.
Bernhard von Pezold and others v Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/15, Procedural Order No. 2, 26 June 2012, para. 62.
- 432.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 5, 2 February 2007, para. 601.
- 433.
Bastin (2012), p. 228.
- 434.
Aguas del Tunari v Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3, Petition of La Coordinadora Para La Defensa del Agua y Vida, La Federación Departamental Cochabambina de Organizaciones Regantes, Semapa Sur, Friends of the Earth-Netherlands, Oscar Olivera, Omar Fernandez, Father Luis Sánchez, and Congressman Jorge Alvarado to the arbitral tribunal, 29 August 2002.
- 435.
Letter by the President of the tribunal in the matter of Aguas del Tunari v Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3, 29 January 2003.
- 436.
Greenhill and Wekiya (2004).
- 437.
Greenhill and Wekiya (2004).
- 438.
Christen et al. (2005), p. 25.
- 439.
Christen et al. (2005), p. 23.
- 440.
Christen et al. (2005), p. 25.
- 441.
Christen et al. (2005), p. 25.
- 442.
Christen et al. (2005), pp. 27–28.
- 443.
Christen et al. (2005), p. 25.
- 444.
Christen et al. (2005), p. 28.
- 445.
Mugisha et al. (2005), p. 12.
- 446.
TRC (2005), p. 12.
- 447.
TRC (2005), p. 47.
- 448.
TRC (2005), p. 54.
- 449.
Abdul-Aziz (2005).
- 450.
Biwater Plc, Press Release, ‘City Water and the Government of Tanzania’, Water Technology (2 June 2005).
- 451.
UK-Tanzania BIT, 1994.
- 452.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 1, 31 March 2006, para. 1.
- 453.
Hall and Lobina (2006).
- 454.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3, 29 September 2006, para. 51.
- 455.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Petition for Amicus Curiae Status, 27 November 2006.
- 456.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, para. 57.
- 457.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, para. 58.
- 458.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, para. 59.
- 459.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, para. 62.
- 460.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, para. 65.
- 461.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, para. 64.
- 462.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, para. 65.
- 463.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, para. 356.
- 464.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, para. 357.
- 465.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, para. 357.
- 466.
Methanex v United States of America (UNCITRAL Arbitration), Decision on Petitions from Third Persons to Intervene as Amici Curiae of 15 January 2001, para. 49.
- 467.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, para. 358.
- 468.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, para. 359.
- 469.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, para. 365.
- 470.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, para. 366.
- 471.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, para. 367.
- 472.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, para. 369.
- 473.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, para. 370.
- 474.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, paras. 371–391.
- 475.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, para. 601.
- 476.
Pacific Rim Cayman LLC v Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12, award, 14 October 2016, para. 392.
- 477.
Pacific Rim Cayman LLC v Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12, award, 14 October 2016, para. 3.17.
- 478.
Pacific Rim Cayman LLC v Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12, award, 14 October 2016, para. 1.24.
- 479.
Pacific Rim Cayman LLC v Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12, award, 14 October 2016, para. 1.25.
- 480.
Pac Rim Cayman LLC v Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12 Application For Permission To Proceed As Amici Curiae, 2 March 2011.
- 481.
Pac Rim Cayman LLC v Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12 Submission Of Amicus Curiae Brief, 20 May 2011.
- 482.
Pac Rim Cayman LLC v The Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12, Award, 14 October 2016, paras. 1–48.
- 483.
- 484.
Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Greece v Britain, Permanent Court of International Justice, Judgment, 30 August 1924; Panevezyś-Saldutiskis Railway case, Estonia v Lithuania, Permanent Court of International Justice, Judgment, 28 February 1939; Nottebohm case (Liechtenstein v Guatemala), Second Phase Judgment, 6 April 1955.
- 485.
Kaufmann-Kohler (2012), n. 74.
- 486.
Alschner (2014), p. 192.
- 487.
Kaufmann-Kohler (2012), pp. 319–324.
- 488.
Kaufmann-Kohler (2012), pp. 319–324.
- 489.
Weiler (2001).
- 490.
Submissions of this kind have been made by the United States in S.D. Myers, Inc. v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, United States Article 1128 Submission, para. 1, 18 September 2001; and in Chemtura Corp. v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, United States 1128 Submission, para. 1, 31 July 2009.
- 491.
Alschner (2014), p. 192.
- 492.
Kaufmann-Kohler (2012), pp. 307–326.
- 493.
Pac Rim Cayman LLC v the Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1, Decision on the Respondent’s Jurisdictional Objections, para. 4.87.
- 494.
Pac Rim Cayman LLC v the Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1, Decision on the Respondent’s Jurisdictional Objections, para. 4.89.
- 495.
Weiler (2002), p. 348.
- 496.
Pearce and Coe (2000), p. 338.
- 497.
