Foreign direct investment international moot competition malibu, california



Yüklə 401,42 Kb.
səhifə1/5
tarix17.01.2019
ölçüsü401,42 Kb.
#97881
  1   2   3   4   5



THIRD ANNUAL

FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT INTERNATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION

MALIBU, CALIFORNIA

22 OCTOBER TO 24 OCTOBER 2010
MEMORIAL FOR CLAIMANT

 c:\documents and settings\administrator.your-cd66f796a2\desktop\артем\vis\рап эмблема.jpg

RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF JUSTICE
ICSID Case No. ARB/X/X
Televative Inc. The Government of

vs. Beristan


CLAIMANT RESPONDENT

· Maxim Popov · Pavel Myslivskiy · Asiyat Kurbanova · Artem Antonov ·


Table of Content

Table of Content i

List of Authorities iv

List of Legal Sources vii

Statement of Facts xiii

Arguments 1
PART ONE: JURISDICTION


  1. JURISDICTION UNDER THE ICSID CONVENTION 1

  1. The requirements of ratione materiae jurisdiction are present 1

  1. The ratione materiae jurisdiction under the ICSID Convention 1

  1. The investment has a sufficient duration 2

  2. The investment of Televative appertains certain regularity of profit and return 3

  3. The assumption of risk requirement is present 3

  4. The substantial commitment is present 4

  5. The contribution to economic development of the host State is present 5

  1. Ratione materiae jurisdiction under the BIT 6

  1. Televative’s participation in the Sat-Connect project falls under the definition of ‘any kind of property’ 6

  2. Televative’s investment on the territory of Beristan was ‘in conformity with the laws and regulations’ 6

  1. The requirements of ratione personae jurisdiction are present 7

        1. Beritech constitutes an agency of Beristan within the meaning of the Article 25 of the ICSID Convention 7

        2. In any event Beristan constitutes a Contracting state with the meaning of the Article 25 of the ICSID Convention 8

        3. Televative is a national of ‘another Contracting state’ within the meaning of the Article 25 of the ICSID Convention 9

  1. The requirements of ratione voluntatis jurisdiction are present 10

  1. JURISDICTION UNDER THE BERISTAN-OPULENTIA BIT 11

  1. The effect of the umbrella clause 11

  1. Contractual undertakings of state entity are attributable to the host state 11

  2. Violation of contractual undertakings by state entity constitutes a breach of umbrella clause 12

  1. The dispute resolution provisions of the JV Agreement are irrelevant for the purposes of adjudication under the auspices of the ICSID Tribunal 13

  2. The waiting period 14


PART TWO: THE MERITS


  1. ACTS OF BERITECH ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO BERISTAN 16

  1. Acts of Beritech are attributable to Beristan 16

  2. Acts of CWF are attributable to Beristan 18

  1. RESPONDENT HAS FUNDAMENTALLY BREACHED THE JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT BY MISAPPLYING CLAUSE 8 19

  1. There is no evidence supporting Respondent’s allegation that Claimant’s personnel violated Confidentiality Clause 8 of the JV Agreement 19

  2. Respondent’s improper conduct during the buyout procedure resulted the void decision 20

  1. Sat-Connect Directors appointed by Claimant were not properly notified about the buyout procedure in violation of Beristan law 20

  2. There was no quorum during the buyout procedure 21

  1. By implementing the void buyout decision Respondent deprived Claimant of what it had expected under the JV Agreement 21

