2015 Recommended Readings

Below is a list of readings recommended by lecturers. The list will continue to expand as we receive further suggestions.

Professor Donald Francis Donovan (short bio) General Course – Investor-State Arbitration as Global Governance

First Class: Diplomatic Protection and the Origins of Investor-State Arbitration
This class will examine the early historical origins of investor protection through international law. We will introduce customary international law, the original source of investor protection, and consider in particular how diplomatic protection of aliens emerged as a basis for investor protection. As part of that consideration, we will consider nationality as applied to both natural persons and corporations.

Recommended Reading
1. General Claims Commission (Agreement of Sept. 8, 1923) (United Mexican States, United States of America), Art. 1.
2. Statute of the International Court of Justice, Arts. 34-38.
3. Algiers Accords, Declaration of The Government of The Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria (Iran-US Claims Settlement Declaration) (1981).
4. Newcombe and Paradell, Historical Development of Investment Treaty Law, in Law and Practice of Investment Treaties, pp. 1-18.
5. Neer (USA) v. United Mexican States (1926).
6. Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), I.C.J. (1955).
7. Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy), I.C.J. (1989).
8. Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Co. Ltd. (Belg. v. Spain), I.C.J. (1970).
9. Texaco Overseas Petroleum Co./California Asiatic Oil Co. v. The Government of the Libyan Arab Republic (TOPCO) v. Libya, Decision on Jurisdiction, 53 ILR 389 (1975).
10. Texaco Overseas Petroleum Co./California Asiatic Oil Co. v. The Government of the Libyan Arab Republic (TOPCO) v. Libya, Merits Award, 17 ILM 1 (1978).
11. Declaration of The Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria (Iran-US Claims Settlement Declaration) (1981).
12. Andrew Newcombe & Lluís Paradell, Historical Development of Investment Treaty Law, in Law and Practice of Investment Treaties 1–18 (2009).
Optional Reading
1. UNCTAD Course on Dispute Settlement, ICSID Part. 2.2 (Selecting the Appropriate Forum), pp. 29-36 (starting with Diplomatic Protection).
2. Tom Johnson Jr. & Jonathan Gimblett, From Gunboats to BITS: The Evolution of Modern International Investment Law, in Yearbook on International Investment Law and Policy 649 (K. Sauvant ed. 2011).
3. Saudi Arabia v. Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) (1963), pp. 146–153.
4. UNCTAD Course on Dispute Settlement, ICSID Module 2.2 Selecting the Appropriate Forum, pp. 29–36 (2003) (starting with Diplomatic Protection).

Second Class: Fora and Consent in Contemporary Investor-State Arbitration
This class will examine the contemporary regime of investor-state arbitration, with a focus on ICSID, the leading institution for arbitrating international investment claims. The class will also introduce the two main forms of arbitration: institutional and ad hoc. Finally, we will consider consent to arbitration, which may be provided through a contract, an investment treaty, or a national investment law.

Recommended Reading
1. The Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID or Washington Convention) (1965).
2. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) (1958).
3. ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings (2006).
4. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules (2013).
5. Bolivia-Netherlands Bilateral Investment Treaty.
6. United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, Chapter 10.
7. Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Peru and the Government of the People’s Republic of China Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (1994)
8. North American Free Trade Agreement, Chapter 11.
9. The Energy Charter Treaty (1994).
10. Venezuela Foreign Investment Law, Art. 22.
11. Mobil v. Venezuela, Decision on Jurisdiction (2014).
12. Andreas F. Lowenfeld, The ICSID Convention: Origins and Transformation, 38 Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 47 (2009).
13. Jan Paulsson, Arbitration Without Privity, Foreign Investment 10 L. J. 232 (1995).

Third Class: Subject Matter Jurisdiction
To fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of an investment arbitration tribunal, the dispute at issue must arise out of an “investment.” While most bilateral investment treaties define the term, the ICSID Convention famously does not. This class explores the scope of the term “investment” as interpreted by arbitral tribunals.

Recommended Reading
1. The Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID or Washington Convention) (1965), arts. 25.
2. UNCTAD Course on Dispute Settlement, ICSID Part 2.5 (Jurisdiction Ratione Materiae).
3. Salini Costruttori SpA & Italstrade SpA v. Kingdom of Morocco, Decision on Jurisdiction (Salini v. Morocco), ICSID, Decision on Jurisdiction (2001), ¶¶ 43–44, 50–58.
4. Malaysian Historical Salvors SDN BHD v. Malaysia, Decision on Application for Annulment (2009).
5. Poštová Banka, A.S. and Istrokapital Se v. Hellenic Republic, Award (2015).
6. Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, Award (2009).
Optional Reading
1. Abaclat v. Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (2011).
2. Abaclat v. Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (2011), Dissenting Opinion of Georges Abi-Saab.
3. Ambiente Ufficio v. Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (2013).
4. Giovanni Alemanni v. Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (2014).
5. Clovis Trevino, South American Silver Lay Out $385 Million Case Against Bolivia; Government Counters That UK Treaty Should not Protect “Canadian Investment,” Inv. Arbitration Reporter (June 14, 2015).

Fourth Class: Personal Jurisdiction and Denial of Benefits
This class focuses on requirements ratione personae—the requirements a party must meet in order to be a proper party in an investment arbitration proceeding. Specifically, we will examine the requirements ratione personae set forth in the ICSID Convention and in bilateral investment treaties. We will consider Article 25(2)(b) of the ICSID Convention, which reflects an important innovation by the drafters permitting locally incorporated but foreign-controlled companies to be claimants in ICSID arbitrations.

We will also touch on denial of benefits. Some treaties contain provisions that permit a State to deny the “benefits” of a treaty to certain investors, such as companies that have no real connection to the host State, or so-called “mailbox” companies. Some tribunals have viewed denial of benefits as a jurisdictional issue, while others have considered it as a question of admissibility.

