Investment Treaty Arbitration

Investment Treaty Arbitration: Belarus

Overview of investment treaty programme

1. What are the key features of the investment treaties to which this country is a party?

Belarus

 

BIT Contracting Party or MIT

Substantive protections

Procedural rights

Fair and equitable treatment (FET)

Expropriation

Protection and security

Most-favoured-nation (MFN)

Umbrella clause

Cooling-off period

Local courts

Arbitration

Agreement on cooperation in the field of investment activity (21 November 1994) 1

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Armenia (10 February 2002)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Austria (1 June 2002)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3 months

No

Yes

Azerbaijan (1 July 2011)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3 months

Yes

Yes

Bahrain (16 May 2008)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Bangladesh (not in force)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union (not in force)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Bosnia and Herzegovina (22 January 2006)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

3 months

Yes

Yes

Bulgaria (11 November 1997)

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes 2

Cambodia (not in force)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

China (14 January 1995)

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Expropriation only

Convention for the protection of investors' rights (21 January 1999) 3

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Croatia (14 July 2005)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Cuba (16 August 2001)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Cyprus (3 September 1998)

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Czech Republic (9 April 1998)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

No

Yes

Denmark (20 July 2005)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Energy Charter Treaty (not in force)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3 months

Yes

Yes

Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU or EEU) treaty (1 January 2015) 4

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Egypt (18 January 1999)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Estonia (not in force)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

3 months

Yes

Yes

Finland (10 April 2008)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3 months

Yes

Yes

France (not in force)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

No

Yes

Germany (23 September 1996)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months (only in relation to arbitration)

Yes

Yes

India (23 December 2003)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes 5

Iran (23 June 2000)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Israel (14 August 2003)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

No

Yes

Italy (12 August 1997)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Jordan (22 December 2005)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Kuwait (14 June 2003)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Kyrgyzstan (11 November 2001)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Lao People's Democratic Republic (20 March 2014)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3 months

Yes

Yes

Latvia (21 December 1998)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes 6

Lebanon (29 December 2002)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Libya (23 February 2002)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6months

Yes

Yes

Lithuania (16 May 2002)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

No

Yes

Macedonia (22 November 2002)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Mexico (27 August 2009)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Moldova (19 November 1999)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Mongolia (27 January 2002)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Netherlands (1 August 1996)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

North Korea (31 May 2007)

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Oman (18 January 2005)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes 7

6 months

Yes

Yes

Pakistan (not in force 8 )

               

Poland (21 April 1993)

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Qatar (06 August 2004)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Republic of Korea (9 August 1997)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Romania (8 January 1997)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Saudi Arabia (11 August 2010)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Singapore (13 January 2001)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

No

Yes 9

Slovakia (1 September 2006 10 )

               

Slovenia (not in force)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3 months

Yes

Yes

Spain (28 November 1991) 11

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

No

Yes

Sweden (1 November 1996)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

No

Yes 12

Switzerland (13 July 1994)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Syrian Arab Republic (1 October 1998)

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Tajikistan (25 August 1999)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

Turkey (20 February 1997)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Ukraine (11 June 1997)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

United Arab Emirates (16 February 2001)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6 months

Yes

Yes

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (28 December 1994)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

United States of America (not in force)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No (not specified) 6 months for binding arbitration

Yes

Yes

Venezuela (13 August 2008)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3 months

Yes

Yes

Vietnam (24 November 1994)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6 months

Yes

Yes

Yemen (not in force 13 )

               

Yugoslavia (25 January 1997)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3 months

Yes

Yes

Qualifying criteria - any unique or distinguishing features?

2. What are the distinguishing features of the definition of “investor” in this country’s investment treaties?

Belarus

Issue

Distinguishing features in relation to the definition of ‘investor’

Citizens/ permanent residents

As a general rule, a natural person as an ‘investor’ is defined as a citizen/national of a Contracting Party.

 

At the same time in several BITs the permanent residents are included in the definition of ‘investor’ (eg with Denmark). There are also cases when definition ‘investor’ includes also provision that he/she shall be entitled for investment activity (eg BIT with Germany). Treaty on Cooperation in Sphere of Investment Activity of 24 December 1993 envisages under ‘investor’ citizens and permanent residents, as well as stateless individuals.

