Investor Presentaiton
40
INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: A SEQUEL
claim. This list can be broad or narrow, depending on the agreement
of the contracting parties. For example, Article 22 of the Canada-
Jordan BIT (2009) enumerates those IIA obligations for which an
investor can claim a breach. This list does not include Article 6(3),
which governs temporary entry of the other Party's nationals in
certain categories of employment, Article 11 "Health, Safety and
Environmental Measures" or Article 19 "Transparency".
A few BITS contain a narrow ISDS provision that covers only
one obligation to pay compensation for expropriation of an
investment. Thus, the Mauritius-Swaziland BIT (2000) provides:
"Article 8. Settlement of disputes between an investor and a
Contracting Party
[...]
(3) If a dispute involving the amount of compensation
resulting from expropriation, nationalisation, or other
measures having effect equivalent to nationalisation or
expropriation, mentioned in Article 6 cannot be settled within
six months after resort to negotiation as specified in
paragraph (1) of this Article by the investor concerned, it may
be submitted to an international arbitral tribunal established
by both parties." (Emphasis added).
(iv) Claims alleging a violation of an IIA, investment
contract or investment authorization
A number of IIAS, in particular those concluded by the United
States, contain ISDS provisions that are not limited to allegations of
treaty breaches but at the same time avoid an open-ended reference
to "all" or "any" disputes. The Singapore-United States FTA (2003)
provides an illustration:
"Article 15.15: Submission of a Claim to Arbitration
UNCTAD Series on International Investment Agreements IIView entire presentation