Alschner (2014), p. 192.
- 498.
European Convention on Human Rights.
- 499.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. See also European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, Right to a Fair Trial (criminal limb), 30 April 2022.
- 500.
Paolo Bargiacchi (2015).
- 501.
Caron and Caplan (2013), p. 607.
- 502.
Article 8.36 CETA.
- 503.
Articles 22 and 23, Section II – Investment, TTIP.
- 504.
US, ‘Statement on Open Hearings in NAFTA Chapter Eleven Arbitrations’, 7 October 2003; Canada, ‘Statement on Open Hearings in NAFTA Chapter Eleven Arbitrations’, 7 October 2003.
- 505.
UNCTAD, Investment Policy Hub, International Investment Agreements Navigator.
- 506.
Benin - Canada BIT 2013, in force, Article 33.2.
- 507.
Burkina Faso – Canada BIT, 2015, signed but not in force, Article 32.2.
- 508.
Cameroon – Canada BIT 2014, signed but not in force, article 30.2.
- 509.
Canada – Côte d’Ivoire BIT 2014, in force, Article 30.2.
- 510.
Canada – Jordan BIT 2009, in force, Article 38.1.
- 511.
Canada – Kuwait BIT 2011, in force, Article 30.2.
- 512.
Canada – Latvia BIT, 2009, in force, Annex C. 1.
- 513.
Canada – Mali BIT 2014, in force, Article 30.1.
- 514.
Canada – Nigeria BIT 2014, signed but not in force, Article 31.2.
- 515.
Canada – Peru BIT, 2006, in force, Article 38.1.
- 516.
Canada – Republic of Korea FTA, 2014, in force, Article 8.35(2).
- 517.
Canada – Senegal BIT, 2014, in force, Article 31.2.
- 518.
Canada – Serbia BIT 2014, in force, Article 31.2.
- 519.
Canada – Slovakia BIT 2010, in force, Annex B.1.
- 520.
Canada – United Republic of Tanzania BIT 2013, in force, Article 30.2.
- 521.
Canada – Honduras FTA, 2013, in force, Article 10.35(1).
- 522.
Colombia – Peru BIT 2007, in force, Article 26.5.
- 523.
Colombia – Costa Rica FTA 2013, signed but not in force, Article 12.23(2).
- 524.
Mexico – Panama FTA, 2014, signed but not in force, Article 10.22(2).
- 525.
New Zealand – Taiwan Economic Cooperation Agreement, 2013, in force, Article 27.2.
- 526.
Protocol Pacific Alliance, 2014, in force, Article 17.8(1).
- 527.
Republic of Korea – New Zealand FTA, 2015, in force, Article 10.27(2).
- 528.
Rwanda – United States of America BIT, 2008, in force, Article 29.2.
- 529.
United States of America- Uruguay BIT, 2005, in force, Article 29.2.
- 530.
Australia – Republic of Korea FTA, 2014, in force, Article 11.21(2).
- 531.
Canada – Czech Republic BIT 2009, in force, Annex 8. 1.
- 532.
Free Trade Agreement Between The Government of Australia and The Government of The People’s Republic of China, 2015, in force, article 9.17(3).
- 533.
- 534.
PCA Arbitration Rules 2912, Article 28 (3) 1.
- 535.
SCC Arbitration Rules 2017, Article 32(3).
- 536.
ICC Arbitration Rules 2021, Article 26(3).
- 537.
LCIA Arbitration Rules 2020, Article 19(4).
- 538.
ICSID Secretariat, ‘Possible Improvements of the Framework for ICSID Arbitration’ (ICSID Secretariat 127 Discussion Paper, 22 October 2004).
- 539.
Menaker (2010), p. 157.
- 540.
ICSID, ‘Suggested Changes to the ICSID Rules and Regulations’ (Working Paper of the ICSID Secretariat, 2005).
- 541.
Asteriti and Tams (2010), p. 794.
- 542.
ICSID, Arbitration Rules, Rule 32 (2).
- 543.
ICSID, Arbitration Rule 32(2).
- 544.
Rule 39(2), ICSID Additional Facility Rules.
- 545.
Plagakis (2013), p. 90.
- 546.
Article 28(3), UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.
- 547.
Methanex Corporation v United States of America, Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions from Third Persons to Intervene as “Amici Curiae”, 15 January 2001, para. 40.
- 548.
Methanex Corporation v United States of America, Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions from Third Persons to Intervene as “Amici Curiae”, 15 January 2001, para. 41.
- 549.
Methanex Corporation v United States of America, Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions from Third Persons to Intervene as “Amici Curiae”, 15 January 2001, para. 42.
- 550.
Webcasting refers to the method of broadcasting live audio and video in real-time to audiences all over the world via the Internet.
- 551.
Pac Rim Cayman LLC v Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12.
- 552.