Fifth Class: Treaty and Contract Fora
This class will focus on the potential conflict between and reconciliation of the prescribed fora under investment contracts and investment treaties.

Recommended Reading
1. Treaty between United States of America and the Argentine Republic Concerning the Reciprocal Encouragement and Protection of Investment art. 2 (1991).
2. Agreement between Australia and the Republic of Poland on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments art. 10. (1991)
3. UK Model BIT, Art. 2.
4. U.S. Model BIT 2004, Art. 24.
5. Bureau Veritas, Inspection, Valuation, Assessment and Control, BIVAC B.V. BIVAC v. The Republic of Paraguay (BIVAC v. Paraguay), ICSID, Decision on Jurisdiction (2009), ¶¶ 128–133, 143–161.
6. SGS Societe Generale de Surveillance S.A. v. Paraguay, Decision on Jurisdiction (2010), ¶¶ 124-142, 171-190.
7. SGS Societe Generale de Surveillance S.A. v. Paraguay, Award (2012), ¶¶ 68-77, 89-95, 103-109, 153-156.
8. TSA Spectrum de Argentina S.A. v. Argentina, Award (2008), ¶¶ 42-66; Separate Opinion of Georges Abi-Saab, ¶¶ 1-10.
9. James Crawford, Treaty and Contract in Investment Arbitration, 22nd Freshfields Lecture on International Arbitration (2007).
Optional Reading
1. Noble Ventures v. Romania, Award (2005).
2. El Paso v. Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction (2006).
3. Micula v. Romania, Award (2013).

Sixth Class: Provisional Measures
This class explores remedies in international investment arbitration, starting with the classic statement of restitution in Factory at Chorzów and proceeding to contemporary debates. We will also consider approaches to calculating damages and some legal issues that can arise from valuation.

Recommended Reading
1. Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, International Law Commission art. 28–39 (2001).
2. Krista Nadakavukaren Schefer, International Investment Law: Text, Cases and Materials (2013), pp. 187–203.
3. Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH and Others v. Ukraine, ICSID, Award (2012), ¶¶ 381–427.
4. Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador, ICSID, Award (2012), ¶¶ 708–788.
5. ADC Affiliate Limited v. The Republic Hungary, ICSID, Award (2006), ¶¶ 476–500.
6. Mobil Corporation, et. al. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID, Award (2014), ¶¶ 360–365.
7. Gold Reserve v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID, Award (2014), ¶¶ 839–841.
8. Flughafen Zürich A.G. and Gestión e Ingenería IDC S.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID, Award (2014), ¶¶ 904-907 [translation].
9. Christoph Schreuer, Non-Pecuniary Remedies in ICSID Arbitration, 20 Arb. Int’l 325 (2004).
Optional Reading
1. Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów (Germany v. Poland), PCIJ, Merits (1928).
2. Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company v. The Government of the Libyan Arab Republic (TOPCO v. Libya), Award (1978), ¶¶ 92, 97, 103–106, 109–112.
3. Phillips Petroleum Company Iran v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, et. al., Iran-US Claims Tribunal, Award (1989), ¶¶ 1–2, 103–116.
4. Metalclad Corporation v. The United Mexican States, ICSID, Award (2000), ¶¶ 113–131.
5. Mark Kantor, How Damages Were Calculated in Mobil Cerro Negro v PDVSA, Transnat’l Disp. Mgmt. (Jan. 2012).
6. Mark Kantor Email to Oil-Gas-Energy-Mining-Infrastructure Dispute Management Group (Feb. 1, 2012).

Seventh Class: Remedies
In this class we will examine provisional measures in international arbitration, their role in preserving rights prior to adjudication, and the criteria that govern their issuance.

Recommended Reading
1. The Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID or Washington Convention) art. 47 (1965).
2. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings art. 39 (2006).
3. UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration art. 17A (1985).
4. Statute of the International Court of Justice, art. 41.
5. Sergei Paushok, et. al v. The Government of Mongolia, UNCITRAL, Order on Interim Measures (2008).
6. Quiborax S.A., Non Metallic Minerals S.A. & Allan Fosk Kaplún v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, ICSID, Decision on Provisional Measures (2010).
7. CEMEX v. Venezuela, Decision on Provisional Measures (2010).
8. Donald Francis Donovan, Provisional Measures in the International Court of Justice and Investment Treaty Arbitration: Dialogue and Development, 6 ASIL Proceedings 2011.
9. Donald Francis Donovan, Provisional Measures in the ICJ and ICSID: Further Dialogue and Development, in Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration: The Fordham Papers (Arthur W. Rovine ed. 2013).
10. LaGrand Case (Germany v. U.S.), I.C.J., Judgment (2001) ¶¶ 99–109.

Optional Reading
1. Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Company v. The Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL, Fourth Interim Award on Interim Measures (2013).

Eighth Class: Annulment and Revision Under the ICSID Convention
In this class we will analyze the standards for annulment of awards and the scheme for enforcement under the ICSID Convention.

