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.
gholamreza Yazdani
Abstract
Abstract: Today in international arbitration tribunals also in international law the right to expropriate foreign investor property has been recognized as a legitimate right for the host state. In cases where the host government expropriates the property of the foreign investor, the question arises as ...
Read More
Abstract: Today in international arbitration tribunals also in international law the right to expropriate foreign investor property has been recognized as a legitimate right for the host state. In cases where the host government expropriates the property of the foreign investor, the question arises as to the basis and in what manner the damages caused by the host government's breach of the investment contract should be assessed. So far, the legal doctrine has not given a definite answer to this question. The procedures of the International Arbitration Tribunals in this regard are different. Considering the various opinions given in the ICSID Arbitration Courts as well as the Iran-US Arbitration, the market price of the commodities seems to be the most acceptable basis for assessing damages. In practice, different methods have been proposed to achieve this price, which can be categorized into three methods, the comparative method, the profit-based method, and the result-oriented method. In fact, depending on the case and the type of goods, the Arbitration Tribunal chooses one of the three methods for assessing damages to a foreign investor.
