ISDS CasesâShort Forms

Leyla Bahmany

Jump to Content

ISDS CasesâShort Forms

in Double Recovery in Investment Arbitration

Autor:in:

Leyla Bahmany

Leyla Bahmany
Search for other papers by Leyla Bahmany in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed

Angemeldet Ã¼ber:

Dar Hadith al Hassania

Abstract

This book analyses the risk of double recovery in investment arbitration and suggests a solution to the problems it creates. The risk of double recovery has not been thoroughly addressed by investment arbitration tribunals or commentators, and this has resulted in host statesâ concerns about the integrity of the ISDS system. The solution that is set forth in this work neither suggests a fundamental change to present legal doctrines and practice, nor requires a fundamental change to the regulatory system to take place in order for the solution to become operative. The proposed solution consists of two parts: first, recognising the prohibition of double recovery as a principle in international investment law; and second, setting out a legal mechanism to implement the principle in order to avoid double recovery. The mechanism (which covers both scenarios of parallel proceedings and sequential proceedings) utilizes three procedural tools: the res judicata principle, the lis pendens principle, and the power of tribunals/courts to stay proceedings. Traditionally, for res judicata and lis pendens to be applicable, a triple identity test (same parties, same cause of action, and same relief/object) must be met. The book argues that the traditional application of the identity test in this international context is misguided, and proposes instead a coherent, principled identity test that is in line with the underlying policies of international investment law. The book also explains that the term âdouble recoveryâ does not entirely correspond to the phenomenon it is known to represent and suggests that the term âdouble compensationâ be used instead.