Seat of the investor/place of business

Typically according to Belarusian investment treaties a juridical person incorporated, duly organised or recognised according to the laws of a Contracting Party is considered as an ‘investor’. However, certain BITs contain additional requirements as to seat of investor/its place of business such as ‘main place of business’, ‘registered seat’ or ‘main seat’, ‘head office’ or ‘central managing body’, as well as ‘factual business activity’, in different combinations. Several BITs (eg with Bahrein, Croatia, Macedonia, Moldova) in addition require that such entities shall have their seat in the territory of a Contracting Party. In BIT with Laos ‘investor’ shall also have its ‘head office’ or exercise ‘main business and economic activity’ in the territory of respective Contracting Party. In BIT with Bangladesh ‘investor’ shall have its ‘registered seat’ in Contracting party, in BIT with Finland – ‘legal address’, ‘main seat’ or ‘main place of business’ within the jurisdiction of Contracting Party, for Bosnia & Herzegovina – ‘registered seat, central seat, central managing body or main business activity’.

Control by investor

Several BITs provide protection to juridical persons controlled by investor: eg with UAE – for entities incorporated in third party state with ‘dominant status’ of Contracting Party or its resident; with Croatia, Jordan – for entities of investors in third party states where the investors ‘exercise prevailing control’.

State control

Several BITs include government of Contracting Party into definition of investor: eg BIT with Saudi Arabia – in respect to Saudi Arabian government and its authorities, BIT with Kuwait – in respect to Kuwait government.

Status of a juridical person

Most of BITs envisages under ‘investor’ juridical persons according to the laws of respective Contracting Party. However, certain number of treaties includes entities not possessing the status of juridical persons into definition of ‘investor’: eg BIT with Bulgaria.

3. What are the distinguishing features of the definition of "investment" in this country’s investment treaties?

Belarus

Issue

Distinguishing features in relation to the definition of ‘investor’

Eligible assets

Belarusian BITs include a general definition of eligible assets with non-exhaustive list of potential ‘investments’. Typically the definition of investment expressly includes shares and other forms of participation in legal entities and IP rights.

Accordance with local laws

Most Belarusian BITs stipulate that only investments made in accordance with the law of the host Contracting Party are covered by BIT protection. The exceptions with no indication of host state law in regard to assets include such treaties as BITs with Kuwait, Austria and Cyprus.

Commencement of coverage

Typically BITs with Belarus specify that protection covers investments made prior the BIT entering into force (eg BITs with Switzerland, Netherlands, Moldova), with exception in certain BITs to investment disputes commenced and/or claims not resolved prior to that (eg with Sweden, Romania, Israel).

Indirect control of assets

Most of the BITs do not address the issue of protection of investments controlled indirectly. At the same time in certain BITs there is specific indication of investor’s property ‘controlled indirectly’: in particular, in BITs with Slovenia, Finland, the USA and Kuwait.

Special formalities

Certain investment treaties with Belarus provide for special approval for investments from authorised body of the host state: eg BIT with Singapore – in respect to Singapore only.

Substantive protections - any unique or distinguishing features?

4. What are the distinguishing features of the fair and equitable treatment standard in this country’s investment treaties?

Belarus

Issue

Distinguishing features of the fair and equitable treatment standard

International law

Generally Belarusian BITs in force (with the exception of the treaties with Bulgaria, China, North Korea, Poland) include a fair and equitable treatment clause.

Belarus-Moldova BIT includes only equitable (but not fair) treatment clause.

Several Belarusian investment treaties contain the obligation to provide fair and equitable treatment in accordance with international law or principles of international law (Croatia, France, Germany, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman).

Sphere of standard

Belarusian BIT (with Denmark) stresses that fair and equitable treatment standard applies not only to investments but also to management, maintenance, ownership, disposition connected with investments.

BIT with Austria spreads fair and equitable treatment as well on revenues connected with investments, including revenues from reinvestment.

Specificity of violations of the standard

Belarus – Mexico BIT stresses that violation of any other rule of the treaty or any separate treaty should not be considered as the violation of fair and equitable treatment clause.

5. What are the distinguishing features of the protection against expropriation standard in this country’s investment treaties?

Belarus

Issue

Distinguishing features of the ‘expropriation’ standard

Cases of expropriation

Almost all Belarussian BITs stipulate that expropriation can be carried out ‘in the public interest’ only. Such treaties as BITs with Bulgaria, Egypt, Israel, Laos, Latvia, Sweden, the UK state that expropriation can be held in order to satisfy ‘internal state needs’. In other cases certain BITs (eg with Italy and Singapore) set that cases of expropriation are defined in the national legislation.