Recommended Reading
1. The Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID or Washington Convention) (1965), arts. 14, 48–53.
2. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings (2006), arts. 50–55.
3. 22 U.S.C.A. § 1650a.
4. Christoph Schreuer, Three Generations of ICSID Annulment Proceedings, in Annulment of ICSID Awards, 17-42 (Emmanuel Gaillard & Yas Banifatemi eds., 2004).
5. Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentina, Decision on Annulment (2014).
6. CMS v. Argentina, Decision on Annulment (2007).
7. Sempra v. Argentina, Decision on Annulment (2010).
8. Mitchell v. DRC, Decision on Annulment (2006).
9. Malaysian Historical Salvors v. Malaysia, Decision on Annulment (2007).
10. SGS Societe Generale de Surveillance S.A. v. Paraguay, Decision on Paraguay’s Request for the Continued Stay of Enforcement of the Award (2013).
Optional Reading
1. W. Michael Reisman, The Breakdown of the Control Mechanism in ICSID Arbitration, 4 Duke L. J. 739 (1989).
2. Antonio A. Parra, The Enforcement of ICSID Arbitral Awards, 24th Joint Colloquium on International Arbitration (2007).
3. Sempra v. Argentina, Decision on Argentina’s Request for a Continued Stay of Enforcement of the Award (2009); Decision on Sempra Energy International’s Request for the Termination of the Stay of Enforcement of the Award (2009).
4. Vivendi v. Argentina, Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Request for a Continued Stay of Enforcement of the Award (2007).
5. LETCO v. Liberia, 650 F. Supp. 73 (S.D.N.Y 1986)
6. Mobil Cerro Negro LTD v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 14 Civ. 8163 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. 13 Feb. 2015).

Ninth Class: Judicial Review Under the New York Convention
In this class we will examine the standards for judicial review of arbitral awards and the scheme for enforcement under the New York Convention.

Recommended Reading
1. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) arts. III-V (1958).
2. UNCITRAL Model Law, Arts. 34-36
3. UK Arbitration Act (1996), Arts. 67-68.
4. Republic of Argentina v. BG Group, 134 S. Ct. 1198 (2014).
5. Occidental Exploration and Production Co. v. Ecuador, 2006 EWHC 345 (Comm.) (affirmed).
6. UNCTAD Course on Dispute Settlement (Module 5.7): International Commercial Arbitration: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: The New York Convention.
7. Anthea Roberts & Christina Trahanas, Judicial Review of Investment Treaty Awards: BG Group v. Argentina, 108 AJIL 750 (2014).

Tenth Class: The Future of International Investment Arbitration
In this class we will dive into the contemporary debate over investor-state arbitration.

Recommended Reading
1. Gus Van Harten, Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law 152–175 (2007).
2. Benedict Kingsbury and Stephan Schill, Investor-State Arbitration as Governance: Fair and Equitable Treatment, Proportionality and the Emerging Global Administrative Law, in International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Stephan Schill, ed., Oxford University Press, 2010).
3. Jose Alvarez, Is the International Investment Regime a Form of Global Governance?, in Arbitration: The Next Fifty Years, ICCA Congress Series No. 16 (Albert Jan van den Berg, ed. 2012).
4. Bruno Simma, “Arbitration as a Governance Tool for Economic Relations? Foreign Investment, Human Rights and Global Governance,” in Arbitration: The Next Fifty Years, ICCA Congress Series (Albert Jan van den Bert ed. 2012), pp. 161–165.
5. Catherine M. Amirfar, Treaty Arbitration: Is the Playing Field Level and Who Decides Whether it is Anyway, in Legitimacy: Myths, Realities, Challenges, ICCA Congress Series No. 18 (2014), pp. 755–773.
6. Stephen M. Schwebel, In Defence of Bilateral Investment Treaties, in Legitimacy: Myths, Realities, Challenges, ICCA Congress Series No. 18 (2014), pp. 1–11.
7. George Kahale, Is Investor-State Arbitration Broken?, Transn’l Dispute Mgmt (Vol. 9(7) December 2012).
8. Elizabeth Warren, The Trans-Pacific Partnership Clause Everyone Should Oppose, Wash. Post, Feb. 25, 2015.
9. UNCITRAL, Rules on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration (2014).
10. Cecilia Malmström, EU Trade Commissioner, Investment in TTIP and Beyond – the Path for Reform, Enhancing the Right to Regulate and Moving from Current Ad Hoc Arbitration towards an Investment Court, Concept Paper (2015).
11. Draft Investment Chapter of the EU-Canada Comprehensive Trade and Economic Agreement (CETA).
12. Agreement for Cooperation and Investment Facilitation between Brazil and Mozambique (2015).
13. Agreement for Cooperation and Investment Facilitation between and Brazil and Angola (2015)

Prof. Bernardini (short bio), Annulment and Execution of Investment Treaty Awards

1. Giardina Andrea: L’exécution des sentences du Centre international pour le règlement des différends relatifs aux investissements, Revue critique de droit international privé, 1982, p. 273 ss.
2. Giardina Andrea : ICSID : A self-contained, Non-National Review System, in Richard B. Lilich and Charles N. Brower eds., International Arbitration in the 21st Century: Towards “Judicialization” and Uniformity? (Transnational Publisher 1994)
3. Schreuer Christoph: ICSID Annulment Revisited, 30 Legal Issues of Economic Integration (2003), p. 103 ss.
4. Annulment of ICSID Awards, iai series on international arbitration, n. 1 (2004)
5. Schreuer Christoph: The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, 2nd ed., 2009, Articles 52-55.
6. The Review of International Arbitral Awards, iai series on international arbitration, n. 6, 2010
7. Crivellaro Antonio: Annulment of ICSID Awards: Back to the First Generation?, Liber Amicorum en l’honneur de Serge Lazareff, 2011, p. 145 ss.
8. ICSID Background Paper on Annulment (10 August 2012)
9. Born Gary, International Commercial Arbitration, 2nd ed., 2014, Vol. III, Chapters 25 (Annulment of International Arbitral Awards) and 26 (Recognition and Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards)
10. ICSID Convention, Articles 52-55
11. UNCITRAL Model Law, Articles 34 and 36
12. New York Convention, Articles V and VII

Prof. Maxi Scherer (short bio), Party autonomy and post-award review at the enforcement and annulment stage