aapl v Sri Lanka	Asian Agricultural Products Ltd (aapl) v Sri Lanka, icsid Case No arb/87/3.
aes v Argentina	aes Corporation v Argentina, icsid Case No arb/02/17.
aes v Hungary	aes Summit Generation Limited and aes-Tisza ErÅmÅ± Kft v Hungary, icsid Case No arb/07/22.
aes v Kazakhstan	aes Corporation and Tau Power bv v Kazakhstan, icsid Case No arb/10/16.
Alcor v Czech Republic	Alcor Holdings Ltd v Czech Republic, pca Case No 2018â45.
Amco v Indonesia	Amco Asia Corporation and others v Indonesia, icsid Case No arb/81/1.
Amoco v Iran	Amoco International Finance Corporation v Iran, National Iranian Oil Company, National Petrochemical Company and Kharg Chemical Company Limited, iusct Case No 56.
Ampal v Egypt	Ampal-American Israel Corp, egi-fund (08â10) Investors llc, egi-Series Investments llc, and bss-emg Investors llc v Egypt, icsid Case No arb/12/11.
amto v Ukraine	Limited Liability Company amto v Ukraine, scc Case No 080/2005.
Apotex v United States (iii)	Apotex Holdings Inc and Apotex Inc v United States (iii), icsid Case No arb(af)/12/1.
Arif v Moldova	Arif v Moldova, icsid Case No arb/11/23.
Awdi v Romania	Awdi, Enterprise Business Consultants, Inc, and Alfa El Corporation v Romania, icsid Case No arb/10/13.
awg v Argentina	awg Group Ltd v Argentina, uncitral.
Azurix v Argentina	Azurix Corp v Argentina, icsid Case No arb/01/12.
Bayindir v Pakistan	Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi as v Pakistan, icsid Case No arb/03/29.
Benvenuti v Congo	sarl Benvenuti and Bonfant v Congo, icsid Case No arb/77/2.
Belenergia v Italy	Belenergia sa v Italy, icsid Case No arb/15/40.
Blount Brothers v Iran	Blount Brothers Corporation v Iran and Iran Housing Company, iusct Case No 52.
Bogdanov v Moldova (iv)	Bogdanov v Moldova (iv), scc Case No v 091/2012.
Bosca v Lithuania	Bosca v Lithuania, pca Case No 2011â05.
bp America v Argentina	bp America Production Company, Pan American Sur srl, Pan American Fueguina, srl, and Pan American Continental srl v Argentina, icsid Case No arb/04/8.
British Caribbean Bank v Belize	British Caribbean Bank Ltd v Belize, pca Case No 2010â18.
Burlington v Ecuador	Burlington Resources Inc v Ecuador, icsid Case No arb/08/5.
Busta v Czech Republic	Busta v Czech Republic, scc Case No v 2015/014.
Camuzzi v Argentina (i)	Camuzzi International sa v Argentina (i), icsid Case No arb/03/2.
Canfor Corporation v United States consolidated with Tembec Inc, Tembec Investments Inc and Tembec Industries Inc v United States and Terminal Forest Products Ltd v United States, uncitral.
cemex v Venezuela	cemex Caracas Investments bv and cemex Caracas ii Investments bv v Venezuela, icsid Case No arb/08/15.
Champion v Egypt	Champion Trading Company, Ameritrade International, Inc, and Wahbas v Egypt, icsid Case No arb/02/9.
Charanne v Spain	Charanne bv and Construction Investments Sarl v Spain, scc Case No 062/2012.
Chevron and Texaco v Ecuador (i)	Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company v Ecuador (i), pca Case No 2007-02/aa277.
Chevron and Texaco v Ecuador (ii)	Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company v Ecuador (ii), pca Case No 2009â23.
Claytons v Canada	Claytons and Bilcon of Delaware v Canada, pca Case No 2009â04.
cme v Czech Republic	cme Czech Republic bv v Czech Republic, uncitral.
cms v Argentina	cms Gas Transmission Company v Argentina, icsid Case No arb/01/8.
ConocoPhillips v Venezuela	ConocoPhillips Petrozuata bv, ConocoPhillips Hamaca bv and ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria bv v Venezuela, icsid Case No arb/07/30.
Continental v Argentina	Continental Casualty Company v Argentina, icsid Case No arb/03/9.
Corn Products International v Mexico	Corn Products International Inc v Mexico, icsid Case No arb(af)/04/1.
Daimler v Argentina	Daimler Financial Services ag v Argentina, icsid Case No arb/05/1.
Devas v India	cc/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd, Devas Employees Mauritius Private Limited, and Telcom Devas Mauritius Limited v India, pca Case No 2013â09.
Desert Line v Yemen	Desert Line Projects llc v Yemen, icsid Case No arb/05/17.
Deutsche Bank v Sri Lanka	Deutsche Bank ag v Sri Lanka, icsid Case No arb/09/2.