  1. RESPONDENT HAS BREACHED FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT STANDARD 22

  1. By breach of contractual obligations Respondent violated fair and equitable treatment standard 23

  2. Respondent treated Claimant Arbitrarily 24

  3. Respondent failed to respect Claimant’s legitimate expectations 25

  1. RESPONDENT HAS VIOLATED CLAIMANT’S PROPERTY RIGHTS 26

  1. The Beristan-Opulentia BIT protects shareholder’s rights and intellectual property rights 26

  1. Claimant shareholding rights are protected under the BIT 26

  2. Claimant’s IP rights are protected under the BIT 27

  1. Respondent has expropriated Claimant’s investments 27

  1. Respondent has directly expropriated Claimant’s investment 27

  2. Respondent has indirectly expropriated Claimant’s investment 28

          1. The duration of interference into Claimant’s investment is excessive 28

          2. The degree of interference is excessive 29

  1. The expropriation does not meet the legality criteria as enshrined in Article 4(2) of the Beristan-Opulentia BIT 30

  1. The requirement of public purpose was not complied with 31

  2. Claimant was not granted ‘immediate, full and effective compensation’ 31

  3. Expropriation was not made in accordance with due process of law 32

  1. RESPONDENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELY ON THE ESSENTIAL SECURITY PROVISION AS ENSHRINED IN ARTICLE 9 OF THE BERISTAN-OPULENTIA BIT 33

  1. Respondent was not protecting its essential interests 33

  2. There was no grave and imminent peril 34

  3. Respondent had other means to protect its essential security 34

  4. Respondent has failed to respect obligation of non-impairment of essential interests of other states 35

RELIEF REQUESTED 36

List of Authorities

Books

  1. J. Crawford, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility, (Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 2002);



  1. R. Dolzer and C. Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008);



  1. R. Dolzer and M. Stevens, Bilateral Investment Treaties, (The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 1995);



  1. C. F. Dugan, Don Wallace Jr., N. D. Rubins, B. Sabahi, Investor – State Arbitration, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008);



  1. K. Hober, State Resposibility and Attribution in P. Muchlinski, F. Ortino, C. McLachlan QC, L. Shore, M. Weininger, International Investment Arbitration, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008);



  1. P. Malanczuk, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law (London: Routlege, 7th ed., 1997);



  1. A. Newcombe, L. Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment, (The Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer, Law and Business, 2009);



  1. A. Reinisch, Standards of Investment Protection, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008);



  1. C. Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2d ed., 2009);



  1. C. Schreuer, The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008);



  1. M.N. Shaw, International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 5th ed., 2003)



  1. Schwarzenberger, International Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals, (London: Stevens, 1968);



  1. A. Sheppard, The Jurisdictional Threshold of a Prima-Facie Case in P. Muchlinski, F. Ortino, C. Schreuer, The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).



  1. I. Tudor, The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in the International Law of Foreign Investment, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008);


Law Journals


  1. K. H. Bochstiegel, Arbitration and State Enterprises: A Survey on the National and International State of Law and Practice, 22 J. Int’l Arb. 232;




  1. J. Crawford, ‘Treaty and Contract in Investment Arbitration’ TDM, (Provisional, Jan. 2008);



  1. R. Dolzer, Indirect expropriations: New developments?, 11 NYU Environmental Law Journal (2002);



  1. M. Feit, Responsibility of the State Under International Law for the Breach of Contract Committed by a State-Owned Entity, 28 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 142 (2010);



  1. Gaillard, Treaty-based Jurisdiction: Broad Dispute Resolution Clauses (6 October 2005) 234 (68) NYLJ 3;



  1. Walid Ben Hamida, Two Nebulous ICSID Features: The Notion of Investment and the Scope of Annulment Control: Ad Hoc Committee’s Decision in Patrick Mitchell v. Democratic Republic of Congo, 24 J. Int’l Arb. 287, 296 (2007);



  1. F.A. Mann, British Treaties for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, 52 BYIL 241 (1982);



  1. S.M. Perera, State Responsibility: Ascertaining the Liability of States in Foreign Investment Disputes, 6 JWIT 499(2005);



  1. S. Vascannie, The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Law and Practice, 70 British Year Book of International Law 133;



  1. Ibrahim F.I, Shiata & Anonio R.Parra, The Experience of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, 14 ICSID Rev.-F.I.L.J;



  1. Schreuer, The Concept of Expropriation under the ECT and other Investment Protection Treaties, Investment Arbitration and the Energy Charter Treaty 108, 145 (2006);



  1. Schreuer, Fair and equitable treatment (FET): Interaction with Other Standards, 4(5) Transnational Dispute Management (2007);



  1. Schreuer, Travelling the Bit Route–of Waiting Periods, Umbrella Clauses and Forks in the Road, 5 The Journal of World Investment & Trade (2004).