Plagakis (2013), pp. 84–85.
- 553.
Mollestad (2014), p. 105.
- 554.
For more information, see Methanex Corporation v United States of America, UNCITRAL.
- 555.
Methanex Corporation v United States of America, UNCITRAL, Final Award of the tribunal on Jurisdiction and Merits, 3 August 2005, part I, para. 1.
- 556.
Methanex Corporation v United States of America, UNCITRAL, Final Award of the tribunal on Jurisdiction and Merits, 3 August 2005, part II, para. 15.
- 557.
An interesting analysis of the case can be found in Verbist (2012).
- 558.
Methanex Corporation v United States of America, UNCITRAL, Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions from Third Persons to Intervene as “Amici Curiae”, 15 January 2001, para. 42.
- 559.
Methanex Corporation v United States of America, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 7 August 2002.
- 560.
Methanex Corporation v United States of America, UNCITRAL, Final Award of the Tribunal on Jurisdiction and Merits, 3 August 2005.
- 561.
The case UPS v Canada was hereby mentioned to compare it with Methanex v United States: in fact, both are governed by NAFTA Chapter 11, but because of the parties’ different decisions, whereas Methanex tribunal could authorise public hearings, UPS tribunal could not do it.
- 562.
United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/02/1, Notice of Intent to Submit a Claim to Arbitration under Section B of Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, 19 January 2000.
- 563.
United Parcel Service of America Inc v Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/02/1, Award on Jurisdiction, 22 November 2002 9.
- 564.
United Parcel Service of America Inc v Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/02/1, NAFTA/UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules Proceeding, ICSID New Release, 7 December 2005 9.
- 565.
United Parcel Service of America Inc. v Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/02/1, Award, 11 June 2007, para. 114.
- 566.
United Parcel Service of America Inc. v Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/02/1, Award, 11 June 2007, para. 140.
- 567.
United Parcel Service of America Inc. v Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/02/1, Award, 11 June 2007, para. 102.
- 568.
United Parcel Service Of America Inc. v Government Of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/02/1, Award, 11 June 2007, separate opinion of Arbitrator Cass, para. 198.
- 569.
Echandi (2011), p. 3.
- 570.
Maupin (2013), pp. 151–152.
- 571.
Agreement between The Swiss Confederation and The Arab Republic of Egypt on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, 2010.
- 572.
Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Iraq for the Promotion and Protection of Investment.
- 573.
Agreement between the Government of Japan and the Government of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea for the Promotion and Protection of Investment, 2012.
- 574.
Marques da Silva (2016), p. 336.
References
Abaclat and Others v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5 (formerly Giovanna A. Beccara and Others v The Argentine Republic), Procedural Order 3, 27 January 2010
Abdul-Aziz B (2005) Government dumps city water. The Guardian (Dar es Salam, 14 May 2005)
Aguas dal Tunari SA v The Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/02, Decision on Respondent’s Objections to Jurisdiction, 21 October 2005
Aguas del Tunari v Republic of Bolivia, Petition of La Coordinadora Para La Defensa del Agua y Vida, La Federación Departamental Cochabambina de Organizaciones Regantes, Semapa Sur, Friends of the Earth-Netherlands, Oscar Olivera, Omar Fernandez, Father Luis Sánchez, and Congressman Jorge Alvarado To The Arbitral Tribunal, 29 August 2002
Alschner W (2014) The return of the home state and the rise of ‘embedded’ investor-state arbitration. In: Lalani S, Polanco Lazo R (eds) The role of the state in investor-state arbitration. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 192–218
Amco Asia Corporation and others v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on Provisional Measures, 9 December 1983, 1 ICSID Reports 410
Angell E (1967) The amicus curiae: American development of English institutions. Int Comp Law Q 16:1017
Annacker C (2011) Protection and admission of sovereign investment under investment treaties. Chin J Int Law 10:531
Asteriti A, Tams CJ (2010) Transparency and representation of the public interest in investment treaty arbitration. In: Schill S (ed) International investment law and comparative public law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 787–816
BA Desarrollos LLC v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/23/32, registered on 4 August 2023
Balcerzak F, Hepburn J (2015) Publication of investment treaty awards: the qualified potential of domestic access to information laws. Groningen J Int Law 3(1):147
Bargiacchi P (2015) Proceedings of the Bratislava Legal Forum 2015. Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, Bratislava
Bartholomeusz L (2005) The amicus curiae before international courts and tribunals. Non-state Actors Int Law 5:209
Bastin L (2012) The amicus curiae in investor state arbitration. Camb J Int Comp Law 1(3):208
Behn D (2015) Legitimacy, evolution, and growth in investment treaty arbitration: empirically evaluating the state-of-the-art. Georgetown J Int Law 45(2):363
Bellhouse J, Lavers A (2004) The modern amicus curiae: a role in arbitration? Civ Just Q 23:187
