Herbert Smith Freehills’ successful representation of the Republic of Costa Rica in a high-profile investment arbitration has been named “Dispute of the Year” by Latin Lawyer at its 13th annual Deal of the Year Awards.
Tag: Christian Leathley
The Netherlands has released a new draft investment treaty for public comment (“Draft BIT“). If adopted, the Draft BIT may raise questions about the Kingdom’s attractiveness for foreign investors who have long taken advantage of Dutch treaty protections by structuring their investment via companies in the Netherlands. The Netherlands proposes to use the new model as a basis for renegotiating its existing BITs with non-EU states, and, as such, the new draft’s more restrictive provisions may be significant for existing investors with protection under existing BITs, as well as those considering future investments. Key features of the Draft BIT are considered below.
On 6 April 2018, a Tribunal constituted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules rendered an Award on Jurisdiction in the case Dawood Rawat v. The Republic of Mauritius (PCA Case 2016-20). Following a thorough analysis of the interpretation of the 1973 Investment Protection Treaty between the Republic of France and Mauritius (the “France-Mauritius BIT” or the “Treaty”), the Tribunal denied protection of the relevant investment protection treaty to a dual national – a French-Mauritian businessman – despite the treaty was silent on its application to dual nationals. This approach was contrary to prior investment treaty decisions, such as Serafín García Armas and other v Venezuela, in which tribunals have rejected jurisdictional objections brought by respondent states where relevant the bilateral investment treaty (“BIT”) was silent on the exclusion of dual nationals.
On 2 February 2018, the International Court of Justice (the “ICJ” or the “Court”) delivered judgment in the case concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua), determining the amount of compensation due to Costa Rica for environmental harm caused by Nicaragua’s activities in the northern part of Isla Portillos. This judgment, along with the related judgment delivered the same day in the joined cases concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean and Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) aims to bring to a conclusion the boundary dispute between the two neighbouring states stretching back to the 1850s.
The judgment is particularly noteworthy as it is the first time the Court has determined a damages claim for environmental harm. While the award fell short of the amount claimed by Costa Rica, both states have hailed the judgment as an important step in the normalisation of the relations between the two states.
We have known for some time now that the UK and EU have very different views regarding the state-to-state dispute resolution mechanism to be contained in the Withdrawal Agreement between the EU and the UK. The EU has never made any secret of its intention for the CJEU to adjudicate on disputes between the UK and the EU over the interpretation of, and compliance with, the Withdrawal Agreement. Yesterday the EU released a draft Withdrawal Agreement for the UK’s consideration which contains a state-to-state dispute resolution provision which is consistent with that approach. This post provides an initial reaction to this draft provision.
In an award dated 30 November 2017 (the “Award“), an ICSID Tribunal ordered Peru to pay around US$30.4million to Canadian company Bear Creek Mining (the “Claimant“) following its finding that a 2011 decree (“Decree 032“) constituted an unlawful indirect expropriation of the Claimant’s right to operate the Santa Ana mine (the “Project“).
This post discusses the disagreement between Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel (the president of the tribunal) and Michael Pryles (appointed by the Claimant) (together, the “Majority“), and Prof. Philippe Sands QC (appointed by Peru), on the assessment of damages. Prof. Sands considered that the damages should be reduced due to contributory fault on the part of the Claimant.
The impact the Claimant’s conduct had on the Tribunal’s calculation of damages was, in any case, significant. Given the extent of, and reasons for, the opposition to the Project by the time of Decree 032, the Tribunal thought a hypothetical purchaser would not have obtained the necessary ‘social license’ to proceed with the Project. Ultimately it awarded the Claimant only a fraction of the US$522 million claimed. The reduced damages award emphasises the importance of respect for human rights and engagement with indigenous communities by investors.
The respective views expressed by the arbitrators concerning the Claimant’s conduct are also interesting in light of the broader debate about the relevance of the human rights of non-parties in investor-state arbitration.
One month into 2018, the future of NAFTA continues to hang in the balance. The negotiating parties will reportedly convene in Ottawa for the sixth of seven planned negotiating sessions from January 23 – 29th. The parties initially hoped to conclude the negotiations before the end of 2017, but US President Donald Trump indicated on January 11, 2018 that there was “no rush” in the negotiations. In the same interview, Mr. Trump said that it may be difficult to reach an agreement before the July 1, 2018 federal election in Mexico, suggesting that the negotiations may continue for months. The parties’ agreement to keep the negotiations confidential means that few concrete details about the negotiating texts and parties’ proposals have been made public.