1. Dr. Manuel Arroyo, Attorney-at-Law, LL.M. “Arbitration in Switzerland, The Practitioner’s Guide”, p.283-294 (Wolters Kluwer, Law &Business).
2. Gary B. Born, “International Commercial Arbitration.” Volume III: International Arbitral Awards, Second Edition 2014, p. 3364-3379 (Wolters Kluwer, Law &Business).
3. Thomas Clay, “Le nouveau droit français de l’arbitrage” p. 189-209.
4. The Council to the Members of The Amercican Law Institute for cConsideration at the Eighty-Ninth Annual Meeting on May 21,22 and 23, 2012, “Restatement of the Law Third The U.S. Law of International Commercial Arbitration. Tentative Draft No.2, April 16, 2012 (ALI The American Law Institute 2012).
5. Parties not indicated, Tribunal federal, Ire Cour civile, 4P.236/2004 (4 February 2005)
6. Hall Street Assocs LLC v Mattel Inc, 128 S. Ct. 1396, Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for WL WATCH F&P (May 18, 2015)
7. Wolff, ASA Bulletin Vol 26 No 3 (Septembre 2008)

José Ricardo Feris Workshop ICC Arbitration Practice

Articles
1. The 2012 ICC Rules: Important Changes and Issues for Future Resolution, W.L. Craig and L. Jaeger (Les Cahiers de l’Arbitrage/The Paris Journal of International Arbitration 2012/1)
2. L’arbitre international entre Charybde et Scylla: le principe jura novit curia entre principe de la contradiction et impartialité de l’arbitre, A. Carlevaris (Les Cahiers de l’arbitrage 2010/2)
3. Consolidation, joinder, cross-claims, multiparty and multicontract arbitrations: recent ICC experience, S. Greenberg, J. R. Feris and C. Albanesi (Dossier VII, Multiparty arbitration, ICC Publication n° 701, 2010)
4. Running in the ICC Emergency Arbitrator Rules: The First Ten Cases, Andrea Carlevaris & José Ricardo Feris (ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin Vol. 25 No. 1 pp. 25-38)

Cases
1. Société Tecnimont SPA v. Société J&P Avax
Supreme Court of Cassation of France, First Civil Law Chamber, arrêt n° 758 (11-26.529), 25 June 2014
2. J& P Avax v. Tecnimont
Court of Appeal of Reims, 2 November 2011
3. Société Tecnimont Spa v. Société J&P Avax
Supreme Court of Cassation of France, First Civil Chamber, pourvoi n°09-12716, 4 November 2010
4. SA J&P Avax SA v. Société Tecnimont SPA
Court of Appeal of Paris, First Civil Law Chamber, 12 February 2009
5. Société Pirelli & Cie Spa v. société Licensing Projects et autres
Supreme Court of Cassation of France, First Civil Law Chamber, Arrêt no 392 FS-P+B+I, pourvoi no N 11-27.770, 28 March 2013
6. Société Licensing Projects (LP) et autres v Société Pirelli & C. SPA et autres
Court of Appeal of Paris, 17 November 2011
7. Dallah Estate v Government of Pakistan
Cour d’appel de Paris (with English translation), 17 February 2011 Supreme Court, UK ; 3 November 2010 Court of appeal, UK, 20 July 2009
8. Engel Austria GmbH v Don Trade
Cour d’appel de Paris, 3 décembre 2009
9. Global Gold Mining v Robinson & others
District Court of New York, 6 February 2008
10. Société nationale des pétroles du Congo et République du Congo v Total FINA ELF E&P
Cour d’appel de Paris, 29 avril 2003
11. Braspetro Oil Services Company v The management and Implementation Authority of the Great Man-Made River Project
Cour d’appel de Paris, 1 juillet 1999
12. BKMI Industrien Lagen & Siemens v Dutco Construction
Cour de cassation, 7 janvier 1992 ; Cour d’appel de Paris, 5 May 1989

Georges Kahale III (short bio), The main problems in investor-state arbitration

1. ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V. et al. v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/30:
a. Decision on Jurisdiction and the Merits, dated September 3, 2013
b. Dissenting Opinion of Prof. Georges Abi-Saab from the September 2013 Decision on Jurisdiction and the Merits, dated February 19, 2015
c. Decision on Respondent’s Request for Reconsideration, dated March 10, 2014
d. Dissenting Opinion of Prof. Georges Abi-Saab from the Decision on Respondent’s Request for Reconsideration, dated March 10, 2014

2. Venezuela Holdings B.V. et al. v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27, Award dated October 9, 2014
3. Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Award dated October 5, 2012
4. Tidewater Investment SRL and Tidewater Caribe, C.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/5, Award dated March 13, 2015
5. George Kahale, III, Is Investor-State Arbitration Broken?, Transnational Dispute Management, October 2012
6. George Kahale, III, Keynote Speech at the Eighth Annual Juris Investment Treaty Arbitration Conference, March 28, 2014

Lindsay Gastrell (short bio), Workshop – ICSID Arbitration Practice

Non-Disputing Party Participation in ICSID Proceedings.
1. ICSID Arbitration Rule 37
2. Obadia, Eloïse, Extension of Proceedings Beyond the Original Parties: Non-Disputing Party Participation in Investment Arbitration, 22 ICSID Rev.—FILJ 349 (Fall 2007).
3. Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22), Petition for Amicus Curiae Status of November 27, 2006 and Procedural Order No. 5 of February 2, 2007

ICSID Nationality Requirements and Corporate Structuring

1. ICSID Convention, Article 25(2)(b)
2. Schreuer, Christoph, Nationality of Investors: Legitimate Restrictions v. Business Interests, 24 ICSID Review-FILJ 521 (2009).
3. Autopista Concesionada de Venezuela, C.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB/00/5) – Decision on Jurisdiction of September 27, 2001 (browse).