Berger KP (1992) The international arbitrators’ application of precedents. J Int Arb 9(4):5
Bernhard von Pezold and others v Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/15, Procedural Order No. 2, 26 June 2012
Bert P (2016) Transparency in investment arbitration: video stream of hearing in Vattenfall vs. Germany. Dispute Resolution Germany, 3 October 2016
Bevilacqua D, Spagnuolo F (2015) Transparency and participation in the global polity: lessons learned from food and water governance. Glocalism: J Cult Polit Innov
Bianchi A, Peters A (eds) (2013) Transparency in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Biglan A (2009) The role of advocacy organizations in reducing negative externalities. J Organ Behav Manage 29(3):215
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 1, 31 March 2006
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3, 29 September 2006
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 5, 2 February 2007
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Petition for Amicus Curiae Status, 27 November 2006
Biwater Plc (2005) Press Release: City Water and the Government of Tanzania, Water Technology (2 June 2005)
Bjorklund AK (2009) The emerging civilization of investment arbitration. Penn St Law Rev 113:1269
Blackaby N (2002) Public interest and investment treaty arbitration. In: Kaufmann-Kohler G, Stucki BD (eds) Investment treaties and arbitration. Association Suisse de l’Arbitrage, Special Series n. 19, Basilea, pp 145–158
Blanke G (2006) The role of the European Commission as amicus curiae in EC merger-remedy-related arbitrations. In: Blanke G (ed) The use & utility of international arbitration in EC Commission merger remedies: a novel supranational paradigm in the making? Europa Law Pub Netherlands, Groningen, p 155
Bobbio N (2005) Prefazione. In Kant I, Per la pace perpetua. Editori Riuniti, Roma
Boralessa A (2004) The limitations of party autonomy in ICSID arbitration. Am Rev Int Arbitr 15:253
Born G, Shenkman EG (2009) Confidentiality and transparency in commercial and investor-state international arbitration. In: Rogers CA, Alford RP (eds) The future of investment arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 5–42
British Caribbean Bank Ltd. v Belize, PCA Case No. 2010/18, Procedural Order 1, 6 September 2010
Brown C (2013) Introduction: the development and importance of the model bilateral investment treaty. In: Brown C (ed) Commentaries on selected model investment treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–13
Buys CG (2003) The tensions between confidentiality and transparency in international arbitration. Am Rev Int Arbitr 14:121–138
Canada, Statement of Canada on Open Hearings in NAFTA Chapter Eleven Arbitration. 7 October 2003
Caplan LM, Sharpe JK (2013) United States. In: Brown C (ed) Commentaries on selected model investment treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 755–852
Caron D, Caplan LM (2013) The UNCITRAL arbitration rules: a commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Case Concerning Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (US v Italy), 1989 I.C.J. Reports 15, Judgment, 20 July 1989
Cassese S (2012) The global polity. Global dimensions of democracy and the rule of law. Global Law Press, Seville
Center For Individual Freedom, Amicus Curiae Briefs
Chemtura Corporation v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL (formerly Crompton Corporation v Government of Canada), Confidentiality Order, n. 2, 21 January 2008
Christen R et al (2005) United Republic of Tanzania: Privatization Impact Assessment – Infrastructure. Private Participation in Infrastructure Advisory Facility 25
CIA World Factbook
CIEL/IISD (2007) Revising the UNCITRAL arbitration rules to address investor-state arbitrations. CIEL
Collins PM Jr (2004) Friends of the court: examining the influence of amicus curiae participation in U.S. Supreme Court litigation. Law Soc Rev 38:807
Colombia – Costa Rica FTA 2013
Colombia – Peru BIT 2007
De Brabandere E (2011) NGOs and the “public interest”: the legality and rationale of amicus curiae interventions in international economic and investment disputes. Chic J Int Law 12(1):85
De Palma A (2001) NAFTA’s Powerful Little Secret; Obscure tribunals Settle Disputes, but Go Too Far, Critics Say. The New York Times (New York, 11 March 2001) section 3, 1
Delaney J, Magraw DB Jr (2008) Transparency and public interest. In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 721–750
Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Douglas Z (2009) The international law of investment claims. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
DS248: United States — Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS248/AB/R, 10 November 2003
DS257: United States — Final Countervailing Duty Determination with respect to certain Softwood Lumber from Canada, WT/DS257/AB/R, 2004
DS265: European Communities — Export Subsidies on Sugar, WT/DS265/AB/R, 2005
DS269: European Communities - Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts, WT/DS269/AB/R, 2005
DS308: Mexico — Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, WT/DS308/AV/R, 2006
DS332: Brazil - Measures affecting imports of retreaded tyres, WT/DS332/AB/R, 2007
DS342: China - Auto Parts, WT/DS339/AB/R, 2009
DS435: Australia – Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging, WT/DS435/1, 10 Apr. 2012, and WT/DS/434/1, 23 July 2012
Echandi R (2011) What do develo** countries expect from the international investment regime? In: Alvarez JE et al (eds) The evolving international investment regime: expectations, realities, options. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–21
