Problematic issues of submitting of counterclaims in International centre for settlement of investment disputes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990X.155.239558Keywords:
International centre for settlement of investment disputes (ICSID), Investor-states dispute settlement (ISDS), the counterclaim, foreign investor, Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States on 1965, admissibility, ICSID Rules, subject-matter of the dispute, precedentAbstract
The counterclaim institute is one of crucial legal defense options during the dispute settlement in domestic and international jurisdictions; investment arbitration is not an exception. The most famous dispute settlement platform is International centre for settlement of investment disputes (ICSID). One of the key ideas of establishment of such a dispute settlement instrument was an implementation of autonomous and objective system of Investor-states dispte sttlement (ISDS) by the “independent forum”. While procedural rights of ISDS parties are conceptually equal.
However, the concept of equal procedural rights of ISDS parties has not been translated into reality. Notwithstanding the fact that the counterclaim institute is an important instrument of ensuring the objectivity and comprehensiveness of the dispute settlement, tribunal`s approaches are “restrictive” and “cautious”.Taking into account that States are “perpetual respondent” in ICSID, problematic issues of submitting of counterclaims influence the realization of interest of the State in ICSID.
Problematic issues of submitting of counterclaims clearly show the imbalance of the exercise of procedural rights by the respondent-state.The article is intended to draw the attention of readers to problematic issues of submitting of counterclaims in ICSID and on the alternative view of the isuue.
References
Waibel, M., Kaushal, A., Chung, K.-H., Balchin, C. (2010). The Backlash against Investment Arbitration: Perception sand Reality. Kluwer Law International (Faculty publications). URL: https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/mwg-internal/de5fs23hu73ds/progress?id=mWkwYECYSNmTCEiRzigsmRsU-tWIz2a7KATHG5ceQ,&dl.
Hodikin, R. (2014). Zakat eri investicionnogo arbitrazha? Legal Insight, 6 (32), 64–71 [in Russian].
Grebelsky, A. (2017). Konec epohi? Sudba investicionnogo arbitrazha v svete popitok sozdania systemy Investicionnogo suda ES. Sbornik vospominaniy, statey, inih materialov. Muranov A., Savkin P. (Ed). Moscow: Statut, 476–502. URL: https://gplaw.ru/pub/konets-epohi-sudba-investitsionnogo-arbitrazha-v-svete-popytok-sozdaniya-sistemy-investitsionnogo-suda-es/ [in Russian].
Schreuer, C. (2015). Do we need Investment Arbitration? Resharping tue Investor-State Dispute Settlement system. Journeys for the 21st Century, ed. J.E. Kalicki E., Joubin-Bret A. (Eds.), Brill Nijhoff, Leiden-Boston: 879-890.
History of the ICSID Convention: Documents Concerning the Origin and the Formu¬lation of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States. (1968). ICSID, vol. II-1. Washington D.C., URL: https://icsid.Worldbank.org/sites/default/files/publications/History%20of%20the%20ICSID%20Convention/History%20of%20ICSID%20Convention%20-%20VOLUME%20II-1.pdf.
A Brief History of Amendment to the ICSID Rules and Regulations. (2020). ICSID. URL: https://icsid.worldbank.org/news-and-events/speeches-articles/brief-history-amendment-ic sid-rules-and-regulations.
Proposals for Amendment of the ICSID Rules: Working Paper. (2018). ICSID, vol. III. Washington D.C. URL: https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/publications/WP1_Amendments_Vol_3_WP-updated-9.17.18.pdf.
Proposals for Amendment of the ICSID Rules: Working Paper 4. (2020). ICSID, vol. I. Washington D.C. URL: https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/amendments/ WP_4_Vol_1 _En.pdf.
Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings (Arbitration Rules). (2006). ICSID, 99–128. URL: https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/ICSID%20Convention%20English.pdf.
Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States. (1965). ICSID, 7–33. URL: https://icsid.worldbank.org /sites/default/files/ICSID%20Convention%20English.pdf.
Popova, I.C., Poon, F. (2015). From Perpetual Respondent to Aspiring Counterclaimant? State Counterclaims in the New Wave of Investment Treaties. BCDR International Arbitration Review, vol. 2, issue 2. URL: https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/kluwer-law-international/from-perpetual-respondent-to-aspiring-counterclaimant-state-Qek47qz2VL.
Schultz, T. (2010). The State, a Perpetual Respondent in Investment Arbitration? Some Unorthodox Considerations. The Backlash against Investment Arbitration. Waibel M., Kaushal A., Chung K.-H., Balchin C. (Eds.). URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1811922.