Prompt compensation

Most Belarussian investment treaties provide that compensation for expropriated property shall be paid ‘without undue delay.’ Some treaties specify deadline within which compensation must be paid (eg three months in the treaties with Italy, Kyrgyzstan, and Macedonia).

Indirect expropriation and other equivalent measures

Generally Belarusian investment treaties in force expressly protect against direct as well as indirect expropriation and other equivalent measures (eg Azerbaijan, Croatia, Finland, France, Jordan, Kuwait, Iran, Italy, Laos, Lebanon, Mexico, Netherlands, Qatar, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela). Most Belarussian BITs provide protection to investors owning the shares in the expropriated company (eg Bahrain, Denmark, Finland, India, Laos, Singapore).

Valuation of the investment for the purposes of compensation

Most Belarussian BITs set that the value of investment for the purposes of compensation should be assessed according to the market value. Several agreements (eg with Jordan, Kuwait, Mexico) stress that the market value should be fair. Some BITs set that the value should be define as the ‘actual value’, assessed according to the international practice (eg. Bahrain, France, Germany, Macedonia).

Right to arbitration

Most Belarusian investment treaties provide investor with the right have a case or reviewed evaluation of investment by the court or other competent authorities. Certain BITs entitles investor to turn to arbitration in that case, in particular BITs with Austria and China.

6. What are the distinguishing features of the national treatment/most-favoured-nation treatment standard in this country’s investment treaties?

Belarus

Issue

Distinguishing features of the ‘national treatment’ and/or ‘most favoured nation’ standard

Common limitation

The majority of Belarusian BITs feature both national treatment and most-favoured-nation clauses. In most cases these treatments do not extend to the benefits of membership of a customs union, monetary union or free trade area, nor to taxation agreements and/or taxation legislation. However, in certain cases investment treaties provide only for MFN treatment eg BIT with Vietnam.

Scope of treatment

Generally the MFN protection contained within Belarusian BITs applies to investments. In addition, several BITs protect investors and few – ‘investor’s incomes’ (eg with Cambodia, Saudi Arabia, Bolivia). In some cases BITs extend the guarantee of MFN or national treatment to investor’s ‘management, conduct, operation and disposition of the investment’ (eg in BITs with Laos, Bangladesh, Mexica, and Slovenia).

7. What are the distinguishing features of the obligation to provide protection and security to qualifying investments in this country’s investment treaties?

Belarus

Issue

Distinguishing features of the ‘protection and security’ standard

Scope

Most of the treaties stipulate obligations of the states to ensure protection and security of investments. At the same time in formulations of the standard there the wording ‘protection and security’ is used (eg BITs with Kuwait, Mongolia) as well as only ‘protection’ (eg with Singapore, Switzerland). Such additional words as ‘full’, ‘full and unconditional’, ‘unconditional’ are used in certain BITs.

Several BITs do not contain obligation to ensure protection and security of investments (China, India, Poland, Turkey, etc.).

Extent of standard

While many BITs envisages legal protection and security (eg Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bulgaria), some provides for physical protection (eg Laos, Lebanon). Certain treaties stipulate protection of investments, as well as connected incomes, in particular BITs with Austria and Croatia.

8. What are the distinguishing features of the umbrella clauses contained within this country’s investment treaties?

Belarus

Issue

Distinguishing features of any ‘umbrella clause’

Scope

21 BITs and 2 MITs do not contain umbrella clause.

Wording

In most BITs with umbrella clause it is expressly provided that a Contracting Party is obliged to ‘honour any obligations in respect of investments from other Contracting Party’s investor’.

9. What are the other most important substantive rights provided to qualifying investors in this country?

Belarus

Issue

Other substantive protections

Armed conflict/civil unrest

BITs guarantee investors of Contracting Parties ‘most favoured nation’ treatment in regards to compensation paid to other investors of other states in the case of armed conflict or civil unrest. Most treaties also provide for ‘national’ treatment in such circumstances. In addition, as a rule investment treaties provide investors with a qualified right to receive compensation for losses caused by the host state in the event of armed conflict or civil unrest.