Egonu MI (2007) Investor-state arbitration under ICSID: a case for presumption against confidentiality? J Int Arbitr 24(5):479
European Commission (2001) White Paper on European Governance, COM (2001) 428 final, OJ C 287/1
European Commission (2014) Trade: Consultations: Online public consultation on investment protection and investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP), 13 July 2014
European Commission (2014) Investment Protection and Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement in EU agreements
European Commission (2014) Investment Provisions in the EU-Canada Free Trade Agreement (CETA), 26 September 2014
European Court of Human Rights (2022) Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, Right to a Fair Trial (criminal limb), 30 April 2022
European Convention on Human Rights, 1950
European Union (2012) Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. C326/01
European Union Commission (2007) TTIP draft text
Fach Gómez K (2012) Rethinking the role of amicus curiae in international investment arbitration: how to draw the line favorably for public interest. Fordham Int Law J 35:510
Feldman M (2016) International Arbitration and Transparency. Peking University School of Transnational Law Research Paper No. 16-12
Feliciano FP (2013) The “Ordre Public” dimensions of confidentiality and transparency in international arbitration: examining confidentiality in the light of governance requirements in international investment and trade arbitration. In: Nakagawa J (ed) Transparency in international trade and investment dispute settlement. Routledge, London, pp 15–29
Francioni F (2009) Access to justice, denial of justice and international investment law. EJIL 20(3):729
Franck TM (1988) Legitimacy in the international system. Am J Int Law 82(4):705
Franck TM (1995) Fairness in international law and institutions. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Franck S (2005) The legitimacy crisis in investment treaty arbitration: privatizing public international law through inconsistent decisions. Fordham Law Rev 73(4):1521
Friedland P (2006) The amicus role in international arbitration. In: Mistelis LA, Lew JDM (eds) Pervasive problems in international arbitration. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 321–328
Fry JD, Repousis OG (2015) Towards a new world for investor-state arbitration through transparency. N Y Univ J Int Law Polit 48:795
Gantz DA (2003) The evolution of FTA investment provisions: from NAFTA to the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement. Am Univ Int Law Rev 19:679
Glamis Gold, Ltd. v The United States of America, UNCITRAL, Procedural Order No. 6, 15 October 2005
Glamis Gold, Ltd. v United States of America, UNCITRAL, Award, 8 June 2009
Green v Biddle, 21 US 1, 17, 1823
Greenhill R, Wekiya I (2004) Turning off the taps: donor conditionality and water privatisation in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. ActionAid International, Johannesburg
Hall D, Lobina E (2006) Pipe dreams: the failure of the private sector to invest in water services in develo** countries: Discussion Paper, PSIRU, World Development Movement, London
Harlow C (2006) Global administrative law: the quest for principles and values. EJIL 17:187
Harper FW, Etherington ED (1953) Lobbyists before the Court. Univ Pa Law Rev 101:1172
Haugeneder F (2012) Securing confidentiality in international commercial arbitration. Transnatl Dispute Manag 9:1
Hóber K (2014) Arbitration involving states. In: Newman LW, Hill RD (eds) The leading arbitrators’ guide to international arbitration, 3rd edn. Juris, Huntington, pp 927–984
Horn N (2014) UNCITRAL Transparency Rules 2013 for investment arbitration. In: Sabahi B et al (eds) A revolution in the international rule of law: essays in honor of Don Wallace Jr. Juris, Huntington, p 335
Hunter M, Barbuk A (2003) Procedural aspects of non-disputing party interventions in Chapter 11 arbitrations. Asper Rev Int Bus Trade Law 3:151
ICC (2021) Arbitration Rules
ICSID (2005) Suggested Changes to the ICSID Rules and Regulations. Working Paper of the ICSID Secretariat
ICSID (2006a) Additional Facility Rules
ICSID (2006b) Administrative and Financial Regulations
ICSID (2006c) Convention, Regulations and Rules
ICSID Secretariat (2004) Possible Improvements of the Framework for ICSID Arbitration. ICSID Secretariat 127 Discussion Paper, 22 October 2004
IISD (2013) New UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules on Transparency: Application, Content and Next Steps
Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2009) Rules of Procedure
Iran-US Claims Tribunal (1983) Rules of Procedure, 3 May 1983
Ishikawa T (2010) Third party participation in investment treaty arbitration. ICLQ 59:373
Jansen Calamita N (2014) Dispute settlement transparency in Europe’s evolving investment treaty policy. J World Inv Trade 15:645
Johnson L, Sachs L, Sachs J (2015) Investor-state dispute settlement, public interest and US domestic law. Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
Kaufmann-Kohler G (2012) Non-disputing state submissions in investment arbitration: resurgence of diplomatic protection? In: Kohen M, Boisson de Chazournes L, Viñuales JE (eds) Diplomatic and judicial means of dispute settlement. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 307–326
Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 149 (2d Cir. 2010)