Brooks Daly: The PCA and State-to-State Arbitration

1. Brooks W. Daly, “The Permanent Court of Arbitration”, in C. Giorgetti (ed.), The Rules, Practice, and Jurisprudence of International Courts and Tribunals”(Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2012), pp. 37-73
2. Thomas Willing Balch, The Alabama Arbitration (Allen, Lane & Scott, 1900)
3. Christine Gray and Benedict Kingsbury, “Developments in Dispute Settlement: Inter-State Arbitration since 1945” in The British Year Book of International Law 1992 (Oxford University 1993), pp. 79-134.
5. Robert Jennings, “The differences between conducting a case in the ICJ and in an Ad Hoc Arbitration Tribunal: An Inside View,” in Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda Vol 2., at 893 (Nisuke Ando et. al. eds., 2002).
6. Final Award of February 24, 2004, Guyana v. Suriname, Permanent Court of Arbitration.
7. Final Award of July 22, 2009, Abyei Arbitration, Permanent Court of Arbitration.
8. Brooks W. Daly, “The Abyei Arbitration: Procedural Aspects of an Intra-State Border Arbitration,” in Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 23, Issue 4, at 801 (2010).
a. Reasoned Decision on Challenge to H.E. Judge Sir Christopher Greenwood, The Republic of Mauritius v. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
b. Final Award of March 18, 2015, The Republic of Mauritius v. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
9. Request for Arbitration of the Republic of Ecuador of June 28, 2011, The Republic of Ecuador v. The United States of America, Permanent Court of Arbitration.

Reference and Further Background Reading
1. International Bar Association Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (2010)
2. Permanent Court of Arbitration Optional Rules for Arbitration between Two States (1992)
3. PCA Arbitration Rules 2012
4. International Bar Association Guidelines on the Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (2014)
5. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, G.A. Res. 31/98, U.N. Doc. A/RES/31/98 (Dec. 15, 1976) (1976 UNCITRAL Rules)
6. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, G.A. Res. 65/22, Art. 26, U.N. Doc. A/RES/65/22 (Dec. 6, 2010) (2010 UNCITRAL Rules)
7. Arbitration Agreement between The Government of Sudan and The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement / Army on Delimiting Abyei Area
8. William E. McDonald “The Pious Fund of the Californias” in The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Jan., 1934), pp. 427-436
9. P. Hamilton, H.C. Requena, L van Scheltinga & B. Shifman, eds., The Permanent Court of Arbitration: International Arbitration and Dispute Resolution: Summaries of Awards, Settlement Agreements and Reports (Kluwer Law International, 1999)
10. Belinda Macmahon & Fedelma Claire Smith, eds., Permanent Court of Arbitration Summaries of Awards 1999-2009 (TMC Asser Press, 2010)
11. Shabtai Rosenne, The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 and International Arbitration: Reports and Documents (T.M.C. Asser Press, 2001)
12. Brooks W. Daly, “The Permanent Court of Arbitration in Indian Treaties: Its Role, Potential Procedural Problems, and Drafting Solutions” in The Indian Journal of International Law: A Quarterly, Vol. 47, Issue 3, at 359.

Prof. Ali Mezghani (short bio): The notion of international arbitration in Arab countries

1. Volumes and manuals :

International relations in general
1. AUDIT (B.), Droit international privé, Paris, Economica,.
2. MAYER (P.) et HEUZE (V.), Droit international privé, Montchrestien, 11e éd 2014.
3. MEZGHANI (A.), Droit international privé, Tunis, Cérès, 1991, pp-106-112.
4. NIBOYET (M-L) et DE LA PRADELLE (G-G), Droit international privé, Paris. LGDJ, 2007, pp 48-51.

International commercial law
1. AUDIT (B.), La vente internationale de marchandises (Convention des Nations-Unies du 11 Avril 1980), Paris, LGDJ, 1990.
2. CHEDLY (L.), Arbitrage commercial international et ordre public transnational, CPU, Tunis, 2002.
3. FOUCHARD (Ph.), GAILLARD (E.), GOLDMAN (B.), Traité de l’arbitrage commercial international, Paris, Litec, 1996,1225 p.
4. GOUIFFES (L), GIRARD (P.), TAIVALKOVSKI (P.), MECARELLI (G.) , Recherche sur l’arbitrage en droit international et comparé, Laurent Gouiffès,; préf. Bruno Oppetit, Hélène Gaudemet-Tallon, Philippe Fouchard ; éd. Université Panthéon Assas, Paris : LGDJ, 1997.
5. JACQUET (J-M), DELEBECQUE (Ph.) et CORNELOUP (S.), Droit du commerce international, Paris, Dalloz, 2010, 2e éd.
6. KESSEDJIAN (C.), Droit du commerce international, PUF, Thémis, 2013.
7. NAMMOUR (F.), Droit et pratique de l’arbitrage interne et international, Préf. Michel Cabrillac, Bruylant-Delta- LGDJ, Beyrouth, 2005, 2ème édition, pp 80-81.
8. OUERFELLI (A.), L’arbitrage international en droit tunisien et comparé, éd. GLD, Tunis 2006.
9. OUERFELLI (A.), L’arbitrage dans la jurisprudence tunisienne, préf. Sami Boustangi, Tunis, éd. Latrach , LGDJ, 2010, pp 24-86.
10. SERAGLINI(C.),ORTSCHEIDT (J.), Droit de l’arbitrage interne et international ,Paris, Montchrestien Lextenso éd., Collection droit privé,1992,948p.
11. VIDAL (D.), Droit français de l’arbitrage interne et international, éd. Lextenso, Gualino, 2012.

