Investor Presentaiton slide image

Investor Presentaiton

115 121 Another way to manage parallel proceedings is to appoint the same arbitrators in the related proceedings." This approach can work whether the cases are brought under the same or under different treaties. Appointing the same arbitrators would likely contribute to the consistency of the arbitral rulings, though it would be of less assistance in reducing costs. Yet there would still likely be some economies of scale because the arbitrators would only have to become familiar with the relevant facts once. K. Counterclaims by respondent States A treaty-based investor-State dispute can only be initiated by investors who allege that a host State breached the applicable IIA. Over the past few years, however, in a growing number of IIA cases, respondent States have attempted to advance counterclaims against the claimant investor. Such counterclaims have been usually based on an allegation that the investor had violated its own obligations relating to the investment. The main rationale for counterclaims is procedural economy and the sound administration of justice: the idea is that all claims connected to the dispute could be dealt with in a single proceeding by the same tribunal. This would prevent unnecessary delays and costs related to double or multiple fact-finding endeavours, and written and oral submissions. Smooth adjudication of counterclaims could be in the interest of investors because the alternative for them 121 The cases Salini v. Morocco and Consortium R.F.C.C. v. Morocco involved similar factual and legal issues and were both based on the same BIT between Spain and Morocco. The ICSID Secretariat recommended appointing the same arbitrators in both proceedings. While separate awards were rendered, coherence in the application of the law was assured by this approach. See Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction, 23 July 2001; and Consortium R.F.C.C. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6, Final Award, 22 December 2003. UNCTAD Series on International Investment Agreements II
View entire presentation