hamed zamami; Ali Moghaddam Abrishami
Abstract
The doctrine of ‘corporate veil’ is one of most controversial issues in international arbitration. Arbitral tribunals have taken different views as to whether the corporate veil should be lifted in investment arbitration. In ICSID arbitration, this doctrine has been discussed in the context ...
Read More
The doctrine of ‘corporate veil’ is one of most controversial issues in international arbitration. Arbitral tribunals have taken different views as to whether the corporate veil should be lifted in investment arbitration. In ICSID arbitration, this doctrine has been discussed in the context of ‘nationality’ by considering ‘foreign control’ and ‘treaty shopping’, and there are conflicting awards in this regard. The problem arises when tribunals face the question of lifting corporate veil by applying the criterion of ‘nationality’. Treaty shopping itself has been subject to controversy and different interpretations. The controversy is posed when tribunals assess the relevance of place of registration as a criterion for determination of corporate nationality. By evaluating ICSID arbitration awards, this article argues that the doctrine of corporate veil has been recognized in the majority of cases. It concludes that at least, in ICSID arbitration, this doctrine may not be perceived as a strict exception.
Abstract
Challenge of arbitrators is a controversial issue in international arbitration in
general and in ICSID Arbitration in particular. There is a consensus that the
lack of impartiality and independency leads arbitrators to be challenged.
However, there is a duality of standards for challenging arbitrators. ...
Read More
Challenge of arbitrators is a controversial issue in international arbitration in
general and in ICSID Arbitration in particular. There is a consensus that the
lack of impartiality and independency leads arbitrators to be challenged.
However, there is a duality of standards for challenging arbitrators. In
international commercial arbitration and international investment arbitration
which are not based on the Washington Convention, the standard is based on the
standard of "reasonable doubt". By contrast, ICSID Arbitration adheres to the
criterion of "lack of manifest" by virtue of Article 57 of the Washington
Convention. The majority of ICSID Tribunals make a distinction between ICSID
Arbitration and non-ICSID arbitration, which is unsatisfactory and could be
criticised. By evaluating pertinent ICSID Arbitration cases, this Article argues
that ICSID regime is ambiguous in terms of the challenge of arbitrators. It
concludes that for the purpose of adopting a unitary standard for the challenge
of arbitrators in international arbitration, ICSID Arbitration Rules as amended
in 2006 and some ICSID cases have provided the basis for invoking the standard
of "reasonable doubt".