2 .Articles :
1. AUDIT (B.), « Le nouveau régime de l’arbitrage des contrats administratifs internationaux (à la suite de l’arrêt rendu par le Tribunal des conflits dans l’affaire INSERM) », in Revue de l’Arbitrage, 2010, pp. 253 – 273
2. BABAY YOUSSEF (S.), « L’internationalité de l’arbitrage : quelles réformes, in Actes du colloques organisé par le DRIMAN, Les perspectives d’évolution du droit de l’investissement et de l’arbitrage, éd. Latrach, 2013, pp 161 et s.
3. Dominique Bureau, « L’office du juge et la qualification interne ou international de l’arbitrage », note sous Cass. civ. 1re, 20 novembre 2013, Revue de l’Arbitrage, Comité Français de l’Arbitrage, 2014, Volume 2014 Issue 2, pp. 384 – 388
4. BOSTANGI (S.) : « Internationalité de l’arbitrage : éclairages sur les errances normatives du systéme juridique tunisien », in Mélanges en l’honneur du Doyen Yadh Ben Achour, Doits et cultures, CPU ,2008, pp 1281-1305.
5. CHEDLY (L.) : « L’arbitrage international en droit tunisien », in JDI, CLUNET, N°2, 2008, pp-389-439.
6. CHEDLY (L.), « Administration et arbitrage (une lecture de l’article 7-5 du Code tunisien de l’arbitrage) », pp 201-205.
7. ELHOUEISS (J-L) : « L’élément d’extranéité préalable en droit international privé », in JDI
CLUNET,N°1,2003, pp 39-84.
8. FOUCHARD (Ph) : « Quand un arbitrage est-il international ? », in RA, 1970, pp 64-65.
9. FOUCHARD (Ph.) : « La loi-type de la CNUDCI sur l’arbitrage commercial international », in JDI, CLUNET, 1987, pp 861.
10. FOUCHARD (Ph) : « La CNUDCI et la défense des intérêts du commerce international », in LPA, 2003, pp 36.
11. LALIVE (P.), Un faux problème : « monisme ou dualisme dans la législation arbitrale ? », in : Mélanges en l’honneur de François Dessemontet, E. Philippin et al. (éds.), CEDIDAC n° 80, Lausanne, 2009, pp. 255-263 et pp. 257-259.
12. LEBOULANGER (Ph.) : « La notion d’ « intérêts » du commerce international », in RA, N°2, 2005, pp 487-505.
13. MAYER (P.) :« Faut-il distinguer arbitrage interne et arbitrage international ? », Revue de l’arbitrage, 2005, p. 361 ss.
14. PELLERIN (J.) : « Monisme ou dualisme de l’arbitrage, le point de vue français », in cahiers de l’arbitrage, volume 1V,2008.
15. PERRET (F.) :« Arbitrage interne /Arbitrage international ou arbitrage tout court : dualisme ou monisme : la situation en suisse », in cahier de l’arbitrage volume IV ,2008, pp 141-148.
16. POUDRET (J.-F) : « Critères d’extranéité de l’arbitrage international dans le droit communautaire », ASA Bull. 1998, p. 22 ss.
17. RIGAUX (F.) : « Pour une approche comparative de droit de l’arbitrage international, les raisons d’un choix », in Mélanges en l’honneur de Bernard Dutoit, librairie Droz, 2002, pp 231-242.
18. ROZAS (J- C.F) :« Arbitrage interne et international : la réglementation soi-disant unitaire en Espagne », in arbitrage interne et international, Actes du colloque de Lausanne du 2 octobre 2009, Librairie Droz, Genève 2010.
19. TERRE (F.) : « L’internationalité du juge dans l’arbitrage » in L’internationalité dans les institutions et le droit, convergences et défis, Etudes offertes à Alain Plantey, Paris, éd. Pedone, 1995, pp 219-232.

3. Legislation :
Articles of Arab legislations related to international arbitration definition

1. Tunisie : Article 48, Loi n° 93-42 du 26 avril 1993, portant promulgation du code de l’arbitrage, du code de l’arbitrage Tunisien, Loi n° 93-42 du 26 avril 1993, portant promulgation du code de l’arbitrage, in Revue de l’Arbitrage, (© Comité Français de l’Arbitrage; Comité Français de l’Arbitrage 1993, Volume 1993 Issue 4) pp. 721 – 749.

2. Algérie : Law No. 08–09 on the Code of Civil and Administrative Procedure, Law No. 08–09 on the Code of Civil and Administrative Procedure in Jalal El- Ahdab (ed), International Journal of Arab Arbitration, (© International Journal of Arab Arbitration; International Journal of Arab Arbitration 2009, Volume 1 Issue 1) pp. 549 – 55.

3. Egypte : Article 3, Loi n° 27 du 21 avril 1994, Droit égyptien Loi n° 27 du 21 avril 1994, portant promulgation de la loi relative à l’arbitrage en matière civile et commerciale, Revue de l’Arbitrage, (© Comité Français de l’Arbitrage; Comité Français de l’Arbitrage 1994, Volume 1994 Issue 4) pp. 763 – 781.

4. Sultana d’Oman : Article 3, The Law of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Disputes, 1 July 1997, The Law of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Disputes, 1 July 1997 in Jan Paulsson and Lise Bosman (eds), ICCA International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration, (© Kluwer Law International; Kluwer Law International 1984, Supplement No. 59, May2010) pp. 1 – 16.

5. Maroc : Article 327-40 du de procédure civile Marocain (Dernière version de 2007), Loi marocaine sur l’arbitrage et la médiation conventionnelle du 30 novembre 2007, Article 327-40 du de procédure civile Marocain (Dernière version de 2007), Loi marocaine sur l’arbitrage et la médiation conventionnelle du 30 novembre 2007,in « Revue de l’Arbitrage, Comité Français de l’Arbitrage » 2009, Volume 2009 Issue 1, pp. 243 – 265.