For more analysis of the NAFTA renegotiations, see our previous updates:
The US Trade Representative (USTR) is reportedly finalizing a proposal to dramatically restructure NAFTA’s investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, transforming it into an “opt-in” regime under which each NAFTA state would elect whether or not to permit investors of other NAFTA parties to bring claims directly against it. The proposal apparently remains under discussion within the US administration, and has not yet been formally communicated to Canada and Mexico.
The ambition of this reported proposal, which would fundamentally reshape investor protection under NAFTA, far exceeds what the US administration had tabled in advance of the negotiations.
Developed states may have historically viewed the submission to arbitral jurisdiction to resolve disputes with certain investors under investment treaties and free trade agreements primarily as a benefit for their own investors going abroad, rather than as a potential source of liability. However, that appears to be changing with the tides of global investment flows, and as developed states have increasingly been the respondents in investor-state arbitration. US Trade Representative Lighthizer has echoed this criticism, saying that he is “troubled by the fact that nonelected non-Americans can make the final decision that the United States law is invalid“, as the US has committed itself in numerous bilateral and multilateral international agreements, including NAFTA.
This is not the first time that investor-state arbitration, which has the potential to hold states accountable for measures taken in violation of their international obligations, has come under fire. In recent international practice, states have explored alternatives to the investor-state arbitration mechanism. For example, the recently concluded Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (“CETA“) instead adopted an international investment tribunal featuring a regularized 15-person membership and limited appellate procedures, among other innovations.
While the EU has sharply broken with past practice on ISDS mechanisms, the US recently supported including investor-state arbitration in the ill-fated Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the contemplated US-EU Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). ISDS has lost favor among some governments and other stakeholders, but remains popular among influential groups; for example, in advance of the NAFTA renegotiations, the National Association of Manufacturers, which includes many businesses with investments in cross-border supply chains, mobilized to lobby in favor of maintaining NAFTA’s investor-state arbitration mechanisms. The USTR proposal will likely generate significant controversy, as some stakeholders will think it goes too far to strip protections for international investors, while others would prefer the wholesale abandonment of ISDS.
It is, of course, too soon to attempt to draw far-reaching conclusions about the USTR’s reported proposal, but it does appear to signal a significant shift in US policy. Businesses with global supply chains and international investments should closely follow the NAFTA renegotiations, as a move by the US away from ISDS may signal the emergence of serious cracks in the foundations of investment protection under international law.
This is part 2 of our ongoing series concerning the future of NAFTA. Round one of the NAFTA renegotiations ended Sunday, August 20, 2017, after which the negotiating parties issued a trilateral statement reaffirming their intentions to continue at a rapid pace. Round two of the talks will take place in Mexico from September 1-5, before moving to Canada for round three from September 23-27.
For more context, see our previous posts:
If you have specific questions about how the NAFTA renegotiations may affect your business, please contact Christian Leathley, Partner, Timothy Hughes, Associate, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.
 In the objectives released by the US Trade Representative on July 17, 2017, the administration signaled a more modest agenda in relation to NAFTA’s ISDS mechanisms, including measures to improve transparency and expanded opportunities for non-parties to make submissions in a dispute.
On August 16, 2017, trade representatives of the United States, Mexico and Canada will convene in Washington, DC for the first of seven scheduled rounds of negotiations in relation to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The negotiations have been covered extensively in national and international media and, given the scope of the interests at stake, we expect that coverage to only intensify.
To provide practical insights to stakeholders in key industries, we have focused this update on the context of the negotiations, the interests and objectives laid out by the states in advance of the talks, and our strategic view of what interested observers should watch for. We will periodically publish sector-focused insights as the negotiations develop. Continue reading
The United States will lobby for changes to the investor-state dispute settlement (“ISDS”) provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) in the upcoming discussions to renegotiate the regional treaty.
ISDS reform is one of several “negotiating objectives” announced last month by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (the “USTR”), the federal agency with responsibility for US trade negotiations. The disclosure was made public in accordance with a 2015 statute that requires the USTR to release objectives at least 30 days before the start of formal trade negotiations. The NAFTA talks are set to begin in Washington D.C. on August 16.
On the agenda are modest proposals for increased transparency in the NAFTA ISDS process, such as the introduction of mandatory public access to NAFTA arbitration hearings, and submissions, and awards. Those amendments would be broadly in line with the recent trend toward greater public transparency throughout the investment treaty space. A more striking departure from current practice is suggested by the proposed introduction of a “right” of “non-governmental entities . . . to request making written submissions to a panel.” Continue reading