Investor Presentaiton

109 114 In non-ICISID Convention cases it is increasingly accepted, although not universally true, that national courts and international arbitral tribunals can have concurrent jurisdiction to grant interim measures, so it is not out of the question that an investor could seek interim relief in both forums simultaneously. In practice, however, the type of relief sought in a court is likely to be quite different from the relief sought before a tribunal. Concerns about limiting costs suggest that parties will go to a court when the court's stronger and more wide-ranging coercive authority is necessary. The above-quoted Mexico-Singapore BIT contains a passage that specifies an investor's retention of the ability to seek injunctive relief in domestic courts: "Article 11. Submission of a Claim [...] 4. A disputing investor may submit a claim to arbitration only if: [...] (b) the investor [...] waives its right to initiate or continue before any administrative tribunal or court under the laws of the disputing Contracting Party, or other dispute settlement procedures, any proceedings with respect to the measure of the disputing Contracting Party that is alleged to be a breach of Chapter II, except for proceedings for injunctive, declaratory or other extraordinary relief, not involving the payment of damages, before an administrative tribunal or court under the laws of the disputing Contracting Party." (Emphasis added). The assumption underlying this provision is that a disputing party will seek from a court relief that is not available from an 114 Kinnear, Bjorklund and Hannaford, 2009, Art. 1134.12-1134.13. UNCTAD Series on International Investment Agreements II

View entire presentation