niloofar saeedi; Pouria Askary
Abstract
Full Protection and Security clause, as a standard for protecting foreign investors, is included in almost every Bilateral Investment Treaty. In comparison with other protection clauses specially Fair and Equitable Treatment, this standard is less discussed in arbitral awards and legal writings, however, ...
Read More
Full Protection and Security clause, as a standard for protecting foreign investors, is included in almost every Bilateral Investment Treaty. In comparison with other protection clauses specially Fair and Equitable Treatment, this standard is less discussed in arbitral awards and legal writings, however, it has a common feature with other protection standards which is vagueness and being subject of different interpretations and the fact that Bilateral Investment Treaties do not define Full Protection and Security either. As a result, arbitral tribunals feel free to interpret and determine the scope of the Full Protection and Security standard which can also result in divergence of opinions and different interpretations. Arbitral tribunals agree that this standard protects the physical integrity of investment but over time some Arbitral tribunals presented a wider interpretation of the concept and scope of Full Protection and Security making it also applicable to stability of legal and commercial environment and legal security of foreign investment. Arbitral tribunals’ different interpretations can be justified in light of their interpretation of the nature of host states obligations under Full Protection and Security clause.
ALIREZA ebrahimgol; mahdi haghighian
Abstract
In many bilateral investment treaties, the investor is allowed to submit its claim to domestic courts, arbitration or any other agreed tribunals. Offering different options to the investor for the method of dispute resolution could lead to some problems, such as conflicting decisions and ambiguous interpretations. ...
Read More
In many bilateral investment treaties, the investor is allowed to submit its claim to domestic courts, arbitration or any other agreed tribunals. Offering different options to the investor for the method of dispute resolution could lead to some problems, such as conflicting decisions and ambiguous interpretations. Because of these problems, some states have placed some restrictions upon investors and prohibited them from submitting their claims in different courts or tribunals at the same time. Fork in the road is a specific clause requiring the investor to make a final decision and choose a specific court or tribunal, among all competent courts and tribunals, to submit its claim. Choosing any tribunal prevents other tribunals from having jurisdiction. This article aims to examine international arbitration practice regarding fork in the road clause by focusing on ICSID awards.
