Tag: Investor-State Dispites

Round-Up of Investment Arbitrations Against CIS States: Recent Developments

Round-Up of Investment Arbitrations Against CIS States: Recent Developments

In the December 2016 – March 2017 period, some major procedural developments occurred in several pending and concluded investment arbitrations against CIS states. In some of these pending disputes, arbitral tribunals have asserted jurisdiction over the investors’ claims, addressing noteworthy issues such as: provisional application of the Energy Charter Treaty, application of BITs to investments in Crimea and corruption […]

Money Laundering Allegations by Kyrgyzstan against Latvian Investor Resurface in Paris Cour d’Appel

Money Laundering Allegations by Kyrgyzstan against Latvian Investor Resurface in Paris Cour d’Appel

In a recent judgment (21 February 2017), the Paris Cour d’Appel annulled the USD 15 million arbitral award in Valery Belokon v The Kyrgyz Republic rendered by the UNCITRAL tribunal against Kyrgyzstan under the 2008 Latvia-Kyrgyzstan BIT. The arbitral tribunal had previously rejected the allegations by Kyrgyzstan that the Claimant had, through its investment, Manas Bank, […]

By 28 February, 2017 0 Comments Read More →
Russian Investors Turning More Frequently to Investment Arbitration

Russian Investors Turning More Frequently to Investment Arbitration

In 2016 the Russian Federation has most commonly appeared on the host state’s end of investor-state disputes, facing numerous arbitration claims brought in relation to the events in Crimea. However, quite recently Russia has also become more involved as a home state, with Russian investors becoming more active in investor-state disputes. This post highlights the […]

By 22 November, 2016 0 Comments Read More →
Recent Investment Arbitration Disputes involving CIS States

Recent Investment Arbitration Disputes involving CIS States

The period of July–October 2016 has seen several developments in the field of Investor-State Dispute Settlement in the CIS region. The arbitral tribunals in these cases will further address issues such as: the succession of the former Soviet republics to USSR investment treaty obligations, the mandatory nature of local courts’ litigation provision in the Turkmenistan–Turkey […]

By 17 October, 2016 0 Comments Read More →
Counterclaims in Oxus Gold v Uzbekistan: Is Investor-State Arbitration Still a One-Way Road?

Counterclaims in Oxus Gold v Uzbekistan: Is Investor-State Arbitration Still a One-Way Road?

The arbitral tribunal in Oxus Gold Plc v The Republic of Uzbekistan in the final award that became publicly available in April 2016 rejected all counterclaims raised by the host state against the British investor. The award, rendered by Prof Pierre Tercier, Prof Brigitte Stern and Hon Marc Lalonde (issuing partial dissent on another legal issue) […]

Investment Arbitration and Protection of Subsoil Users: the View from Kazakhstan

Investment Arbitration and Protection of Subsoil Users: the View from Kazakhstan

This article is devoted to actual issues of subsoil users’ disputes in international arbitration, particularly, to the definition of international investment arbitration, investment dispute, and provides a brief analysis of current legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan in regards to exclusive competence of state courts on specific issues. As we know, there are several types […]