Knahr C, Reinisch A (2007) Transparency versus confidentiality in international investment arbitration – the biwater Gauss compromise. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 6:97
Kochevar S (2013) Comment: amici curiae in civil law jurisdictions. Yale Law J 122(6):1653
Krislov S (1963) The amicus curiae brief: from friendship to advocacy. Yale Law 72(4):694
Kulick A (2012) Global public interest in international investment law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
LCIA (2020) Arbitration Rules
Levine E (2011) Amicus curiae in international investment arbitration: the implications of an increase in third-party participation. Berkeley J Int Law 20(1):200
Lew JDM (1982) The case for the publication of arbitration awards. In: Schultz JC, van den Berg AJ (eds) The art of arbitration, essays on international arbitration, Liber Amicorum Peter Sanders. Springer, Berlin, pp 223–232
Loewen Group, Inc. and Raymond L. Loewen v United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3, Decision on Hearing of Respondent’s Objection to Competence and Jurisdiction, 5 January 2001
Loquin E (2006) Les Obligations de Confidentialité dans l’Arbitrage. Revue de l’Arbitrage 2:323
Lowman MK (1992) Comment: the litigating amicus curiae: when does the party begin after the friends leave? Am Univ Law Rev 41:1243
Magraw D, Amerasinghe NM (2008–2009) Transparency and public participation in investor-state arbitration. ILSA J Int Comp Law 15:337
Marisi F (2020) Environmental interests in investment arbitration: challenges and directions. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn
Marisi F (2021) The importance of transparency for legitimizing investor-state dispute settlement. Handbook of international investment law and policy. Springer, pp 1563–1582
Marques da Silva MA (2016) Challenges to transparency and ethics in alternatives to arbitration in the realm of international investments. Revista de Direito Internacional Economico e Tributario 11(1):321
Maupin JA (2013) Transparency in international investment law: the good, the bad and the murky. In: Bianchi A, Peters A (eds) Transparency in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 142–171
Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Greece v Britain, Permanent Court of International Justice, Judgment, 30 August 1924
McCorquodale R (2004) An inclusive international legal system. Leiden J Int Law 17:477
McLachlan C, Shore L, Weiniger M (2007) International investment arbitration: substantive principles. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Menaker AJ (2010) Piercing the veil of confidentiality: the recent trend toward greater public participation and transparency in investor-state arbitration. In: Yannaca-Small K (ed) Arbitration under international investment agreements: a guide to the key issues. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 129–160
Merrill & Ring Forestry L. P. v The Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/07/1. Award, 31 March 2010
Metalclad Corporation v The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1 Decision on a Request by the Respondent for an Order Prohibiting the Claimant From Revealing Information, 27 October 1997
Methanex Corporation v United States of America, Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions from Third Persons to Intervene as “amici curiae”, 15 January 2001
Methanex Corporation v United States of America, Final Award of The Tribunal on Jurisdiction and Merits, 3 August 2005
Methanex Corporation v United States of America, Partial Award, 7 August 2002
Meyer T (2012) Codifying custom. U. Pa. Rev. 160:995
Mistelis L (2005) Confidentiality and third party participation. Arbitr Int 21:211
Mitchell RB (1998) Sources of transparency: information systems in international regimes. Int Stud Q 42:109
Mollestad CN (2014) See no evil? Procedural transparency in international investment law and dispute settlement. PluriCourts Research Paper n 14-20
Muchlinski P (2003) Human rights, social responsibility and the regulation of international business: the development of international standards by intergovernmental organisations. Non-State Actors Int Law 3:123
Mugisha S, Brown A, Kiwanuka S (2005) Water reforms in three East African capital cities. Working Paper for the World Bank Water Week
Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) (1995)
NAFTA Free Trade Commission (2001) Note on Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions (31 July 2001)
Neumann T, Simma B (2013) Transparency in international adjudication. In: Bianchi A, Peters A (eds) Transparency in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 436–476
New Zealand – Taiwan Economic Cooperation Agreement (2013)
Newcombe A, Lemaire A (2001) Should amici curiae participate in investment treaty arbitrations? Vindobona J Int Commer Law Arbitr 5:22
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v Guatemala), International Court of Justice, Second Phase Judgment, 6 April 1955
O’Connor K, Epstein L (1983) Court rules and workload: a case study of rules governing amicus curiae participation. Just Sys J 8:35
OECD (1962) Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property. Annex
OECD (1963) Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property, 2 ILM 241
OECD (2003a) Recent Trends in Foreign Direct Investment. Int Inv. Perspectives 23
OECD (2003b) Glossary of Statistical Terms
OECD (2005a) Transparency and Third Party Participation in Investor-State Dispute Settlement Procedures
OECD (2005b) Working Papers on International Investment, 2005/1