Deutsche Telekom v India	Deutsche Telekom ag v India, pca Case No 2014â10.
Duke Energy v Ecuador	Duke Energy Electroquil Partners and Electroquil sa v Ecuador, icsid Case No arb/04/19.
edf v Argentina	edf International sa, saur International sa and LeÃ³n Participaciones Argentinas sa v Argentina, icsid Case No arb/03/23.
El Paso v Argentina	El Paso Energy International Company v Argentina, icsid Case No arb/03/15.
Elsamex v Honduras	Elsamex, sa v Honduras, icsid Case No arb/09/4.
Enron v Argentina	Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, lp v Argentina, icsid Case No arb/01/3.
Eskosol v Italy	Eskosol SpA in liquidazione v Italy, icsid Case No arb/15/50.
FÃ¡brica de Vidrios v Venezuela	FÃ¡brica de Vidrios Los Andes, ca and Owens-Illinois de Venezuela, ca v Venezuela, icsid Case No arb/12/21.
Flughafen v Venezuela	Flughafen ZÃ¼rich ag and GestiÃ³n e IngenierÃa idc sa v Venezuela, icsid Case No arb/10/19.
Fraport v Philippines (i)	Fraport ag Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v Philippines (i), icsid Case No arb/03/25.
freif v Spain	freif Eurowind Holdings Ltd v Spain, scc Case No 2017/060.
gami v Mexico	gami Investments, Inc v Mexico, uncitral.
Gardabani, Inter rao and Telasi v Georgia (ii), scc Arbitration V2018/039.
Gavrilovic v Croatia	Gavrilovic and Gavrilovic doo v Croatia, icsid Case No arb/12/39.
Gavazzi v Romania	Gavazzi v Romania, icsid Case No arb/12/25.
Gemplus v Mexico	Gemplus sa, slp sa and Gemplus Industrial sa de cv v Mexico, icsid Case No arb(af)/04/3.
Genin v Estonia	Genin, Eastern Credit Limited, Inc and as Baltoil v Estonia, icsid Case No arb/99/2.
Glencore International v Colombia	Glencore International ag and ci Prodeco sa v Colombia, icsid Case No arb/16/6.
Goetz v Burundi (ii)	Goetz and others v Burundi (ii), icsid Case No arb/01/2.
Gosling v Mauritius	Gosling and others v Mauritius, icsid Case No arb/16/32.
gpf v Poland	gpf gp SÃ rl v Poland, scc Case No v 2014/168.
Greentech v Italy	Greentech Energy Systems A/S, NovEnergia ii Energy & Environment (sca) sicar, and NovEnergia ii Italian Portfolio sa v Italy, scc Case No v 2015/095.
Guaracachi v Bolivia	Guaracachi America, Inc and Rurelec plc v Bolivia, pca Case No 2011â17.
gÃ¼riÅ and others v Syria	gÃ¼riÅ Construction and Engineering Inc and others v Syria, icc Case No 21845/zf/ayz.
Helnan v Egypt	Helnan International Hotels A/S v Egypt, icsid Case No arb/05/19.
Himpurna v Persero	Himpurna California Energy Ltd v pt (Persero) Perusahaan Listruik Negara, uncitral.
H&H v Egypt	H&H Enterprises Investments, Inc v Egypt, icsid Case No arb 09/15.
Hochtief v Argentina	Hochtief ag v Argentina, icsid Case No arb/07/31.
Hydro and others v Albania	Hydro Srl, Costruzioni Srl, Becchetti, De Renzis, Grigolon, and Condomitti v Albania, icsid Case No arb/15/28.
Iberdrola Energia v Guatemala (ii)	Iberdrola Energia sa v Guatemala (ii), pca Case No 2017â41.
Impregilo v Argentina	Impregilo SpA v Argentina, icsid Case No arb/07/17.
Impregilo v Pakistan (ii)	Impregilo SpA v Pakistan (ii), icsid Case No arb/03/3.
Inceysa v El Salvador	Inceysa Vallisoletana sl v El Salvador, icsid Case No arb/03/26.
Inmaris v Ukraine	Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH and others v Ukraine, icsid Case No arb/08/8.
Invesmart v Czech Republic	Invesmart, bv v Czech Republic, uncitral, Award (26 June 2009).
Jan de Nul v Egypt	Jan de Nul nv and Dredging International nv v Egypt, icsid Case No arb/04/13.
Joy Mining v Egypt	Joy Mining Machinery Limited v Egypt, icsid Case No arb/03/11.
Kardassopoulos and Fuchs v Georgia, icsid Case Nos arb/07/15 and arb/05/18.
Kappes v Guatemala	Kappes and Kappes, Cassidy & Associates v Guatemala, icsid Case No arb/18/43.
Khan Resources v Mongolia	Khan Resources Inc, Khan Resources bv and cauc Holding Company Ltd v Mongolia and MonAtom llc, pca Case No 2011â09.
Kruck v Spain	Kruck and others v Spain, icsid Case No arb/15/23.
Lao Holdings v Laos	Lao Holdings nv v Laos, icsid Case No arb(af)/12/6.
Lauder v Czech Republic	Lauder v Czech Republic, uncitral.
Lemire v Ukraine (ii)	Lemire v Ukraine (ii), icsid Case No arb/06/18.
Levy v Peru	Levy and Gremcitel sa v Peru, icsid Case No arb/11/17.