Miscellaneous

  1. Robert Ago, Addendum to the Eighth Report on State Responsibility, UN Doc A/CN.4/318/ADD. 5-7;




  1. UNCTAD, Bilateral Investment Treaties in the Mid-1990s (New York and Geneva: United Nations, 1998) (Doc. No. UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/7);




  1. The Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001 (A/56/10);




  1. Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, the Commentary, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol. II, Part Two;




  1. World Bank Guidelines, Guideline IV.


List of Legal Sources

Treaties

  1. Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, March 18, 1965, 17 U.S.T. 1270, 575 U.N.T.S. 160 (1966);




  1. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 31, May, 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 8 I.L.M. 679 (1969);




  1. Treaty Between the Republic of Beristan and the United Federation of Opulentia concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, 20 March 1996.

Cases


ADC v. Hungary


ADC Affiliate Limited and ADC & ADMC Management Limited v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/16, Award, 2 October 2006


AES v. Argentina

AES Corporation v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/17, Decision on Jurisdiction 26 April, 2005, 12 ICSID Reports 312



Aguas del Tunari v. Bolivia

Aguas del Tunari S.A v. Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 21 October 2005, ICSID homepage

Azurix v. Argentina, Award

Azurix Corp. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Award, 14 July 2006

Bayindir v. Pakistan

Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi S. A. (Scedil) v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID case No. ARB/03/29, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005, ICSID homepage


CME v. Czech Republic

CME Czech Republic B.V. v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL arbitration, Final Award, 14 March 2003, 9 ICSID Reports 264, Separate Opinion on Final Award by Ian Brownlie, 14 March 2003, available at http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/CME2003-SeparateOpinion_001.pdf


CMS v. Argentina, Award

CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award, 12 May 2005, 44 ILM 1205 (2005)


Consortium R.F.C.C. v. Morocco

Consortium R.F.C.C. v. Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6, Decision on Jurisdiction, 16 July 2001, ICSID homepage




Corn v. Mexico


Corn Products International, Inc. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/04/1, Decision on Responsibility, 15 January 2008, available at http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/CPI-DecisiononResponsibility-eng.pdf


CSOB v. Slovakia

Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, A. S. v. Slovak Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction, 24 May 1999, 14 ICSID Review – FILJ 251 (1999)


ELSI case

ELSI case, ICJ Reports (1989)


EnCana v. Ecuador

EnCana Corporation v. Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No. UN3481, Award, 3 February 2006, 45 ILM 901

Enron v. Argentine, Award

Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets LP v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Award, 22 May 2007,


Ethyl v. Canada

Ethyl Corp. v Canada, UNCITRAL arbitration, Decision on Jurisdiction, 24 June 1998, 38 I.L.M. 708 (1999)


Fedax v.Venezuela

Fedax N.V. v Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/2, Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 July 1997, 37 ILM 1378 (1998)


Foresti v. South Africa

Piero Foresti, Laura de Carli & Others v. The Republic of South Africa, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/01, Award, 4 August 2010. Available at http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/PieroForesti_v_SouthAfrica_Award.pdf


Gabcikovo-Nagymaros case

Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, ICJ Reports (1997)


Generation Ukraine v. Ukraine

Generation Ukraine Inc. v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/9, Decision on Jurisdiction, 16 September 2003, 44 ILM 404 (2005)


Genin and others v. Estonia

Alex Genin, Eastern Credit Limited, Inc. and A.S. Baltoil v. the Republic Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/2, Award, 25 June 2001, 17 ICSID Review – F.I.L.J. 395 (2002)

Helnan v. Egypt

Helnan International Hotels A/S v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, 17 October 2006


Impregilo v. Pakistan

Impregilo S.p.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID No. ARB/03/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 22 April 2005, 12 ICSID Reports 245, 12 ICSID Reports 245


Jan de Nul v. Egypt

Jan de Nul N. V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, Decision on Jurisdiction, 16 June 2006, ICSID homepage


Joy Mining v. Egypt

Joy Mining Machinery Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11, Award on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2004, 19 ICSID Review FILJ 486 (2004)


Lanco v. Argentina

Lanco International Inc. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/6, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 December 1998


LESI & Astaldi v. Algeria

LESI, S.p.A. and Astaldi S.p.A v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 12 July 2006, ICSID homepage


