The Summit is pleased to share Going Through Withdrawal: A Legal Roadmap for ICSID Denunciations in Latin America, an article written by the runner-up of Georgetown's International Arbitration Writing Contest, Georgetown Law's very own Christopher Cooke.
The withdrawal of multiple Latin American countries from the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) raises important questions regarding the rights of foreign investors with assets in the withdrawing countries. Specifically, what is to be said of ICSID-referencing investment protections enshrined in the dispute resolution provisions of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs)? While the Washington Convention, which is the treaty establishing ICSID, contains a process for legal withdrawal, questions remain as to when and which host country obligations are preserved post-ICSID denunciation vis-à-vis investor-state arbitration over foreign direct investment (FDI) disputes. This article contributes an important perspective to the relevant debate by neatly organizing the dominant legal theories. This article aims to provide desperately needed clarity to the distinction between the implications of ICSID withdrawal for ICSID rights and obligations and the implications of withdrawal for BIT rights and obligations. This article’s contribution to the debate is timely as Pan Am. Energy LLC v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/8, is set to address at least one of the critical questions discussed in the article this spring.
For the full text, take a look here.
0 comments:
Post a Comment