Award (29.08.1977), Adriano Gardella S.p.A. v. Côted’Ivoire, ICSID Case No. ARB/74/1. URL: http://internationalinvestmentlawmaterials.blogspot.com/2011/09/adriano-gardella-spa-v-cote-divoire.html.
Award (08.08.1980), S.A.R.L. Benvenuti & Bon¬fant v. People’s Republic of the Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/77/2. URL: https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-s-a-r-l-benvenuti-bonfant-v-peoples-republic-of-the-congo-award-friday-8th-august-1980#decision_1625.
Award (21.10.1983), S.A.R.L. Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH and Others v. Republic of Cameroon, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/2. URL: https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-klockner-industrie-anlagen-gmbh-and-others-v-united-republic-ofcameroon-and-societe-camerounaise-des-engrais-decision-of-the-ad-hoc-committee-english-unofficialtranslation-from-the-french-original-friday-3rd-may-1985.
Decisionon Jurisdiction in Resubmitted Proceeding (10.05.1988), Amco Asia Corporation and Others v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1. URL: https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw6357_0.pdf.
Award (26.03.2008), Limited Liability CompanyAmto v. Ukraine, SCC Case No. 080/2005. URL: https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0030.pdf.
Award (04.10.2013), Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID CaseNo. ARB/10/3. URL: https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0030.pdf.
Decision on Ecuador’s Counterclaims (07.02.2017), Burlington Resources Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5. URL: https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw8206.pdf.
Award (27.09.2019), Perenco Ecuador Ltd. v. The Republic of Ecuador and Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador), ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6. URL: https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0030.pdf.
Award (07.12.2011), Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1. URL: https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0723.pdf.
Declaration of Arbitrator W. Michael Reisman (28.11.2011), Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1. URL:https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0724.pdf.
Award (22.08.2016), Rusoro Mining Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/51. URL:https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7507.pdf.
BIT between Venezuela and Canada. (1996). URL: http://www.sice.
oas.org/Investment/BITSbyCountry/BITs/CAN_Venezuela_e.asp.
Vienna Covention on the Law of Treaties. (1969). URL: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf.
Hanotiau, B. (2012). Counterclaims in ICSID Arbitration: Conference Presentation. 8–10. URL: http://www.iareporter.com/downloads/20120703).
Abel, B. (2018). Counterclaims Based on International Human Rights Obligations of Investors in International Investment Arbitration: Fallacies and Potentials of the 2016 ICSID Urbaser v. Argentina Award. Brill Open Law, vol. 1, isuue 1, 61–90. URL: https://brill.com/view/journals/bol/1/1/article-p61_61.xml?language=en. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/23527072-00101003.
Šturma, P. (2018). Public Goods and International Investment Law: Does the New Generation of IIAs Better Protect Human Rights? Brill Open Law,vol. 1. issue 1, 5–15. URL: https://brill.com/view/journals/bol/1/1/article-p5_5.xml?language=en. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/23527072-00101002.
Award (08.12.2016) Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26. URL: https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw8136_1.pdf.
BIT between Argentina and Spain. (1991). URL: http://www.investorstatelawguide.com/documents/documents/BIT-0008%20-%20Argentina-Spain%20(1991)%20%5Benglish%20translation%5D%20UNTS.pdf.
Decision on Jurisdiction over the Czech Republic’s Counterclaim (07.05.2004), Saluka Investments B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL. URL: https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0739.pdf.
Lalive, P., Halonen, L. (2011). On the Availability of Counterclaims in Investment Treaty Arbitration, Czech Year book of International Law. Belohlavek A., Rozehnalova N. (Eds.) Vol. II, 141–156. URL: http://www.lalive.ch/data/publications/pla_lha_availability_counterclaims_invtreaty_arb2011.pdf.
Douglas, Z. (2013). The Enforcement of Environmental Norms in Investment Treaty Arbitration. Harnessing Foreign Investment to Promote Environmental Protection: Incentives and Safeguards. Dupuy P., Viñuales J. (Eds). Cambridge University Press, 430–444.
Award on Jurisdiction and Liability (28.04.2011), Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Company and CJSC Vostokneftegaz Company v. The Government of Mongolia, UNCITRAL. URL: https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0622.pdf.
1995 BIT between the Russian Federation and Mongolia. (1995). URL: https://edit.wti.org/document/show/583450e8-09c3-45dc-9e5c-14a2da0c268a.
Award (18.09.2018), David R. Aven and Others v. The Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. UNCT/15/3. URL: https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw9955_0.pdf.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 O. V. Serdyuk, Георгій Грабчак
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