LESI-DIPENTA v. Algeria

Consorzio Groupment L.E.S.I. – DIPENTA v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/8, Award, 10 January 2005, 19 ICSID Review – FILJ 426 (2004)


LG&E v. Argentina

LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp., and LG&E International, Inc. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability, 3 October 2006, 46 ILM 40


Mafezzini v. Spain, Award

Emilio Augustin Mafezzini v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Award, 13 November 2000, 40 ILM 1129 (2001)


Mafezzini v. Spain, Decision on Jurisdiction

Emilio Augustin v Mafezzini v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Decision on Jurisdiction, 25 January 2000, 40 ILM 1129 (2001)


Metalclad v. Mexico

Metalclad Corp. v. United Mexican States, ICSID case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, Award, 30 August 2000, 5 ICSID Reports 209


MHS v. Malaysia

Malaysian Historical Salvors Sdn, Bhd (MHS) v. Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Award on Jurisdiction, 17 May, 2007, ICSID homepage


Middle East Cement v. Egypt

Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/6, Award, 12 April 2002, 18 ICSID Review – FILJ 602 (2003)

Mondev v. USA

Mondev International Ltd. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2, Award, 11 October 2002, 42 ILM 85 (2003)


Noble Ventures v. Romania

Noble Ventures, Inc. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11, Award, 12 October 2005, available at

http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/Noble.pdf

Nykomb v. Latvia

Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding AB v. Latvia, Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, Award, 16 December 2003


Occidental Exploration v. Ecuador

Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No. UN3467, Final Award, 1 July 2004, 12 ICSID Reports 59


Patrick Mitchell v. DRC

Patrick Mitchell v. Democratic Republic of Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/7, Annulment Decision, 1 November 2006, ICSID homepage


Pope v. Canada

Pope & Talbot Inc. v. The Government of Canada, UNCITRAL arbitration, Interim Award, 26 June 2000, 7 ICSID Reports 69


PSEG v. Turkey

PSEG Global, Inc., The North American Coal Corporation and Konya Ingin Electrik Uretim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, Award, 19 January 2007, 11 ICSID Reports 434


Ronald S. Lauder v. Czech Republic

Ronal S. Lauder v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL arbitration, Final Award, 3 September 2001, 9 ICSID Reports 66


Saipem v. Bangladesh

Saipem S.p.A. v. Bangladesh, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/07, Decision on Jurisdiction and Recommendation on Provisional Measures, 21 March 2007, 22 ICSID Review – FILJ 100 (2007)


Salini v. Jordan

Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/13, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 November 2004, 20 ICSID Review – FILJ 148 (2005)


Salini v. Morocco

Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction, 23 July 2001, 16 ICSID Review – FILJ 469 (2001)



Saluka Investments v. Czech Republic, Partial Award



Saluka Investments B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL arbitration, Partial Award, 17 March 2006



Sempra Energy v. Argentina, Award

Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Award, 28 September 2007, ICSID homepage


Sempra Energy v. Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction

Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 May 2005, ICSID homepage.


SGS v. Pakistan

SGS Societe Generale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 6 August 2003, 18 ICSID Review – FILJ 307


SGS v. Phillipines

SGS Societe Generale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6, Decision on Jurisdiction and Separate Declaration, 29 January 2004, 8 ICSID Reports 518


Siemens v. Argentina, Award

Siemens v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Award, 6 February 2007


Starrett v. Iran

Starrett Housing Corporation, v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran-U.S. C.T.R., Final Award, 1987, 16 Iran-US CTR 112


Tecmed v. Mexico

Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, Award, 29 May 2003, 43 ILM 133 (2003)


The Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway Case


The Government of the Republic of Estonia v. The Government of the Republic of Lithuania , PCIJ (1939)

Tokios Tokeles v. Ukraine

Tokios Tokeles v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction and Dissenting Opinion, 29 April 2004, 20 ICSID Review – FILJ 205 (2005)


United Parcel Service v. Canada

United Parcel Service of America Inc. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL arbitration, Award on Jurisdiction, 22 November 2002, available at http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/UPS-Jurisdiction.pdf


