On 9 June 2020 the Republic of Djibouti became the 155th state to ratify the ICSID Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (“the ICSID Convention”) following the depositing of its instrument of ratification with the World Bank. The ratification follows Djibouti’s signing of the Convention in April 2019 (see our previous blog post here). Continue reading
Tag: ICSID Convention
The Republic of Djibouti is the latest country to become a signatory to the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (the ICSID Convention). Djibouti’s Minister of Economy and Finance, Ilyas Moussa Dawaleh, signed the ICSID Convention on 12 April 2019. Djibouti must now ratify the ICSID Convention in order for it to become a Contracting State (or Member State) to the ICSID Convention, and for the ICISD Convention to come into force for Djibouti.
The ICSID Convention entered into force in Iraq on 17 December 2015. This comes after Iraq signed the ICSID Convention and deposited its instrument of ratification on 17 November 2015 to become the Convention's 160th signatory State.
In a climate of on-going challenges facing investments into Iraq, this is a significant step forward in the legal context by the Iraqi Federal Government which has been seeking to attract foreign investment to help stabilise, rebuild and diversify the country's economy. Despite the country's significant security challenges in addition to the financial impact of declining world oil prices, Iraq remains an important market for international investment given that it has the world’s fifth largest proven oil reserves and needs reconstruction and infrastructure development on a massive scale.
The immediate impact of this step on the investment climate in Iraq is likely to be relatively limited given the small number of bilateral and multilateral investment treaties to which Iraq is party to and that are currently in force. However, this may signal a shift of approach and appetite as to how quickly Iraq wants to improve its legal framework for investment protection. This step is expected to be followed by the further ratification of bilateral and multilateral investment treaties and international conventions.
ICSID has published Practice Notes for Respondents in ICSID Arbitration (the "Notes"), a 31 page practical guidance note on ICSID arbitration brought under the ICSID Convention or the ICSID Additional Facility Rules. The Notes aim to answer the questions most frequently asked of ICSID by respondent states and investors. In particular, they are intended to assist "novice" states who have never participated in an investment claim before, although their content will be of interest to prospective investor claimants too. The Notes are available in English, French and Spanish.
The Notes begin by considering conflict prevention mechanisms to help states avoid the prospect of an Investment Treaty claim. This section considers points such as:
- the importance of careful drafting in investment treaties to ensure the scope of their protections are clear; and
- preventing disputes arising by developing an awareness of investment obligations within government.
The next section of the Notes moves to consider the pre-arbitration phase of an investment dispute. It looks at how notice of a dispute is given by an investor and how states should respond to such notice. It stresses that states "should pro-actively assess the cost-benefit of settlement as soon as they receive notice of a dispute", whether informally through discussions or through formal negotiation, mediation or early neutral evaluation. The section also considers how a state can best prepare once it has become aware of a possible dispute, including developing a case and media strategy, choosing legal counsel and budgeting for legal costs.
The main portion of the Notes aims to demystify the procedural steps in an ICSID arbitration, setting out the typical sequence of the arbitration from the Request of Arbitration through to the Post Award phase. The analysis focuses on aspects of procedure which may be important to a Respondent while arbitral proceedings are ongoing, suggesting factors that may guide the state's position and providing an occasional warning of consequences (e.g. that non-participation will not prevent the formation of a Tribunal). The Notes also offer guidance on the typical split of costs between legal counsel, Tribunal and ICSID fees.
For all sections there is a list of further reading for those interested in more detail.
This is a useful publication pitched at true ICSID novices, offering both practical and tactical advice for states in how to avoid disputes and prepare effectively when disputes do arise. It also seeks to guide those states through the ICSID process. While relatively high-level, the Notes, together with the additional reading guide in each section, offer a strong foundation for those states with limited awareness of investment arbitration to educate their officials and approach future claims from a firmer foundation of knowledge. In particular, the Notes have the potential to help states to avoid taking steps that may, in the long term, harm their position. Those with practical experience of ICSID arbitration will likely be aware of the majority of what is contained in the Notes, but they may also find one or two helpful reminders or suggestions of matters to think about.
The International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes ("ICSID") has recently published its Annual Report for FY 2015, which compliments its most recent Caseload Statistics Report concerning cases registered or administered by ICSID.
The Annual Report and Caseload Statistics Report provide an interesting overview of the sectors and States involved in ICSID arbitrations, as well as providing an indication of the popularity of the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility Rules as a dispute resolution mechanism for investment claims. Whilst they do not enable analysis of all investor-state claims (as claims may also be brought under different arbitral regimes or, less frequently, state courts), the ICSID Reports cover provide a sizeable proportion of such claims (ICSID has handled 65% of all known cases). The Reports thus provide significant indicators of the nature, parties and outcomes in investor-state disputes.
On Friday 26 September, after five years of negotiations, the EU and Canada agreed in principle to a text for the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA). It is certainly comprehensive, running to 1,500 pages. It is the first such agreement signed by the EU as part of its policy (since the Lisbon Treaty) of assuming competence for trade and investment from the individual Member States. Its contents have therefore been keenly anticipated as an indication of the tone of future agreements, particularly as regards investment protection and investor-state dispute resolution (ISDS) contained in Chapter X.
CETA’s provisions are comprehensive as regards both of these areas, but with significant caveats, largely mirroring the drafts that have so far been made public in the EU-US forthcoming agreement in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (see our earlier post on the TTIP consultation here).
As its Preamble sets out, the agreement expressly recognizes “that the protection of investments… stimulates mutually beneficial business activity“. At the same time, it stresses principles of governmental autonomy (including enforcement of labour and environmental laws) which can in some circumstances limit the rights of the investor. It also points out the responsibility of businesses to respect “internationally recognized standards of corporate social responsibility“, bringing these soft law norms into the ambit of the agreement.
On 23 April 2014, the Tanzanian High Court ordered both parties in on-going ICSID arbitration proceedings, Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited (SCB HK) and the Tanzania Electric Supply Company (Tanesco), to refrain from “enforcing, complying with or operationalising” a decision made by the Tribunal in those ICSID proceedings on 12 February 2014.
This injunction was granted on an ex-parte basis. It is a clear breach of the ICSID Convention and of Tanzania’s international law obligations. If it is not reversed, it will be of significant concern to other international investors in Tanzania, and will likely discourage new investment.