Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
Abstract
Fork in the road clauses and waiver clauses in investment treaties are supposed to minimize the number of parallel proceedings in foreign investment disputes. While, Fork in the road clauses preclude investors from further litigation or arbitration once the first dispute settlement mechanism is triggered, in waiver clauses, domestic litigation can be followed by treaty arbitration regarding the same dispute. In waiver clause, the foreign investor may recourse to treaty arbitration only if they waive their rights to adjudicate their claim before national and international litigation and arbitration (contract based or treaty based claims). It can be seen that in the application of the waiver clauses in some of the leading cases, grounds for distinguishing between treaty violation from contract violation in the function of waiver clause is not predicted; this approach is desirable. When it comes to the application of the fork in the road clause, investment arbitration precedent shows that identical cause of action is prerequisite for its function. This interpretation severely curtails the function of the fork in the road clause and is criticized in present article
Keywords
- پیران، حسین، ( 1393 )، مسائل حقوقی سرمایهگذاری بینالملل ، ی چاپ دوم، تهران: گنج دانش.
- شیروی، عبدالحسین، ( 1392 )، داوری تجاری بینالمللی، چاپ اول، تهران: سمت.
- علیدوستی شهرکی، ناصر، ( 1389 )، حقوق سرمایه گذاری خارجی ، چاپ اول، تهران :انتشارات خرسندی.
- میرویسی، علیرضا، ( 1393 )، حقوق سرمایهگذاری خارجی در چارچوب معاهدات
دوجانبه سرمایهگذاری، تهران: نشر پریس.
چاپ دوم، ،« آیین داوری » - نیکبخت، حمیدرضا، ( 1390 )، داوری تجاری بینالمللی
تهران، موسسه مطالعات و پژوهشهای بازرگانی. رسیدگیها موازی در دعاوی سرمایه گذاری خارجی » ،( - جعفری ندوشن، شهاب، ( 1392
. مجله حقوق دادگستری، سال هفتاد و هفتم، زمستان، شماره 84 ،« و روشهای مقابله با آن
صلاحیت مراجع حل اختلاف » ،( - نیکبخت، حمیدرضا، جعفری ندوشن، شهاب، ( 1392
مجله تحقیقات ،« معاهدات سرمایهگذاری در دعاوی معاهدات و قراردادهای سرمایه گذاری . حقوقی، بهار، شماره 61
- Amerasinghe, Chittharanjan Felix, (2004), Local Remedies in International
Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
- Dimsey, Mariel, (2008), The Resolution of International Investment
Disputes: Challenges and Solutions, Eleven International Publishing,
Utrecht, Eleven International Publishing.
- Gaillard, Emmanuel, Banifatemi, Yas, (2004), Annulment of ICSID Awards,
New York, Juris Publishing, Inc. and International Arbitration Institute.
- Mc Lachlan, Campbell, Shore, Lauerce, Weiniger, Matthew, (2008),
International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles, Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
- Muchliniski, Peter, Ortino, Federico, Schreuer, Christoph , (2008), The
بر صلاحیت مراجع حل اختلاف ... 55 « اسقاط حق طرح دعوا » و « شروط چندگزینهای » تأثیر
Oxford Hand book of International Investment Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
- Rayfuse, R., (1997), ICSID Reports: Volume 4: Reports of Cases Decided
Under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States
and Nationals of Other States, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
- Reed, Lucy, Paulson, Jan, Blakaby, Nigel, (2006), Guide to ICSID
Arbitration, Hague, Kluwer Law International.
- Schreuer, Christoph H. et al, (2009), The ICSID Convention: A
Commentary, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
- Weiler, Todd ,(2005), International Investment Law and Arbitration:
Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary
International Law, London, Cameron May Ltd.Articles:
- Jones, Carie, (2006), “When Does the Waiver Provision in NAFTA Article
1121 Have Consequences? An Analysis of the Situation Considered, Yet Left
Unresolved, in Loewen Group Inc. v. United States”, Currents International
Trade Law Journal, Volume 15, Issue 1.
- Lee, Jacobs , (2000-2001), “No Double-Dipping”, Allowed: An Analysis of
Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States and the Article 1121 Waiver
Requirement for Arbitration Under Chapter 11 of NAFTA”, Fordham Law
Review, Volume 69, Issue 6.
- Maniruzzaman, A.F.M, (2005), “the Relevance of Public International Law
in Arbitrations Concerning International Economic Development Agreements an
Appraisal of Some Fundamental Aspects”, the Journal of World Investment &
Trade, Volume 6, Issue2.
- Soderlund, Christer, (2005), “lis pendens, res judicata and the Issue of
Parallel Judicial Proceedings”, Journal of International Arbitration, Volume 22,Issue 4.
- Azurix v. Argentine Republic, (ICSID Case No, ARB/01/12), Decision on
Jurisdiction, 8 December 2003.
- CME Czech Republic B.V. v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award
on 14 March,2003
- CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentina Republic (ICSID Case No.
ARB/01/8), Decision on Jurisdiction, 17 July 2003.
- Compania de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal v.
Argentine Republic, (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3), Award on 21 November
2000, and Decision on Annulment, 3 July 2002.(Vivendi 1).
- Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets L.P. v. Argentina Republic,
(ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13), Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 January 2004.
- Genin and others v. Estonia, (ICSID Case No. ARB/99/2), Award on 25 June, 2001.
- H&H Enterprises Investments, Inc. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID CaseNo. ARB 09/15, Award on 6 May 2014).
- Lauder v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award on 3 September 2001.
- Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v. The Republic of Albania,
ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21, Award on 30 July 2009.
- Pope and Talbot Inc. v. the Government of Canada, UNCITRAL (NAFTA),
Award on Harmac Motion, 24 February 2000.
- Waste Management, Inc. v. Mexico (ICSID Case No.ARB (AF)/98/2)
(NAFTA) Jurisdiction, 2 June 2000 and Dissenting Opinion, 2 June 2000.
- Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States (Number 2), (ICSID
case No. ARB (AF)/00/3) (NAFTA), Final Award on 30 April 2004.
- Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States, (Number 2), (ICSID
Case No. ARB (AF)/00/3) (NAFTA), Mexico’s Preliminary Objection
Concerning the Previous Proceedings, 26 June 2002.Coventions and other Documents:
- Argentina-France Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1991.
- Canadian Model BIT, 2004.
- China-Iran Bilateral Investment Treaty, 2000.
- Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and
Nationals of other States (Adopted 1965, Entered into Force 1966).
- International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes Additional
Facilities Rules, 1978.
- International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Rules of
Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings (Arbitration Rules), 2006.
- Iran- Turkey Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1996.
- Iran-Bangladesh Bilateral Investment Treaty, 2001.
- Iran-Korea Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1998.
- Iran-Srilanka Bilateral Investment Treaty, 2000.
- Lebanon-Iran Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1997.
- Mexican Model IPPA, 2008.
- North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (signed 1992, enteredinto force 1994).
- Norway Model BIT, 2007.
- US Model BIT, 2012.
)