6. Mauritanie : Article 41, Loi mauritanienne portant code de l’arbitrage (No 2000-06), Loi mauritanienne portant code de l’arbitrage (No 2000-06), in Revue de l’Arbitrage, Comité Français de l’Arbitrage; Comité Français de l’Arbitrage 2001, Volume 2001 Issue 4) pp. 935 – 960.

7. Syrie : Article 1, Loi syrienne sur l’arbitrage du 25 mars 2008, Loi syrienne sur l’arbitrage du 25 mars 2008, in Revue de l’Arbitrage, (© Comité Français de l’Arbitrage; Comité Français de l’Arbitrage 2008, Volume 2008 Issue 4) pp. 851 – 86.

8. Bahrain : Article 1 Décret-loi n° 9 / 1994, in Revue de l’Arbitrage, (© Comité Français de l’Arbitrage; Comité Français de l’Arbitrage 1994, Volume 1994 Issue 4) pp. 782 – 782.

9. Yemen : Article 2, Presidential Decree No. 22-1992 Issuing The Arbitration Act , Presidential Decree No. 22-1992 Issuing The Arbitration Act,Journal of International Arbitration, (© Kluwer Law International; Kluwer Law International 1994, Volume 11 Issue 2) pp. 70 – 76.

Jean-Luc Guitera Special Seminar – Basic valuation concepts applicable to international arbitration:

1. Business Valuation: A guide for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises, Fédération des Experts Comptables Européens, July 2001
2. Calculating Pre-Judgment Interest, Matthews Nicholson and Rivière, FTI Consulting, in The European and Middle Eastern Arbitration Review, 2012
3. Calculation of Compensation and Damages in International Investment Law, Irmgard Marboe, Oxford University Press, 2009
4. Compensation and Restitution in Investor-State Arbitration: Principles and Practice, Borzu Sabahi, Oxford University Press, 2011
5. Damages in International Investment Law (2008), Sergey Ripinsky with Kevin Williams, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, c2008
6. Determining the Economic Value of Expropriated Income-Producing Property in International Arbitrations, William C. Lieblich, Journal of International Arbitration, Volume 8, Issue 1, 2012
7. Principles of Corporate Finance , Brealy, Myers, & Allen, McGraw‐Hill, 8th ed. 2008
8. Security Analysis and Business Valuation on Wall Street, Hooke, Wiley Finance, 2nd ed. 2010
9. Valuation for Arbitration: Compensation Standards, Valuation Methods and Expert Evidence, Mark Kantor, Kluwer Law International, c2008
10. Valuation Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies, Tim Koller, Marc Goedhart, David Wessels, McKinsey & Company, 4th ed. 2005
11. Valuation of Unquoted Companies, Christopher G. Glover, CCH Editions, 5th ed. 2008
12. Valuing a Business, Shannon P. Pratt, Mc Graw Hill Edition, 5th ed. 2008

Prof. Ercüment Erdem, The arbitration agreement:

Books
1. BORN, International Commercial Arbitration, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2ͤ ed., 2014, vol.1.
2. BROCHES, Commentary on UNCITRAL Model Law, International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration, 1990.
3. BUDIN, Les Clauses Arbitrales Internationales bipartites, multipartites at spéciales de l’arbitrage «ad hoc» et institutionnel, Payot Lausanne, 1993.
4. BÜHLER/ WEBSTER, Handbook of ICC Arbitration, London, 3ͬ ͩ ed., 2014.
5. CONRAD/MUNCH/BLACK-BRANCH, International Commercial Arbitration: Standard Clauses and Forms, Commentary, Beck, 2013.
6. DERAINS/SCHWARTZ, A Guide to the ICC Rules of Arbitration, The Hague, 2ͤ ed.,
7. 2005. DRAHOZAL, Commercial Arbitration: Cases and Problems, 2nd ed., 2006.
8. FOUCHARD/GAILLARD/GOLDMAN, International Commercial Arbitration, The Hague, 1999.
9. FRY/ GREENBERG/MAZZA, The Secretariat`s Guide to ICC Arbitration, Paris, 2012.
10. JAN VAN DEN BERG, Improving the Efficiency of Arbitration Agreements and Awards: 40 Years of Application of the New York Convention, Kluwer,1999.
11. KAUFMANN KOHLER/ RIGOZZI, Arbitrage International, Berne, 2nd ed., 2010.
12. KEE/ WEERAMANTRY, International Commercial Arbitration, Cambridge University Press, 2011.
13. MISTELIS/ KROLL, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration Law, Kluwer, 14. 2003. MOSES, International Commercial Arbitration, 2nd ed., Cambridge University 15. Press, 2012. POUDRET/BESSON, Comparative Law of International Arbitration,
16. London, 2nd ed., 2007. REDFERN/HUNTER, International Arbitration, New York, 2009.
17. STONE/BALES/COLVIN, Arbitration Law, 3ͬ ͩ ed., Foundation Press, 2014.

