State-to-State Investment Treaty Arbitration: Dead End or New Frontier?
|
Start/End
|
Thursday, November 29, 2012 04:15 PM EST
-- 06:15 PM EST
|
|
Location
|
JGH 103
|
***REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED*** - click here to register. (NYS CLE will be offered. Please refer to the registration website for full details concerning NYS CLE for this program).
Most investment treaties include two arbitral clauses: one permitting investor-state arbitration and another permitting state-to-state arbitration. However, almost no analysis exists about the extent and limits of state-to-state arbitration or how such arbitration interacts with investor-state arbitration conducted under the same treaty. A number of recent cases - including Peru v Chile, Italy v Cuba and Ecuador v United States - are focusing a spotlight on these issues. State-to-state clauses typically permit claims about the "interpretation and/or application" of the treaty. But does this mean that states can bring interpretive claims that would affect ongoing investor-state disputes or bind future investor-state tribunals? Can a home state bring and/or settle a diplomatic protection claim on behalf of its investors, even if those investors do not consent? These and many other questions remain unanswered. To discuss them, please join us in a conversation with:
W. Michael Reisman, Yale Law School
Lee M. Caplan, U.S. Department of State, Office of the Legal Adviser, Office of Economic and Business Affairs
Andrew Loewenstein, Foley Hoag LLP - Boston, M.A.
Andrea Bjorklund, Visiting Professor (Guest of the L. Yves Fortier Chair), McGill University Faculty of Law
Michele Potestà, Graduate Institute, Geneva
Anthea Roberts, London School of Economics.
Co-hosted by the VCC and Center for International Commercial and Investment Arbitration.