Subrogation

Most Belarusian BITs provide for the right of the host state to subrogation. That means if a Contracting Party or any its agency makes a payment to any of its investors under a guarantee or a contract of insurance it has entered in respect of an investment, this Contracting Party or its agency will be entitled to the same rights as those of the investor in respect of the investment concerned.

Free transfer of payments

The free transfer of payments guarantee is typical for Belarusian investment treaties. The guarantee generally specifies that transfers should be permitted in a convertible currency. While the expression of the right is not uniform, Belarusian BITs provide that such transfer is subject to the laws and policies of the host state. Certain BITs (eg with Croatia) require that such transfer may be done only after the payment of taxes and/or other duties.

Procedural rights in this country’s investment treaties

10. Are there any relevant issues related to procedural rights in this country’s investment treaties?

Belarus

Issue

Procedural rights

Fork-in-the-road

Typically Belarusian BITs do not contain fork-in-the road provision; at the same time there are certain exceptions which include BITs with Turkey, Estonia, Saudi Arabia, Mexica, Qatar etc.

Institutional and ad hoc arbitration

Generally Belarusian BITs provide a right of recourse to ICSID and to ad hoc tribunal constituted in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. Some treaties also allow investors to pursue an arbitration claim through: the Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris (egCyprus and Turkey BITs); Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (eg Cyprus BIT); an ad hoc tribunal under the rules specifically provided in the BIT with different appointing authorities (eg China, Denmark) and/or any other tribunal acting in accordance with any other arbitration rules as is mutually agreed by the parties (eg Cambodia). In several investments treaties there is a requirement to presiding arbitrator in ad hoc arbitration to be a citizen of a third state (eg BIT with Korea).

Applicable law

Most BITs are silent as to what law or laws shall govern the parties’ dispute. At the same time some treaties contain provisions on the applicable law: in particular, principles and/or rules of international law shall be applicable under BITs with Mexico, Lebanon, etc., the host state law –BIT like with Macedonia, and other agreements between the Contracting parties – under BIT like with UAE.

Enforcement of award

Generally Belarusian investment treaties state that the award is binding. Most of the treaties provide that the Contracting Party should enforce an award subject to its national law. Several BITs directly indicate that the awards are enforced under the New York Convention 1958 (eg with Cambodia, Lao Republic, Bolivia, and Finland).

Cooling off periods

Most BITs in force contain a six-month cooling off period, with certain exception. BITs with Bosnia & Herzegovina, Laos, which provide for a three-month cooling-off period, and the Poland BIT, which stipulates a twelve-month cooling-off period.

11. What is the status of this country’s investment treaties?

Belarus

Belarusian state authorities did not announce any policy with regard to renegotiation of existing investment treaties or their review as well as regarding refusal from investor-state dispute settlement provisions in future BITs.

According to the official site of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, investment treaties with Yemen, Pakistan, Slovenia, the USA, France, Estonia and the treaty on Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union have been signed, but not ratified.

Practicalities of commencing an investment treaty claim against this country

12. To which governmental entity should notice of a dispute against this country under an investment treaty be sent? Is there a particular person or office to whom a dispute notice against this country should be addressed?

Belarus

Government entity to which claim notices are sent

The issue does not addressed in investment treaties with Belarus. As an exception cases Ministry of Foreign Affairs is indicated as ‘coordinating agency’ in BITs with Cambodia and Venezuela. At the same time in certain local legal acts ratifying particular BIT there is an indication of ‘coordinating agency’, mainly the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

13. Which government department or departments manage investment treaty arbitrations on behalf of this country?

Belarus

Government department which manages investment treaty arbitrations

According to para 75 of the Regulation on Pre-trial Settlement of Disputes (Controversies) Connected to Investment Activity Ministry of Economy handles pre-trial settlement of investment disputes, if there is a dispute (controversy) connected to a breach of investor legitimate rights and obligations described in international investment treaties of Belarus. At the same time, state bodies or executive committees engaged in disputed agreements with foreign investors would represent the State in arbitration proceedings, if they take place.

14. Are internal or external counsel used, or expected to be used, by the state in investment treaty arbitrations? If external counsel are used, does the state normally go through a formal public procurement process when hiring them?

Belarus

Internal/external counsel

Both internal/external counsels may be used. When external counsel is used, the state is likely goes through a formal public procurement process.