Articles
1. VARADY/BARCELO III/ VON MEHREN, International Commercial Arbitration: A Transnational Perspective, West Publishing, 5th ed, 2014.
2 AKSEN, Ad Hoc Versus Institutional Arbitration in: ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, vol.1 n°1, 1991.
3. ARROYO/WÜSTEMANN, FIFA Shall be the Sole Arbiter – a Valid Arbitration Clause Under Swiss Law, ASA Bulletin, 2010, 392-405.
4. BALL, Just do it- Drafting the Arbitration Clause in an International Agreement, Journal of International Arbitration, vol.10, 1993, 29.
5. BERGER, Re-examining the Arbitration Agreement: Applicable Law–Consensus or Confusion?, International Arbitration, 2006, 301-334.
6. BERNARDINI, The Arbitration Clause of an International Contract, Journal of International Arbitration, vol. 9, 1992, 45.
7. BLESSING, Drafting an Arbitration Clause in: ASA Special Series No. 8, The Arbitration Agreement- Its Multifold Critical Aspects, vol.32, 1994.
8. FRIEDLAND/HORNICK, The Relevance of International Standards in the Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements under New York Convention, The American Review of International Arbitration, New York, vol.6, n°2,1995.
9. GAILLARD/BANIFATEMI, Negative effect of Competence-Competence: The Rule of Priority in Favour of the Arbitrators, in: Enforcement of Arbitration Agreement and International Arbitral Awards, The New York Convention in Practice, 257-273.
10. GRAY, Drafting the Dispute Resolution Clause in: Commercial Arbitration for the 1990’s American Bar Association, 1991.
11. JAN VAN DEN BERG, New York Convention of 1958: Refusals of Enforcement in: ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, vol.18 n°2, 2008, 15.
12. KRÖLL, The “Incapable of Being Performed” exception in Article II (3) of the New York convention, in: Enforcement of Arbitration Agreement and International Arbitral Awards, The New York Convention in Practice, 330-353.
13. LEW, The Applicable Law to the Form and Substance of the Arbitration Clause, ICCA Congress Series, No.14, 1999.
14. MAYER, ‘The Limits of Severability of the arbitration clause’, in: ICCA Congress Series No 9, pp. 261-267
15. MAYER, L’autonomie de l’arbitre international dans l’appreciation de sa propre competence in: Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, vol. 217, 1989.
16. MOSS, Form of Arbitration Agreements: Current Developments within UNCITRAL and the Writing Requirement of the New York Convention in: ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin vol.18 n°2, 2008, 51.
17. NICHOLLs, ICC Hybrid Arbitrations Here to Stay: Singapore Courts’ Treatment of the ICC Rules Revisions in Articles 1(2) and 6(2), Journal of International Arbitration, vol.31, 2014, 393-412.
18. PETROCHILOS, Extension of the Arbitration Clause to Non- Signatory States or State Entities: Does it Raise a Difference in: Dossier of the ICC Institute of World Business Law: Multiparty Arbitration, 2010, 119.
19. ROGERS/ LAUNDERS, Separability—The Indestructible Arbitration Clause, Arbitration International, vol.10, 1994, 71-90.
20. SCHWARTZ, The Effect of the Arbitration Agreement on the Enforcement of the Award: Issues for the Coming Decade in: Special Supplement 1999: Arbitration in the Next Decade: Proceedings of the International Court of Arbitration’s 75th Anniversary Conference.
21. SVERNLOU, What Isn’t, Ain’t: The Current Status of the Doctrine of Separability, Journal of International Arbitration 8, 1991, 37-49.
22. TAKLA, Non-ICC Arbitration Clauses and Clauses Derogating from ICC Rules in: The ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, vol.7 n°2, 1996.
23. VIDAL, The Extension of Arbitration Agreements within Group Companies: The Alter Ego Doctrine in Arbitral and Court Decisions in: ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, vol.16 n°2, 2005, 63.

Case Law
1. Ontario Court of Justice- General Division, March 1st 1991, Rio Algom Limited v. Sammi Steel Co.
2. High Court of Hong Kong, July 30, 1992, Pacific International Lines (PTE) Ltd.& Another v. Tsinlien Metals and Minerals Co. Ltd.
3. Appeal Court of Paris, May 19, 1993, Labinal v. Mors (Revue de l’arbitrage, 1993, 957).
4. US Supreme Court, July, 1985 Mitsubishi Motors v. Soler Chrysler- Plymouth, Inc. PROF. DR. H. ERCÜMENT ERDEM
5. Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July 29, 1999, NetSys Technology Group AB v. Open Text Corp.
6. Interim Award in Case 14144 in ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin, vol.23
n°1, 2012, 77.
7. Westland Helicopters Ltd v. Arab Organization for Industrialization, ICC Case No. 3879, Interim Award 1984.
8. Zeevi Holdings v. Bulgaria and the Privatization Agency of Bulgaria, Final Award, 25 October 2006.
9. Final award in ICC Case No. 9762, YCA 29 (2004).
10. Final Award in Case 10758 in ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin vol.16 n°2,
2005, 87.
11. Preliminary Award in Case 9759 in ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin vol.12
n°2, 2001, 84.
12. Decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal 4A_246/2011, see § 2.3.3
13. Jozef Syska v. Elektrim SA, Vivendi Universal SA and others, High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court); Court of Appeal, Civil Decision A2/2008/2435, 9 July 2009 [2009] EWCA Civ 677.

Other Texts

IBA Guidelines for Drafting International Arbitration Clauses

Dominique Hascher: Arbitration and due process:

Mr. Hascher doesn’t have a list of recommended reading for his class.

Professor Donald Francis Donovan (short bio) General Course – Investor-State Arbitration as Global Governance

Prof. Bernardini (short bio), Annulment and Execution of Investment Treaty Awards

Prof. Maxi Scherer (short bio), Party autonomy and post-award review at the enforcement and annulment stage

José Ricardo Feris Workshop ICC Arbitration Practice

Georges Kahale III (short bio), The main problems in investor-state arbitration

Lindsay Gastrell (short bio), Workshop – ICSID Arbitration Practice

Brooks Daly: The PCA and State-to-State Arbitration

Prof. Ali Mezghani (short bio): The notion of international arbitration in Arab countries

Jean-Luc Guitera Special Seminar – Basic valuation concepts applicable to international arbitration:

Prof. Ercüment Erdem, The arbitration agreement:

Dominique Hascher: Arbitration and due process:

Terms and conditions of use

Privacy Policy

Legal notice