United Nations [UN]; World Bank; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]
Subject(s)
Conduct of proceedings — Annulment — Failure to state reasons — Manifest excess of power — Serious departure from fundamental rule of procedure
Core Issue(s)
Whether an award could be annulled where the Annulment Committee differed from the Tribunal’s legal interpretation, so long as such interpretation was reasonable. — Whether the scale of contribution and risk assumption undertaken by the aggrieved investor was an inherent element of an ‘investment’. — Whether ownership of a controlling stake in the investment vehicle was sufficient to constitute an investment.
United Nations [UN]; World Bank; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]
Subject(s)
Subject matter of the dispute (and jurisdiction) — Definition of investment — Contract claims — Treaty claim — Umbrella clause
Core Issue(s)
Whether the contract, on which the claim was based, was an investment in the meaning of Article 25(1) of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States
, as well as under the
BIT
, establishing the Tribunal's jurisdiction to consider the claims.
United Nations [UN]; World Bank; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]
Subject(s)
Annulment — Failure to state reasons — Review of arbitral awards — Manifest excess of power — Serious departure from fundamental rule of procedure
Core Issue(s)
Whether the reproduction by a Tribunal of the findings made in other arbitrations constituted a ground for annulment. — What was the standard of review of a Committee when annulment was requested based on an arbitrator’s failure to disclose and investigate, when the unchallenged members of the original Tribunal had rejected the proposal for disqualification. — Whether the application by the Tribunal of a Most-Favoured-Nation provision in an investment agreement to allow the benefits of dispute settlement provisions in another investment agreement is a ground for annulment.
Discounted cash flow (DCF), anticipated future profits — Annulment — Failure to state reasons — Manifest excess of power — Serious departure from fundamental rule of procedure
Core Issue(s)
Whether a situation where a Tribunal quantified the estimation of the amount of compensation due using one criterion it had previously rejected as unreasonable in the same Award should have been considered as contradictory reasoning. — Whether contradictory reasoning by a Tribunal amounted to failure to state reasons. — Whether an Annulment Committee, annulling a portion of an Award and the amount of compensation attached to this portion, amended the Award, replaced the Award, or created a new res iudicata.