lg&e v Argentina	lg&e Energy Corp, lg&e Capital Corp, and lg&e International, Inc v Argentina, icsid Case No arb/02/1.
Libananco v Turkey	Libananco Holdings Co Limited v Turkey, icsid Case No arb/06/8.
Lion v Mexico	Lion Mexico Consolidated lp v Mexico, icsid Case No arb(af)/15/2.
lsf-keb v Korea	lsf-keb Holdings sca and others v Korea, icsid Case No arb/12/37.
Lucchetti v Peru	Empresas Lucchetti, sa and Lucchetti Peru, sa v Peru (also known as Industria Nacional de Alimentos, as and Indalsa PerÃº sa v Peru), icsid Case No arb/03/4.
Mabco Constructions v Kosovo	Mabco Constructions sa v Kosovo, icsid Case No arb/17/25.
Maffezini v Spain	Maffezini v Spain, icsid Case No arb/97/7.
Maiman v Egypt	Maiman, Merhav (mnf), Merhav-Ampal Group, Merhav-Ampal Energy Holdings v Egypt, pca Case No 2012/26.
Malicorp v Egypt	Malicorp Limited v Egypt, icsid Case No arb/08/18.
mci v Ecuador	mci Power Group lc and New Turbine, Inc v Ecuador, icsid Case No arb/03/6.
Metalclad v Mexico	Metalclad Corporation v Mexico, icsid Case No arb(af)/97/1.
Micula v Romania (i)	Micula, sc European Food sa, sc Starmill srl, and sc Multipack srl v Romania (i), icsid Case No arb/05/20.
Micula v Romania (ii)	Micula and others v Romania (ii), icsid Case No arb/14/29.
Mobil v Argentina	Mobil Exploration and Development Inc Suc Argentina and Mobil Argentina sa v Argentina, icsid Case No arb/04/16.
Mobil v Venezuela	Mobil Corporation and others v Venezuela, icsid Case No arb/07/27.
Mobil v Canada (ii)	Mobil Investments Canada Inc v Canada (ii), icsid Case No arb/15/6.
mtd v Chile	mtd Equity Sdn Bhd and mtd Chile sa v Chile, icsid Case No arb/01/7.
Muhammet v Turkmenistan	Muhammet Ãap & Sehil In_aat Endustri ve Ticaret Ltd Sti v Turkmenistan, icsid Case No arb/12/6.
Murphy v Ecuador (ii)	Murphy Exploration and Production Company International v Ecuador (ii), pca Case No 2012â16.
Nagel v Czech Republic	Nagel v Czech Republic, scc Case No 049/2002.
Nissan v India	Nissan Motor Co, Ltd v India, pca Case No 2017â37.
Noble v Romania	Noble Ventures, Inc v Romania, icsid Case No arb/01/11.
Nordzucker v Poland	Nordzucker v Poland, uncitral.
Nykomb v Latvia	Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding ab v Latvia, scc Case No 118/2001.
Occidental v Ecuador (i)	Occidental Exploration and Production Company v Ecuador (i), lcia Case No UN3467.
Occidental v Ecuador (ii)	Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v Ecuador (ii), icsid Case No arb/06/11.
Oostergetel v Slovakia	Oostergetel and Laurentius v Slovakia, uncitral.
Orascom v Algeria	Orascom tmt Investments SÃ rl v Algeria, icsid Case No arb/12/35.
Pac Rim v El Salvador	Pac Rim Cayman llc v El Salvador, icsid Case No arb/09/12.
Pan American Energy v Argentina	Pan American Energy llc and bp Argentina Exploration Company v Argentina, icsid Case No arb/03/13.
Pantechniki v Albania	Pantechniki sa Contractors & Engineers (Greece) v Albania, icsid Case No arb/07/21.
Perenco v Ecuador	Perenco Ecuador Ltd v Ecuador, icsid Case No arb/08/6.
Petrobart v Kyrgyzstan	Petrobart Limited v Kyrgyzstan, scc Case No 126/2003.
Pey Casado v Chile (i)	Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v Chile (i), icsid Case No arb/98/2.
PoÅ¡tovÃ¡ Banka v Greece	PoÅ¡tovÃ¡ Banka, as and Istrokapital se v Greece, icsid Case No arb/13/8.
pseg v Turkey	pseg Global Inc and Konya Ingin Elektrik Ãretim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v Turkey, icsid Case No arb/02/5.
President Allende Foundation, Victor Pey Casado and Coral Pey Grebe v Chile (ii), pca Case No 2017â30.
Quasar de Valores sicav sa and others v Russia (formerly Renta 4 svsa and others v Russia), scc Case No 24/2007.
Railroad Development v Guatemala	Railroad Development Corporation v Guatemala, icsid Case No arb/07/23.
Renco v Peru (i)	The Renco Group, Inc v Peru (i), icsid Case No unct/13/1.
Repsol v Petroecuador	Repsol ypf Ecuador sa v Empresa Estatal PetrÃ³leos del Ecuador (Petroecuador), icsid Case No arb/01/10.
rreef v Spain	rreef Infrastructure (gp) Limited and rreef Pan-European Infrastructure Two Lux SÃ rl v Spain, icsid Case No arb/13/30.
rsm v Grenada (ii)	rsm Production Corporation and others v Grenada (ii), icsid Case No arb/10/6.
