Fair and equitable treatment in arbitral practice

Journal of World Investment and Trade

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 357-386

  Schreuer, Christoph ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920490508     PISSN: 16607112     EISSN: 22119000     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/221190005X00118     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. S. Vasciannie, The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International investment Law and Practice, B. Y. I. L., Vol. 70, 1999, pp. 100-111 and 107-119;
2. C. Yannaca-Small, Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Law. Working Papers on International Investment Number 2004/3, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, Paris, 2004, pp. 3-7.
3. UNCTAD, International Investment Instruments: A Compendium, UNCTAD, Geneva, 2001, Vol. IV, p. 148.
4. R. Dolzer and M. Stevens, Bilateral Investment Treaties, Brill, Leiden, 1995, p. 58;
5. F. A. Mann, British Treaties for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, B. Y. I. L., Vol. 52, 1981, p. 241, at p. 244.
6. P. T. Muchlinski, Multinational Enterprises and the Law, Blackwell, Oxford, U. K., 1999, p. 626
7. citing J. P. Laviec, Protection et promotion des investissements: étude de droit international économique, Presses universitaires de France, Paris, 1985, p. 94.
8. See especially C. N. Brower, C. H. Brower and J. K. Sharpe, Tlte Coming Crisis in the Global Adjudication System, 19 Arb. Int'l 415, 2003, at 428;
9. P. Dumberry, The Quest to Deßne "Fair and Equitable Treatment" for Investors under International Law-The Case of the NAFTA Chapter 11 Pope & Talbot Awards, 3 J. W. I. 4, August 2002, p. 657;
10. See, especially, Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S. A. v. The United Mexican States (Tecmed), Award, 29 May 2003, 43 I. L. M. 133, 2004, paras. 155 and 156;
11. G. Sacerdoti, Bilateral Treaties and Multilateral Instruments on Investment Protection, 269 Recueil des Cours 251, 1997, at 346.
12. P. Weil, The State, the Foreign Investor, and International Law: The No Longer Stormy Relationship of a Ménage à Trois, 15 ICSID Rev.-F. I. LJ. 401, 2000, at 415.
13. See C. Schreuer, Decisions Ex Aequo et Bono under the Icsid Convention, 11 ICSID Rev.-F. I. L. J. 37, 1996.
14. Elettromca Sicuta S.p. A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy), I. C. J. Reports 1989, p. 15.
15. T. W. Wälde, Energy Charter Treaty-based Investment Arbitration, 5 J. W. I. T. 3, June 2004, p. 387.
16. Metalclad Corp. v. United Mexican States (Metalclad), Award, 30 August 2000, 5 ICSID Reports 212.
17. see United Mexican States v. Metalclad Corp., supra, footnote 40, paras. 57-76.
18. Emilio Agustín Maffezini v. The Kingdom of Spain, Award, 13 November 2000, 5 ICSID Reports 419.
19. See A. C. Sinclair, The Origins of the Umbrella Clause in the International Law of Investment Protection, 20 Arb. Int'l 411, 2004;
20. C. Schreuer, Travelling the BlT Route-Of Waiting Periods, Umbrella Clauses and Forks in the Road, 5 J. W. I. T. 2, April 2004, p. 231, at pp. 249-255;
21. T. W. Wälde, The "Umbrella" Clause in Investment Arbitration-A Comment on Original Intentions and Recent Cases, 6 J. W. I. T 2, April 2005, pp. 183-236.
22. Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co. S. A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Award, 12 April 2002, 7 ICSID Reports 178.