OHCHR (2016) EU trade agreements: UN rights expert warns against bypassing national parliaments, press release
Ortino F (2013) Transparency of investment awards: external and internal dimensions. In: Nakagawa J (ed) Transparency in trade and dispute settlement. Routledge, London, pp 119–158
Pacific Rim Cayman LLC v Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12, award, 14 October 2016
Panevezyś-Saldutiskis Railway (Estonia v Lithuania), Permanent Court of International Justice, Judgment, 28 February 1939
Paust JJ (2011) Nonstate actors participation in international law and the premise of exclusion. Va J Int Law 51:977
Pauwelyn J (2004) Bridging fragmentation and unity: international law as a universe of inter-connected islands. Mich J Int Law 25:903
PCA (2012) Arbitration Rules
Pearce CC, Coe J Jr (2000) Arbitration under NAFTA Chapter Eleven: some pragmatic reflections upon the first case filed against Mexico. Hastings Int Comp Law Rev 23:338
Philip Morris Asia Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2012/12, Procedural Order No. 5 (Regarding Confidentiality), 30 November 2012
Plagakis S (2013) Webcasting: a tool to increase transparency in judicial proceedings. In: Nakagawa J (ed) Transparency in international dispute settlement. Routledge, London, pp 84–118
Pouget S (2013) Arbitrating and mediating disputes. Benchmarking arbitration and mediation regimes for commercial disputes related to foreign direct investment. Policy Research Working Papers
Poulsen LS (2012) Investment treaties and the globalisation of state capitalism: opportunities and constraints for host states. In: Echandi R, Sauvé P (eds) Prospects in international investment law and policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 73–90
Protocol Pacific Alliance (2014)
Pac Rim Cayman LLC v Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12 Application for Permission to Proceed as Amici Curiae, 2 March 2011
Pac Rim Cayman LLC v Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12 Submission of Amicus Curiae Brief, 20 May 2011
Risse J (2015) A new “investment court system” – reasonable proposal or nonstarter?. Global Arbitration News (25 September 2015)
Rogers CA (2006) Transparency in International commercial arbitration. Kan Law Rev 54:1301
Rubins N (2006) Opening the investment arbitration process: at what cost, what benefit? Transnatl Dispute Manag 3
Ruscalla G (2015) Transparency in international arbitration: any (concrete) need to codify the standard? Groningen J Int Law 3:1
Rwanda – United States of America BIT (2008)
S.D. Myers, Inc. v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Procedural Order 16, 13 May 2000
Salacuse JW (2006) The treatification of international investment law: a victory of form over life? A crossroads crossed? Transnatl Dispute Manag 3:3
Sands PJ, Mackenzie R (2011) International courts and tribunals, amicus curiae. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 29–31
Sarles JW (2002) Solving the arbitral confidentiality conundrum in international arbitration. ADR and the law, 18th edn. American Arbitration Association, New York, pp 1–2
SCC (2017) Arbitration Rules
Schill S (2014) Transparency as a global norm in international investment law. Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 15 September 2014
Schliemann C (2013) Requirements for amicus curiae participation in international investment arbitration. A deconstruction of the procedural wall erected in joint ICSID cases ARB/10/25 and ARB/10/15. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 12:365
Schreuer CH (2006) Diversity and harmonization of treaty interpretation in investment arbitration. Transnatl Dispute Manag 3:2
Schreuer CH, Malintoppi L, Reinisch A, Sinclair A (2009) The ICSID convention: a commentary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Shihata IFI (1986) Towards a greater depoliticization of investment disputes: the roles of ICSID and MIGA. ICSID Rev 1:1
Simpson RW, Vasaly M (2011) The amicus brief: how to write it and use it effectively, 3rd edn. American Bar Association, Chicago
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A., and Vivendi Universal S.A. v The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Award, 9 April 2015
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A., and Vivendi Universal S.A. v The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Order in Response to a Petition for Transparency and Participation as Amicus Curiae in Suez, 30 July 2010
Tapscott D, Ticoll D (2003) The naked corporation: how the age of transparency will revolutionize business. Free Press, New York
Telefónica S.A. v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/4, Procedural Order No. 1, 8 July 2013
Tienhaara K (2007) Third Party participation in investment-environment issues: recent developments. RECIEL 16(2):22
TRC Economic Solutions (2005) Contract Renegotiations of Lease Contract Between Dar es Salaam Water and Sewerage Authority (DAWASA) and City Water Services Ltd (CWS): Phase II, Draft Final Report
Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Rwanda Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment (2008)
Triantafilou E (2009) A more expansive role for amici curiae in investment arbitrations?. Kluwer Arbitration Blog
Triantafilou EE (2010) Is a connection to the “public interest” a meaningful prerequisite of third party participation in investment arbitration? Berkeley J Int Law
Tweeddale A (2005) Confidentiality in arbitration and the public interest exception. Arbitr Int 21(1):59