Practicalities of enforcing an investment treaty claim against this country

15. Has the country signed and ratified the Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (1965)? Please identify any legislation implementing the Washington Convention.

Belarus

Washington Convention implementing legislation

There is no evidence of any Washington Convention implementing legislation.

16. Has the country signed and ratified the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) (the New York Convention)? Please identify any legislation implementing the New York Convention.

Belarus

New York Convention implementing legislation

The Edict of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Belarus on Ratification of Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 13 September 1960. Belarus made a reservation that it would apply the Convention provisions to arbitral awards coming from states which are not party to it only on reciprocity principle.

17. Does the country have legislation governing non-ICSID investment arbitrations seated within its territory?

Belarus

Legislation governing non-ICSID arbitrations

According to the article 13 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus on Investments of 12 July 2013 No. 53-Z non-ICSID investment arbitrations can be handled by ad hoc arbitration court convened under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, unless otherwise provided by the investment treaty or agreement between with investor. In case of institutional arbitration in Belarus the Law of the Republic of Belarus On International Commercial Arbitration of 09 July 1999 No. 279-Z is applied.

18. Does the state have a history of voluntary compliance with adverse investment treaty awards; or have additional proceedings been necessary to enforce these against the state?

Belarus

Compliance with adverse awards

No, there is no history of adverse investment treaty awards against Belarus.

19. Describe the national government’s attitude towards investment treaty arbitration

Belarus

Attitude of government towards investment treaty arbitration

There has been no investment treaty arbitration for Belarus. In practice in case of any conflicts with the investor government would try to negotiate before go to arbitration.

20. To what extent have local courts been supportive and respectful of investment treaty arbitration, including the enforcement of awards?

Belarus

Attitude of local courts towards investment treaty arbitration

The Belarusian courts would adjudicate on investment disputes in case if the investment agreement provides for that or the dispute falls within their exclusive competence. Although there is no current practice of awards enforcement against Belarus, local courts may appear reluctant to enforce the awards and support the state based on public policy or state immunity grounds.

National legislation protecting inward investments

21. Is there any national legislation that protects inward foreign investment enacted in this country? Describe the content.

Belarus

 

National

Legislation

Substantive protections

Procedural rights

FET

Expropriation

Other

Local courts

Arbitration

The Law of the Republic of Belarus on Investments of 12 July 2013 No. 53-Z

Yes

Yes

Unrestricted transfer of monetary funds from Belarus to abroad

Yes

Yes

National legislation protecting outgoing foreign investment

22. Does the country have an investment guarantee scheme or offer political risk insurance that protects local investors when investing abroad? If so, what are the qualifying criteria, substantive protections provided and the means by which an investor can invoke the protections?

Belarus

Relevant guarantee scheme

Qualifying criteria, substantive protections provided and practical considerations

Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency

Belarus is a party to the Convention establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) (Seoul, 11 October 1985). Under the treaty Belarusian nationals and corporates are eligible to acquire, for the payment of a premium, political risk insurance from MIGA in respect of investments made in certain developing states. To be eligible for insurance, the investment must be medium to long term in nature, support the host country development goals, comply with MIGA`s Policy on Social and Environmental Sustainability and anticorruption and fraud standards and also be financially viable.

Awards

23. Please provide a list of any available arbitration awards or cases initiated involving this country’s investment treaties.

Belarus

Awards

None

Pending proceedings

None

Reading List

24. Please provide a list of any articles or books that discuss this country’s investment treaties.

Belarus

N/A

Notes

1 Was ratified by Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, the Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan.

2 Scope of arbitration clause limited to questions regarding the breach of the free transfer provision, as well as to the amount of compensation for expropriation.

3 Was ratified by Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, The Kyrgyzstan.

4 Was ratified by Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan, Armenia.

5 The parties may resort to arbitration only if the dispute is not settled first through court proceedings or conciliation.

6 Only in ICSID.

7 The special formulation of clause in Article 12 of the Agreement.

8 The official text of this treaty was not readily available on public sources.

9 Only in ICSID.

10 The official text of this treaty was not readily available on public sources.

11 Under the Alma-Ata Accord of December 1991, after the breakup of the USSR, the States forming part of the Commonwealth of Independent States assumed the USSR’s international obligations is applicable to Belarus.

12 Only in ICSID.

13 The official text of this treaty was not readily available on public sources.

Get unlimited access to all Global Arbitration Review content