Salini Impregilo v Argentina	Salini Impregilo SpA v Argentina, icsid Case No arb/15/39.
Santa Elena v Costa Rica	CompaÃ±Ãa del Desarrollo de Santa Elena, sa v Costa Rica, icsid Case No arb/96/1.
Sanum Investments v Laos	Sanum Investments Limited v Laos, pca Case No 2013â13.
saur v Argentina	saur International sa v Argentina, icsid Case No arb/04/4.
sedco v Iran	sedco, Inc v National Iranian Oil Company and Iran, iusct Case Nos 128 and 129.
Sempra v Argentina	Sempra Energy International v Argentina, icsid Case No arb/02/16.
Seo v Korea	Jin Hae Seo v Korea, hkiac Case No 18117.
sgs v Pakistan	sgs SociÃ©tÃ© GÃ©nÃ©rale de Surveillance sa v Pakistan, icsid Case No arb/01/13.
sgs v Philippines	sgs SociÃ©tÃ© GÃ©nÃ©rale de Surveillance sa v Philippines, icsid Case No arb/02/6.
Siemens v Argentina	Siemens ag v Argentina, icsid Case No arb/02/8.
spp v Egypt	Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Ltd v Egypt, icsid Case No arb/84/3.
Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited v Tanzania, icsid Case No arb/15/41.
st-ad v Bulgaria	st-ad GmbH v Bulgaria, pca Case No 2011â06.
Strabag and others v Poland	Strabag se, Raiffeisen Centrobank ag, Syrena Immobilien Holding ag v Poland, icsid Case No adhoc/15/1.
Suez and InterAguas v Argentina	Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona sa, and InterAguas Servicios Integrales del Agua sa v Argentina (formerly Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe sa, Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, sa, and InterAguas Servicios Integrales del Agua, sa v Argentina), icsid Case No arb/03/17.
Suez and Vivendi v Argentina	Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, sa, and Vivendi Universal, sa v Argentina (formerly Aguas Argentinas, sa, Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, sa, and Vivendi Universal, sa v Argentina), icsid Case No arb/03/19.
Supervision v Costa Rica	Supervision y Control sa v Costa Rica, icsid Case No arb/12/4.
Talsud v Mexico	Talsud sa v Mexico, icsid Case No arb(af)/04/4.
Tecmed v Mexico	TÃ©cnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, sa v Mexico, icsid Case No arb(af)/00/2.
teco v Guatemala	teco Guatemala Holdings, llc v Guatemala, icsid Case No arb/10/23.
Teinver v Argentina	Teinver sa, Transportes de CercanÃas sa and Autobuses Urbanos del Sur sa v Argentina, icsid Case No arb/09/1.
Tokios v Ukraine	Tokios TokelÃ©s v Ukraine, icsid Case No arb/02/18.
Total v Argentina	Total sa v Argentina, icsid Case No arb/04/1.
Toto v Lebanon	Toto Costruzioni Generali SpA v Lebanon, icsid Case No arb/07/12.
UniÃ³n Fenosa v Egypt	UniÃ³n Fenosa Gas, sa v Egypt, icsid Case No arb/14/4.
United Utilities v Estonia	United Utilities (Tallinn) bv and Aktsiaselts Tallinna Vesi v Estonia, icsid Case No arb/14/24.
Urbaser and cabb v Argentina	Urbaser sa and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v Argentina, icsid Case No arb/07/26.
Vannessa v Venezuela	Vannessa Ventures Ltd v Venezuela, icsid Case No arb(af)/04/6.
Venezuela Holdings v Venezuela	Venezuela Holdings bv and others v Venezuela (formerly Mobil Corporation and others v Venezuela), icsid Case No arb/07/27.
Vivendi v Argentina (i)	CompaÃ±Ãa de Aguas del Aconquija sa and Vivendi Universal v Argentina (i) (formerly CompaÃ±Ãa de Aguas del Aconquija, sa and Compagnie GÃ©nÃ©rale des Eaux v Argentina), icsid case No arb/97/3.
von Pezold v Zimbabwe	von Pezold and others v Zimbabwe, icsid Case No arb/10/15.
Waste Management v Mexico (i)	Waste Management, Inc v Mexico (i), icsid Case No arb(af)/98/2.
Waste Management v Mexico (ii)	Waste Management, Inc v Mexico (ii), icsid Case No arb(af)/00/3.
Westmoreland Mining v Canada	Westmoreland Mining Holdings, llc v Canada, icsid Case No unct/20/3.
Yukos Capital v Russia	Yukos Capital Limited (formerly Yukos Capital sarl) v Russia, pca Case No 2013â31.
Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v Russia, pca Case No 2005-04/aa227 in conjunction with Hulley Enterprises Limited (Cyprus) v Russia, pca Case No 2005-03/aa226 and Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v Russia, pca Case No 2005-05/aa228.
Zeevi v Bulgaria	Zeevi Holdings v Bulgaria and the Privatization Agency of Bulgaria, Case No unc 39/dk.

