Consistent decision-making has been an ongoing concern in the way arbitrators approach the issue of treaty shopping and indirect expropriation. The article of Ozlem Susler and Therese Wilson, …
[I]t is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.
If you sought to distil [the…
The world after the Achmea v Slovakia decision focuses on the question about the future of ISDS in relation to intra-EU BITs. At the ASIL conference on the 6 April 2018, a representative of the EU…
In the midst of the second edition of the Paris Arbitration Week, Jeantet hosted, on Thursday 12 April 2018, a roundtable on the topic “Arbitrating with States in CEE & CIS”. The speakers of the…
After three high-value infrastructure and energy projects cases at ICSID and the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Bosnia and Herzegovina (“BiH") is now facing a new US$40 million investment treaty…
In the context of the backlash against investor-state dispute settlement (“ISDS”), one of the main criticisms is the asymmetric nature of investment treaties, which impose numerous obligations on the…
Cruising around investment cases against the Caribbean islands is not only a recreational journey. It is also an informative one. This article aims at presenting key observations made during this…
The CJEU judgement issued in the much-discussed (here and here) C-284/16 Slovak Republic vs. Achmea case has every chance of becoming a game changer in the field of the investment protection regime…
On 6 March 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in the case no. C‑284/16 Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV (“Achmea case”) (available here) stated that arbitration agreements…