UN (2013) Report of the UNCITRAL – Forty-sixth session, Official Records of the General Assembly, 68th session, Supplement No. 17, UN Doc. A/68/17
UN (2014) United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, General Assembly, 69th session, Resolution A/69/116
UNCITRAL (2012) Report of Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) on the work of its fifty-seventh session, UN Doc. A/CN.9/760
UNCITRAL (2013) Report of Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) on the work of its fifty-eighth session, Records of the UNCITRAL, 46th Session, UN Doc. A/CN.9/765
UNCITRAL, Report of the Working Group on Arbitration and Conciliation on the work of its fifty-third session (Vienna, 4-8 October 2010) (A/CN.9/712). In: Yearbook Volume XLII: 2011, United Nations, New York, 2014, pp 175–197
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2010) (2013) (2021)
UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (2014)
UNCITRAL Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) (2010) Settlement of Commercial Disputes, Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, Compilation of Comments by Governments’, Note by the Secretariat, Addendum No. 2 (4 August 2010) A/CN.9/WG.II/WP.159/Add.2)
UNCITRAL Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) (2010) Settlement of Commercial Disputes, Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, Compilation of Comments by Governments, Note by the Secretariat, Addendum 3, A/CN.9/WG.II/WP.159/Add.3, 4 August 2010
UNCTAD (2004) Transparency, Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements
UNCTAD (2010) Investor-State Disputes: Prevention and Alternatives to Arbitration. United Nations, New York
UNCTAD (2013) World Investment Report 2013 - Global Value Chains: Investment and Trade for Development (UNCTAD/WIR/2013)
UNCTAD Investment Policy Hub (2023) International Investment Agreement Navigator
United Nations (1948) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) (2010) REPORT: Settlement of commercial disputes: preparation of a legal standard on transparency in treaty-based investor-State arbitration, Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) of the work of its fifty-third session (Vienna, 4–8 October 2010), A/CN9/712, 20 October 2010
United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration. New York, 2014
United Parcel Service of America Inc v Government Of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/02/1, Award on Jurisdiction, 22 November 2002
United Parcel Service of America Inc v Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/02/1, 7 December 2005
United Parcel Service of America Inc. v Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/02/1, Award, 11 June 2007a, separate opinion of Arbitrator Cass
United Parcel Service of America Inc. v Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/02/1, Award, 11 June 2007b
United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v Government of Canada, Notice of Intent to Submit a Claim to Arbitration under Section B of Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, 19 January 2000
US (2003) Statement on Open Hearings in NAFTA Chapter Eleven Arbitrations (7 October 2003)
Van Harten G (2007) Investment treaty arbitration and public law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Van Harten G, Loughlin M (2006) Investment treaty arbitration as a species of global administrative law. Eur J Int Law 17:121
Verbist H (2012) The Methanex arbitration: the elaboration of a legal standard on transparency in treaty-based investor-state arbitration. In: Wautelet P, Kruger T, Coppens G (eds) The practice of arbitration: essays in honour of Hans van Houtte. Hart Publishing, London, pp 279–294
Villarreal MA, Fergusson IF (2015) The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Congressional Research Service
Viñuales JE (2006) Human rights and investment arbitration: the role of amici curiae. International Law: Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional 8:231
Vujanic V (2011) Amicus curiae briefs and non-governmental organizations in investment arbitration: positive or negative?. Croatian Legal Review
Weiler T (2001) The Ethyl arbitration: first of its kind and a harbinger of things to come. Am J Int Arbitr 11(1–2):201
Weiler T (2002) NAFTA Investment Law in 2001: as the legal order starts to settle, the bureaucrats strike back. Int Lawyer (ABA) 36:348
West TR, Roberts MMC (2003) Amicus curiae participation in US Supreme Court Oral Arguments. All Academic Research
Worldometers, Canada Population
Worldometers, Mexico Population
Worldometers, US Population
Zoellner C-S (2006) Transparency: an analysis of an evolving fundamental principal in international economic law. Mich J Int Law 7:579
Zuleta E (2015) The challenges of creating a standing international investment court. In: Joubin-Bret A, Kalicki J (eds) Resha** the investor-state dispute settlement system: journey for the 21st century. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 403–423
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Marisi, F. (2023). Transparency in Investor-State Arbitration. In: Rethinking Investor-State Arbitration. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 27. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38184-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38184-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-38183-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-38184-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)