Understanding investment treaty arbitration

Please note that we also have subtopics on ICSID arbitration—overview and State immunity and arbitration—overview.

Investment treaty arbitration—an introduction

This Practice Note provides an introductory overview of investor—state arbitration and the key protections offered by bilateral and multilateral investment treaties (BITs and MITs) in respect of investments in foreign states. It sets out an explanation of the kinds of protections afforded to investors under those treaties and how investment disputes are resolved. It gives an outline of common issues in investment treaty arbitration, including who is an investor, what is an investment, jurisdiction, negotiations, interim measures, enforcement and state immunity. It provides an introduction to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and to other arbitral bodies which administer proceedings in investment treaty arbitrations.

See Practice Note: Investment treaty arbitration—an introduction.

The meaning of 'investor' and 'investment' in investment treaty arbitration

This Practice Note sets out the definitions of ‘investor’ and ‘investment’ for the purposes of investment treaty arbitration. It considers the complexities of these definitions including those in respect of holding companies, indirect ownership, nationalities and state ownership.

See Practice

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Arbitration News

ILC publishes report on Compliance with Investment Treaty Arbitration Awards

The International Law Compliance (ILC) has published the report on Compliance with Investment Treaty Arbitration Awards 2024 3rd edition. The report includes the latest data from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) which reveals a significant increase in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases, with 1,332 known treaty-based arbitrations to date. Of the 958 concluded cases, 37.7% were decided in favour of respondent states. The report highlights Spain's position as the world leader in unpaid arbitration awards, with 24 outstanding, surpassing Venezuela and Russia. Spain also tops the list of Energy Charter Treaty disputes with 52 initiated cases.

English court declares Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear dispute (Barclays Bank plc v VEB)

Arbitration analysis: In the first of two separate judgments, the London Circuit Commercial Court (LCCC) found that it was able to determine whether an arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a dispute under an arbitration agreement, under section 32(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). In the second judgment, the court granted a declaration sought by Barclays Bank plc (Barclays) that an arbitral tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear a claim brought by VEB.RF (VEB) under a currency swap agreement. This declaration was made in circumstances where Barclays had validly served a notice on VEB pursuant to the terms of an arbitration agreement, requiring VEB's claim to be heard by the English courts. Written by Tatiana Minaeva, partner, and Ana Margetts, associate, at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP.

Arbitration weekly highlights—19 December 2024

This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes: a decision from the English Commercial Court, and updates from the LCIA, SIAC, SCC Arbitration Institute, Madrid Court of Arbitration, and Delos Dispute Resolution. All this, and more, in our weekly highlights.

Timing is everything—Commercial Court takes strict approach to construing contractual time limits (Eronat v CNPC International and another)

Arbitration analysis: In Eronat v CNPC International and another, the parties had agreed to a bespoke contractual provision entitling parties to appeal an award within 30 days from the date at which the arbitral decision was ‘rendered’. This was in contrast to the default position under the LCIA Rules where there is no right to appeal. In construing the word ‘rendered’ very strictly and dismissing an appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act, the court found that time started running the date that the award was made, rather than the date the award was notified to the parties. The judgment serves as an important reminder for parties to act promptly when faced with contractual time limits, particularly when they relate to the challenge of arbitral awards. Written by Kirtan Prasad, of counsel, and Jessica Davies, associate, at RPC.