Zitierungsangaben

Save
Cite
Inhalt per Mail versenden

Link teilen

Sie kÃ¶nnen einen Link zu dieser Seite per E-Mail senden:
Inhalt per Mail versenden
oder den Link direkt kopieren:

https://brill.edhh.ma/display/book/9789004549463/front-12.xml
Der Link wurde nicht kopiert. Ihr aktueller Browser unterstÃ¼tzt das Kopieren Ã¼ber diese SchaltflÃ¤che mÃ¶glicherweise nicht.

Link wurde kopiert

Reduzieren
Erweitern
Nach oben

Double Recovery in Investment Arbitration

Toward a Principled Treatment of Double Compensation

Reihe:Â Nijhoff International Investment Law Series, Band: 24

Cover Double Recovery in Investment Arbitration

ISBN:: 9789004549463

Verleger:: Brill | Nijhoff

Print-Publikationsdatum:: 03 Aug 2023

Fachgebiete
- Internationales Recht

Front Matter

Part I Contours of the Problem

Part II Existing Approaches to Double Compensation

Part III Restating the Law on Double Compensation

Appendices

Back Matter

Kennzahlen

	Insgesamt	Letzte 365 Tage	In den letzten 30 Tagen
Aufrufe von Kurzbeschreibungen	0	0	0
Gesamttextansichten	95	29	5
PDF-Downloads	0	0	0

Afrikanistik	Internationale Beziehungen	Nahost- und Islamwissenschaften
Altorientalistik und Ägyptologie	Internationales Recht	Pädagogik
Amerikanistik	Judaistik	Philosophie
Asienwissenschaften	Klassische Altertumswissenschaft	Religionswissenschaft
Bibelauslegung	Kunstgeschichte	Slawistik und Eurasienkunde
Biologie	Literatur- und Kulturwissenschaften	Sozialwissenschaften
Biowissenschaften	Medienwissenschaft	Sprachen und Linguistik
Buchgeschichte und Kartographie	Menschenrechte und humanitäres Völkerrecht	Theologie und Christentum
Geschichte	Musikwissenschaft

Fachgebiete

Autor:innen

Open Access

Produkt-Informationen

Ãber uns

Kontakt

ISDS CasesâShort Forms

Abstract

Zitierungsangaben

Link teilen

Double Recovery in Investment Arbitration

Toward a Principled Treatment of Double Compensation

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Kennzahlen

Kennzahlen

ISDS CasesâShort Forms