Foreign direct investment international moot competition malibu, california
Yüklə 401,42 Kb.
|
Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd., House of Lords [1980] A.C. 827 at 849.
116 Clarification No. 215. 118 I. Tudor, The fair and equitable Treatment Standard in International Law of Foreign Investment, p. 250. 119 Azurix v. Argentina, Award, para. 250. 120 F.A. Mann, British Treaties for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, 52 British Yearbook of International Law 241, 244; Tecmed v Mexico, para. 155. 121 Occidental Exploration v. Ecuador, paras. 189-190. 122 Saluka Investments v. Czech Republic, Partial Award, para. 291. 123 R. Dolzer and C.Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law, p. 140-141; Mondev v. USA para. 134; SGS v. Phillipines, para. 162; Noble Ventures, Inc. v. Romania, para. 162. 125 Waste Management v Mexico, para 115. 126 Impregilo v. Pakistan, para. 260. 127 Impregilo v. Pakistan, para. 260. 128 JVA, Clause 8. 129 JVA, Clauses 4, 8; Uncontested facts, para. 10; Clarifications No. 178, 190, 200, 203, 208, 209, 211, 222, 229, 231, 247. 130 S. Vascannie, The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Law and Practice, 70 British Year Book of International Law 133; C. Schreuer, Fair and equitable treatment (FET): Interaction with Other Standards, 4(5) Transnational Dispute Management (2007); CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic, Award, para. 290. 131 Waste Management Inc. v. United Mexican States (Number 2), Final Award, para. 98. 133 Ronald S. Lauder v. Czech Republic, para. 221. 134 ELSI case, para. 128. 135 JVA, Clauses 4, 8; Uncontested facts, paras. 4, 10; Clarification No. 200. 136 Uncontested facts, para. 11; Clarifications No. 155; 228. 137 Tecmed v. Mexico, para. 154; Waste Management v. Mexico, para. 98; Occidental Exploration v. Ecuador, para. 183. 138 Saluka Investments v. Czech Republic, Partial Award, para. 302. 139 Tecmed v. Mexico, para. 183. 140 A.Newcombe, L. Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment, p. 279; Middle East Cement v. Egypt, para. 183. 141 A.Newcombe, L. Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment, p. 282. 142 A.Newcombe, L. Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment, p. 281. 143 The Beristan-Opulentia BIT, Art 1. 144 The Beristan-Opulentia BIT, Art. 1 (b). 145 The Beristan-Opulentia BIT, Art. 1 (d). 146 Genin and others v. Estonia, para. 324. 147 CMS v. Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction, para. 51. 148 Eureko v. Poland, para. 39. 149 Uncontested facts, para. 4. 150 The Beristan-Opulentia BIT, Art. 1 (d). 151 Clarification No 165. 152 The Beristan-Opulentia BIT, Art. 4.1(1). 153 M.N. Shaw, International Law, p.740. 154 Tecmed v. Mexico, para. 161. 155 C. McLachlan et al., International Investment Arbitration, para. 8.70. 156 Uncontested facts, paras. 10-11; Clarification No.200. 157 LG&E v. Argentina, para. 190; Metalclad v. Mexico, para. 103; R. Dolzer and C.Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law, pp. 65-93. 158 Tecmed v Mexico, para. 116. 159 CME v. Czech Republic, para. 609; Goetz v. Burundi, para. 124; Metalclad v. Mexico, para. 107; Middle East Cement v. Egypt, paras. 107-108. 160 Azurix v. Argentina, Award, para. 285. 161 Corn v. Mexico, para. 77; Metalclad v. Mexico, para. 108. 162 Metalclad v. Mexico, para. 107. 163 Wena Hotels v. Egypt, para. 99. 164 Middle East Cement v. Egypt, para. 107. 165 A. Reinisch, Standards of Investment Protection, p. 159. 166 A. Reinisch, Standards of Investment Protection, p. 159. 167 Uncontested facts, para. 10; Clarification No. 138. 168 C. Schreuer, The Concept of Expropriation under the ECT and other Investment Protection Treaties, in C. Ribeiro (ed.), Investment Arbitration and the Energy Charter Treaty (2006) 108, 145. 169 R. Dolzer, Indirect expropriations: New developments?, 11 NYU Environmental Law Journal (2002) 79. 170 Starrett v. Iran, para. 154. 171 Pope v. Canada, para.96. 172 Metalclad v. Mexico, para. 103. 173 Generation Ukraine v. Ukraine, para. 20.32. 174 A. Newcombe, L. Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment, p.341. 175 Uncontested facts, paras. 10-11. 176 Waguih v. Egypt, para. 433. 177 P. Malanczuk, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law (Seventh Edition, 1997) 235; K. Hober, Investment Arbitration in Eastern Europe: In Search of a Definition of Expropriation (2007) 38. 178 ADC v. Hungry, para. 432; Siemens v. Argentina, Award, para. 273; A.Newcombe, L. Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment, p.372. 179 ADC v. Hungry, para. 432. 180 A. Newcombe, L. Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment, p.370. 181 ADC v. Hungry, para. 432. 182 Uncontested facts, para. 8; Clarifications No. 178, 203, 209, 222, 231, 247. 183 Feldman v. Mexico, para. 98. 185 The Beristan-Opulentia BIT, Art. 4(3). 186 ILC Articles, arts. 31, 34 and 35; J. Crawford, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility, 194, 211, 213. 187 World Bank Guidelines, Guideline IV, Art. 5. 188 Uncontested facts, para. 12; Clarification No. 165. 189 G. Schwarzenberger, International Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals, p. 206. 190 A. Newcombe, L. Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment, p.375. 191 Uncontested facts, para. 11; Clarification No. 228. 192 The Beristan-Opulentia BIT, Art. 9(2). 194 Enron v. Argentine, Award, para. 333. 195 Sempra Energy v. Argentina, Award, para. 349. 196 ILC Articles, Art. 25 (1a). 197 ILC Articles, Art. 25 (1b). 198 Gabcıkovo–Nagymaros case, paras. 40-41; CMS v. Argentina, Award, para. 331. 199 R. Ago, Addendum to the eighth report on State Responsibility, 2 YB Int’l L Comm/n (1980), p. 19. 200 LG&E v. Argentina, para 251. 201 Gabcıkovo–Nagymaros case, para. 54. 202 Enron v. Argentine, Award, 307. 203 Sempra Energy v. Argentina, Award, para. 349. 204 LG&E v. Argentina, para. 257. 205 J. Crawford, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries, p. 184. 206 CMS v. Argentina, Award, para. 324. 207 Enron v. Argentine, Award, para. 308. 208 Sempra Energy v. Argentina, Award, para. 350. 209 A. Reinisch, Necessity in International Investment Arbitration – An Unnecessary Split of Opinions in Recent ICSID Cases?, 8 W IT 191 (2007), p. 201. 210 J. Crawford, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries, p. 184. 211 Enron v. Argentine, Award, para. 342. 212 Sempra Energy v. Argentina, Award, para. 391. Yüklə 401,42 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|