Vivendi II

Compania de Aquas del Aconquija, S.A. v. Argentina, ICSID case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on Annulment, 3July 2002, 41 ILM 1135 (2002)



Waguih v. Egypt


Waguih Elie George Siag and Clorinda Vecchi v. The Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15, Award, 1 June 2009, available at http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/WaguihElieGeorgeSiag-AwardandDissentingOpinion_001.pdf


Waste Management v. Mexico

Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States (II), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Final Award, 30 April 2004, 43 ILM 967 (2004)


Wena Hotels v. Egypt

Wena Hotels Limited v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4, Decision on Jurisdiction, 25 May 1999, 41 I.L.M. 881 (2002)



STATEMENT OF FACTS

  1. Claimant, Televative Inc., is a private company incorporated in Opulentia, it specializes in satellite communications technology and systems.

  2. Respondent is the Beristan Republic. The Government of Beristan established a state-owned company, Beritech S.A., in March 2007. The Beristan owns a 75% interest in Beritech and 25% of Beritech is owned by the Beristian investors.

  3. Beristan and Opulentia have ratified the ICSID Convention and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

  4. Beritech and Televative signed a Joint Venture Agreement (hereinafter the ‘JV Agreement’) on 18 October 2007 to establish the joint venture company, Sat-Connect S.A., under the Beristian law. Beritech owns a 60% majority stake in Sat-Connect, and Televative owns a 40% minority stake. Accordingly, Beritech has the right to appoint 5 directors of the Sat-Connect Board of Directors, while Televative can appoint 4. A quorum of the board of directors is obtained with the presence of 6 members. Televative’s total monetary investment in the Sat-Connect project stands at US $47 million. Beristan has co-signed the JV Agreement as guarantor of Beritech’s obligations.

  5. On 12 August 2009 The Beristan Times published an article in which a highly placed Beristian government official raised national security concerns by revealing that the Sat-Connect project had been compromised due to leaks by Televative personnel who had been seconded to the project. The official indicated it was believed that critical information from the Sat-Connect project had been passed to the Government of Opulentia. Both Televative and the Government of Opulentia have made statements to deny this published story.

  6. On 21 August 2009 the Chairman of the Sat-Connect board of directors, made a presentation to the directors in which he discussed the allegations that had appeared in The Beristan Times.

  7. On 27 August 2009 Beritech, with the support of the majority of Sat-Connect’s board of directors, invoked the buyout clause of the JV Agreement. Six directors were present at this meeting and one director, Alice Sharpeton, appointed by Televative, refused to participate and left the meeting before its end. Beritech then served notice on Televative on 28 August 2009 requiring the latter to hand over possession of all Sat-Connect site, facilities and equipment within 14 days and to remove all seconded personnel from the project.

  8. On 11 September 2009 the Civil Works Force (“CWF”), the civil engineering section of the Beristian army, secured all sites and facilities of the Sat-Connect project. Those personnel of the project who were associated with Televative were instructed to leave the project sites and facilities immediately, and were eventually evacuated from Beristan.

  9. On 12 September 2009 Televative submitted a written notice to Beristan of a dispute under the Beristan-Opulentia BIT, in which Televative notified Beristan their desire to settle the dispute amicably, and failing that, to proceed with arbitration pursuant to Article 11 of the BIT.

  10. On 19 October 2009 Beritech filed a request for arbitration against Televative under Clause 17 of the JV Agreement. Beritech has paid US$47 million into an escrow account, which has been made available for Televative and is being held pending the decision in this arbitration. Televative has refused to accept this payment and has refused to respond to Beritech’s arbitration request.

  11. On 28 October 2009 Televative requested arbitration in accordance with ICSID’s Rules of Procedure for the Institution of Conciliation and Arbitration Proceedings and notified the Government of Beristan.

On 1 November 2009 the ICSID Secretary General registered for arbitration this dispute brought by Televative against the Government of Berista

ARGUMENTS


Yüklə 401,42 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
  1   2   3   4   5



Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©muhaz.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət
gir | qeydiyyatdan keç
    Ana səhifə
Dərs
Dərslik
Guide
Kompozisiya
Mücərrəd
Mühazirə
Qaydalar
Referat
Report
Request
Review

yükləyin