Extracto
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. The Relevant Case Law
A. Supporting Cases
1. Emilio Augustin Maffezini v Kingdom of Spain – the seminal case
(a) Exhaustion of local remedies condition
(b) Fork in the road clause
(c) Choice of a particular arbitration forum
(d) Precisely stipulated arbitration rules
2. Siemens A.G. v Argentine Republic
3. Gas Natural SDG, S.A. v Argentine Republic
4. Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and InterAguas Servicios Integrales del Agua S.A. v Argentine Republic
5. Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. and AWG Group Ltd. v Argentine Republic
B. Rejecting Cases
1. Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. v United Mexican States
2. Salini Costruttori v Jordan
3. Plama Consortium Ltd. v Republic of Bulgaria
4. Telenor Mobile Communications AS v. Republic of Hungary
III. The general Ability of MFN Clauses to invoke dispute settlement mechanisms
IV. The Scope of a MFN Clause in a Particular Case
A. Is International Arbitration more Favourable than Dispute Settlement before the Domestic Courts of the Host State?
B. The Ejusdem Generis Principle – a First Coarse Filter
C. The Interpretation of a MFN clause
D. Distinction between procedural obstacles and the creation of jurisdiction
V. Conclusion
- Citar trabajo
- LL.M. Sebastian Röder (Autor), 2009, To what extent, if any, are most favoured nation clauses able to be invoked by investment treaty claimants suing under one bilateral investment treaty in relation to procedural rights granted by another bilateral investment treaty?, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/282056
Textos similares
Así es como funciona
Comentarios