International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes definition

View the related practice notes about International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

Arbitration annual round-up—investment treaty arbitration: reviewing 2017 and previewing 2018 [Archived]

Arbitration annual round-up—investment treaty arbitration: reviewing 2017 and previewing 2018 [Archived] ARCHIVED :  This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This year’s annual round-up reviews some of the most significant investment treaty arbitration developments of 2017 and previews what is on the horizon for 2018. This includes key awards in International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and other investment treaty arbitration proceedings, the release of bespoke investment arbitration rules by leading institutions, and broader developments in the field of investor-state dispute settlement. Also included are updates on LexisNexis®’s content, including news of exciting developments from the past year and what is coming up in the next 12 months. Reviewing 2017 ICSID arbitration What happened? The ICSID announced in October 2016 that work had begun on updating and modernising the centre’s rules and regulations. ICSID invited comments and suggestions from ICSID Contracting States and, in February 2017, the wider public were encouraged to participate, including the arbitration community. It is the fourth such review...

Comparing international investment arbitration rules

Comparing international investment arbitration rules Investment treaty arbitrations may be brought under the rules of many different institutions or ad hoc arbitration rules. Each institution or body has its own unique rules and associated collection of risks and benefits. The table below provides a quick reference guide for the investment arbitration rules of several key institutions, ie the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), China International Economic Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). This is a high-level guide intended to provide an overview of the similarities and differences among some of the major institutional and ad hoc international arbitration rules. It is not intended as a substitute for detailed legal advice as to the procedures and laws which govern a particular dispute. Advice should be sought when agreeing to arbitration and at an early...

View the related q&as about International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

Can the court exercise its powers under AA 1996, s 44 to support an ISCID arbitration?

Can the court exercise its powers under AA 1996, s 44 to support an ISCID arbitration? The Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) sets out at AA 1996, s 44 the powers that an English court may exercise in support of arbitration. The powers are very much intended to support, and not usurp or interfere with the arbitral process. See Practice Notes: AA 1996—interim and/or emergency relief—tribunal or court? and AA 1996—interim and/or emergency relief—powers of the English court. AA 1996, s 3(1) provides for an Order in Council to be passed enabling AA 1996, s 36 (legal or other representation) and s 38 to s 44 (general powers exercisable by the tribunal, power to make provisional awards, general duty of parties, powers of the tribunal in case of

View the related News about International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

Can Romania escape its arbitral award catch-22

Law360: On 2 October 2024, the European Union General Court upheld a decision by the European Commission prohibiting Romania from paying a €178m award from the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes in favour of the Micula brothers.

State immunity case highlights UK’s creditor-friendly stance

Law360, London: In recent years, there has been a surge of enforcement cases against states, especially outside the EU, following a series of judgments from the Court of Justice of the EU, commencing with the 2018 decision in Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, which held that intra-EU bilateral investment treaties were incompatible with EU law.(Case C-284/16 ECLI:EU:C:2018:158. With ISDS provisions in intra-EU BITs being treated by the CJEU as incompatible with EU law and therefore invalid, it follows that national courts of EU Member States may feel bound to refuse to recognise and enforce such awards).