On 6 June, the second round of the presidential elections will be held in Peru, which will pit the “Peru Libre” political party against that of “Fuerza Popular”. The future of ICSID arbitration and foreign investments in the country depends on the result of this election.
This blog describes some of the risks that are emerging as a result of the proliferation and linking of emissions trading schemes. It begins by providing an overview of the development of emissions trading schemes and the creation of links between them. It then considers the dispute risks that may arise from these developments and briefly explores the availability of relief under investment treaties for market participants that lose out when a scheme is altered, cancelled or delinked from another.
The recent decision of the English Court of Appeal in Republic of Mozambique v Credit Suisse International and others reaffirms the arbitration-friendly approach taken by the English courts and the mandatory nature of stays under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The decision also illustrates the difficulty that can be faced by the courts in applying section 9 in complex multi-party, multi-issue disputes.
It is no secret that for the past 20 years, international arbitration has been a popular method of dispute resolution for Russian parties and companies ultimately controlled by them.
Arbitrator bias has the potential to rock the very foundation of international arbitration. The principle that arbitrators must be impartial and independent from the parties is fundamental and uncontroversial among arbitration users. The understanding of what constitutes bias in concrete terms, however, is still open to debate.
In recent years, “deepfakes” have on numerous occasions captured public attention by creating viral videos of public figures or celebrities sometimes acting out of character. When utilised by specialists, “deepfake” technology can render it nearly impossible with the naked eye to detect whether an image or a video is fake.
It is a trite but a true observation that the flexibility inherent to arbitration proceedings allows parties, tribunals and institutions alike to react swiftly to the challenges faced as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, by resorting to the tools afforded by technology.
What happens after a claimant successfully obtains an arbitral award against the respondent? Where a respondent is unwilling to comply with the terms of the award, enforcement becomes necessary. This blog addresses some of the practical considerations that a claimant should consider when that happens.
In a recent opinion (not yet available in English), the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ), General Szpunar, opined that the investor-state arbitration system under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is incompatible with EU law.
Despite the fact that the now infamous Achmea judgment does not refer anywhere to the ECT, the Advocate General extended the consequences of the Achmea judgment to intra-EU ECT disputes.
Where a number of disputes arise between the same parties under different contracts or between related contracts and different parties, the courts have a number of procedural and legal mechanisms to ensure that, as much as possible, there is a “one-stop shop” for resolution of all issues at the same time. This is commonly encountered in a shipping context where a single shipment can give rise to disputes under multiple bills of lading or charterparties. However, where one or more of the contracts in a multi-contract scenario contains an arbitration clause, procedural complications can arise.