Investor Presentaiton
85
relevant administrative remedies in Colombia and not in Canada,
pointing to the possibility of asymmetrical solutions in this sphere.
The Trilateral Investment Agreement between China, Japan and
the Republic of Korea (2012) contains a four-month administrative-
review requirement:
"7. When the disputing investor submits a written request for
consultation to the disputing Contracting Party under
paragraph 2 [a pre-requisite for filing an ISDS claim], the
disputing Contracting Party may require, without delay, the
investor concerned to go through the domestic administrative
review procedure specified by the laws and regulations of that
Contracting Party before the submission to the arbitration set
out in paragraph 3. The domestic administrative review
procedure shall not exceed four months from the date on which
an application for review is filed. If the procedure is not
completed by the end of the four months, it shall be deemed to
be completed and the disputing investor may submit the
investment dispute to the arbitration set out in paragraph 3."
(Article 15).
This approach does not make recourse to administrative
procedure mandatory; rather, it leaves it to the respondent State to
decide in each case whether it wishes the particular investor to go
through domestic administrative review before the ISDS
proceedings are commenced.
A limited number of agreements require that an investor must
first exhaust the host State's administrative remedies. The BIT
between China and Côte d'Ivoire (2002) is a case in point:
"Article 9. Settlement of disputes between investors and One
Contracting Party
[...]
UNCTAD Series on International Investment Agreements IIView entire presentation