brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE OF CONTENTS Part 1: The Arbitration ............................................................................. 1.01 A: The Parties ............................................................................................ 1.01 B: The Dispute ........................................................................................... 1.02 C: The Tribunal‘s Decision of 2 August 2010 ........................................... 1.04 D: The Respondent‘s Jurisdictional Objections ........................................ 1.04 E: Non-Disputing Party Written Submissions .......................................... .1.07 F: Amicus Curiae ....................................................................................... 1.07 G: The Parties‘ Claims for Relief as regards Jurisdiction ........................ 1.10 H: The Jurisdictional Issues ...................................................................... 1.14 Part 2: Issue A – “Abuse of Process” ....................................................... 2.01 Introduction ................................................................................................ 2.01 The Burden and Standard of Proof ............................................................ 2.01 The Respondent‘s Case .............................................................................. 2.05 The Claimant‘s Case .................................................................................. 2.06 The CAFTA Member States ....................................................................... 2.11 Amicus Curiae Submission ....................................................................... 2.11 The Tribunal‘s Analysis ............................................................................. 2.12 The Relevant Measures or Practices ......................................................... 2.16 Application to this Case ............................................................................. 2.23 The Respondent‘s Submission .................................................................... 2.23 The Claimant‘s Submission ........................................................................ 2.24 i
One-Time Acts ............................................................................................ 2.24 Composite Act ............................................................................................ 2.28 Continuous Act ........................................................................................... 2.29 Legal Consequences................................................................................... 2.31 Abuse of Process ........................................................................................ 2.31 Ratione Temporis ....................................................................................... 2.32 Decisions .................................................................................................... 2.35 Part 3: Issue B – “Ratione Temporis” ..................................................... 3.01 Introduction ................................................................................................ 3.01 The Respondent‘s Case .............................................................................. 3.01 The Claimant‘s Case .................................................................................. 3.06 The Tribunal‘s Analysis and Decisions ..................................................... 3.10 Part 4: Issue C – “Denial of Benefits” ..................................................... 4.01 Introduction ................................................................................................ 4.01 The Respondent‘s Case .............................................................................. 4.02 (i) Substantial Business Activities ....................................................... 4.03 (ii) Ownership/Control ........................................................................ 4.04 (iii) Timeliness ...................................................................................... 4.06 The Claimant‘s Case .................................................................................. 4.10 (i) Substantial Business Activities ....................................................... 4.10 (ii) Ownership/Control ........................................................................ 4.11 (iii) Timeliness ...................................................................................... 4.11 Non-Disputing Parties‘ Submissions ......................................................... 4.15 Amicus Curiae ............................................................................................ 4.17 ii
Page 1: IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BEF
Page 5 and 6: Glossary of Defined Terms “CAFTA
Page 7 and 8: African Holding Company of America,
Page 9 and 10: Waste Management, Inc. v. United Me
Page 11 and 12: 1.4. Prior to 2 March 2012, the Cla
Page 13 and 14: C: The Tribunal’s Decision of 2 A
Page 15 and 16: 1.23. The Respondent: The Responden
Page 17 and 18: under cover of a letter also dated
Page 19 and 20: G: The Parties’ Claims for Relief
Page 21 and 22: c. Piercing the corporate veil (Mem
Page 23 and 24: H: The Jurisdictional Issues 1.46.
Page 25 and 26: (02) CAFTA 1.4. CAFTA Article 10.1:
Page 27 and 28: 2. At least 90 days before submitti
Page 29 and 30: measure alleged to constitute a bre
Page 31 and 32: (03) The ICSID Convention 1.13. ICS
Page 33 and 34: (5) ILC Articles on State Responsib
Page 35 and 36: proof or the Claimant‟s allegatio
Page 37 and 38: 2.11. Burden of Proof: As far as th
Page 39 and 40: 2.19. In presenting this main objec
Page 41 and 42: precedented regulatory obstacles de
Page 43 and 44: 2.32. In its Post-Hearing Submissio
Page 45 and 46: SID Convention, nor relates to a
Page 47 and 48: But on the other side, an internati
Page 49 and 50: for such disputes would constitute,
Page 51 and 52: scribed in its early pleadings form
Page 53 and 54:
2.65. The Tribunal considers that t
Page 55 and 56:
vestment (which by themselves are n
Page 57 and 58:
minated; nothing more could have be
Page 59 and 60:
to arbitrarily change or add new re
Page 61 and 62:
2.86. Accordingly, treating the rel
Page 63 and 64:
2.93. The Tribunal notes that this
Page 65 and 66:
ability and not merely as a possibl
Page 67 and 68:
2.105. Having reached these several
Page 69 and 70:
Tribunal‟s jurisdiction to determ
Page 71 and 72:
3.5. The Respondent also submits th
Page 73 and 74:
cause there was only one applicatio
Page 75 and 76:
leged de facto ban on mining was no
Page 77 and 78:
Claimant, it came to light only in
Page 79 and 80:
that led to the revocation should b
Page 81 and 82:
for the purpose of deciding the Rat
Page 83 and 84:
distinction made in the Commerce Gr
Page 85 and 86:
EMELEC v. Ecuador (under the USA-Ec
Page 87 and 88:
would qualify for treaty protection
Page 89 and 90:
4.17. (iii) Timeliness: The Respond
Page 91 and 92:
the Respondent submits, to require
Page 93 and 94:
ditiously resolved” (paragraph l)
Page 95 and 96:
provided the Respondent with its No
Page 97 and 98:
4.44. The Claimant contends further
Page 99 and 100:
lomatic protection within the meani
Page 101 and 102:
Party [i.e. as the host State] whic
Page 103 and 104:
there were and are certain activiti
Page 105 and 106:
4.74. It will be recalled that the
Page 107 and 108:
der different arbitration rules, th
Page 109 and 110:
4.91. It follows that this third co
Page 111 and 112:
Convention. 145 In the Respondent
Page 113 and 114:
further express requirement of havi
Page 115 and 116:
Legislativa was fully aware that th
Page 117 and 118:
made before and after the Claimant
Page 119 and 120:
5.33. As established by the Interna
Page 121 and 122:
5.40. As also summarized above, the
Page 123 and 124:
Government had always treated the C
Page 125 and 126:
PART 6: ISSUE E - LEGAL AND ARBITRA
Page 127 and 128:
6.10. The Claimant submits that, un
Page 129 and 130:
tion ratione temporis (i.e. the con
Page 131 and 132:
Party to also put in a witness stat
Page 133 and 134:
ture arbitration proceedings. Indee
Page 135 and 136:
this arbitration with the least exp
Page 137 and 138:
abused the Tribunal's indulgence in
Page 139 and 140:
avoided; but, instead, the Responde
Page 141 and 142:
“a U.S. investor organized under
Page 143 and 144:
The Respondent acknowledges, of cou
Page 145 and 146:
Claimant submits that under the cir
Page 147 and 148:
ment in the communications with the
Page 149 and 150:
6.76. The Claimant submits that the
Page 151 and 152:
PART 7: THE OPERATIVE PART 7.1. For
show all

brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?