Bear creek v. Peru and the legality of the investment as an (implied) requirement for investment arbitration tribunals’ exercise of jurisdiction
Concerns about inconsistency in the application of standards in arbitral awards are strongly present in investment treaty arbitration. In particular, tribunals can regularly exercise a varying scope of jurisdiction when they determine the legality requirement that demands foreign investments t...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=7882641 |
| Source: | THEMIS: Revista de Derecho, ISSN 1810-9934, Nº. 77, 2020 (Ejemplar dedicado a: Arbitraje), pags. 447-455 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
|
| Summary: |
Concerns about inconsistency in the application of
standards in arbitral awards are strongly present
in investment treaty arbitration. In particular,
tribunals can regularly exercise a varying scope
of jurisdiction when they determine the legality
requirement that demands foreign investments
to be made in accordance with the law of the
host state.
In this paper, the author seeks to analyze the
decision rendered by the tribunal in Bear Creek
v. Peru, in which the Canadian mining company
alleged that the Peruvian State breach, inter alia,
expropriation protections under the Canada-Peru
Free Trade Agreement in relation to its investment
in the silver mining project of Santa Ana. In
order to achieve this aim, in the first chapter, he
addresses three key issues regarding the tribunal’s
jurisdiction, the rights on which the company
based its claim and the arguably prerequisite of
legality or good faith for the tribunal’s exercise
of jurisdiction. In the second chapter, he analyzes
the validity of the tribunal’s interpretation on the
legality requirement for investment as an implicit
element in the relevant treaty to determine the
tribunal’s jurisdiction. |
|---|