• Search

Investment Treaty Arbitration

Last verified on Tuesday 19th September 2017

England & Wales

    Overview of investment treaty programme

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

      Substantive protections

      Procedural rights

      BIT contracting party or MIT

      Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET)

      Expropriation

      Protection and security

      Most-favoured-nation (MFN)

      Umbrella clause

      Cooling-off period

       

      Local courts

      Arbitration

      Albania

      (30 August 1995)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      No

      Yes

      Angola

      (Signed 4 July 2000; not in force)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Antigua and Barbuda

      (12 June 1987)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Argentina

      (19 February 1993)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      Yes1

      Yes2

      Armenia

      (11 July 1996)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Azerbaijan

      (11 December 1996)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Bahrain

      (30 October 1991)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Bangladesh

      (19 June 1980)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Barbados

      (7 April 1993)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Belarus

      (28 December 1994)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Belize3

      (30 April 1982)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Benin

      (27 November 1987)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      90 days

      Yes

      Yes

      Bolivia

      (16 February 1990)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Bosnia and Herzegovina (25 July 2003)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Brazil

      (Signed 19 July 1994;

      not in force)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Bulgaria

      (24 June 1997)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      4 months

      No

      Yes4

      Burundi

      (13 September 1990)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Cameroon

      (7 June 1985)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Chile

      (21 April 1997)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes5

      Yes

      China

      (15 May 1986)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      No

      Yes6

      Colombia

      (10 October 2014)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Costa Rica

      (Signed 7 September 1982; not in force)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Ivory Coast

      (9 October 1997)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Croatia

      (16 April 1998)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Cuba

      (11 May 1995)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Czech Republic

      (26 October 1992)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      4 months

      No

      Yes7

      Dominica

      (23 January 1987)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Ecuador

      (24 August 1995)8

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Egypt

      (24 February 1976)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      El Salvador

      (1 December 2001)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Estonia

      (16 December 1994)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Ethiopia

      (Signed 19 November 2009; not in force)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Gambia

      (Signed 2 July 2002; not in force)

       Yes Yes Yes  Yes Yes  3 months  No  Yes 

      Georgia

      (15 February 1995)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months 

      Yes

      Yes

      Ghana

      (25 October 1991)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Grenada

      (25 February 1988)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Guyana

      (11 April 1990)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months 

      Yes

      Yes

      Haiti

      (27 March 1995)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months 

      No

      Yes

      Honduras

      (8 March 1995)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China (12 April 1999)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes9

      Hungary

      (28 August 1987)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      Yes

      Expropriation only

      India

      (6 January 1995)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Indonesia

      (24 March 1977)10

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      No

      Yes

      Jamaica

      (14 May 1987)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      No

      Yes

      Yes

      Jordan

      (24 April 1980)11

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      No

      Yes

      Kazakhstan

      (23 November 1995)12

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Kenya

      (13 September 1999)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Kyrgyzstan

      (18 June 1998)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Lao People´s Democratic Republic

      (1 June 1995)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Latvia

      (15 February 1995)13

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Lebanon

      (16 September 2001)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      4 months

      No

      Yes

      Lesotho 

      (18 February 1981)14

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Lithuania

      (21 September 1993)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Malaysia

      (21 October 1988)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Malta

      (4 October 1986)15

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Mauritius

      (13 October 1986)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Mexico

      (25 July 2007)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      4 months

      No

      Yes

      Moldova

      (30 July 1998)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Mongolia

      (4 October 1991)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      No

      Yes

      Morocco

      (14 February 2002)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      No

      Yes

      Mozambique

      (27 February 2007)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Nepal

      (2 March 1993)16

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Nicaragua

      (21 December 2001)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Nigeria

      (11 December 1990)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Oman

      (21 May 1996)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Pakistan

      (30 November 1994)17

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Panama

      (7 November 1985)18

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      No

      Yes

      Papua New Guinea

      (22 December 1981)19

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      Yes

      Yes

      Paraguay

      (23 April 1992)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Peru

      (21 April 1994)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Philippines

      (2 January 1981)20

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      No

      Yes

      Poland

      (14 April 1988)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes21

      Republic of Korea (4 March 1976)22

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Republic of the Congo  

      (9 November 1990)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Romania

      (10 January 1996)23

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Russian Federation

      (3 July 1991)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes24

      Saint Lucia

      (18 January 1983)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Senegal

      (9 February 1984)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      Yes

      Yes

      Serbia

      (3 April 2007)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Sierra Leone

      (20 November 2001)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Singapore

      (22 July 1975)25

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Slovakia (26 October 1992)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      4 months

      No

      Yes

      Slovenia

      (12 May 1999)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      South Africa

      (Ent into force 27 May 1998; terminated)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Sri Lanka

      (18 December 1980)26

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Swaziland

      (5 May 1995)27

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Thailand

      (11 August 1979)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      No

      Yes

      Tonga

      (22 October 1997)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Trinidad and Tobago

      (8 October 1993)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      No

      Yes

      Tunisia

      (4 January 1990)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Turkey

      (22 October 1996)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      1 year

      Yes

      Yes

      Turkmenistan

      (9 February 1995)28

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      4 months

      No

      Yes

      Uganda

      (24 April 1998)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Ukraine

      (10 February 1993)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      United Arab Emirates

      (15 December 1993)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      United Republic of Tanzania (2 August 1996)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Uruguay

      (1 August 1997)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Reasonable period of time

      Yes29

      Yes30

      Uzbekistan

      (24 November 1993)31

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Vanuatu

      (Signed 22 December 2003; not in force)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Venezuela

      (1 August 1996)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Vietnam

      (1 August 2002)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      No

      Yes

      Yemen

      (11 November 1983)32

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      No

      Yes

      Zimbabwe

      (Signed 1 March 1995; not in force)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Energy Charter Treaty (ECT, 16 April 1998)33

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes34

      Yes

      3 months

      Yes

      Yes35

      * Table compiled on the basis of information provided from a publicly available service: UNCTAD Investment Policy Hub (http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/) accessed 2 August 2017.

      ** It appears from the UNCTAD Investment Policy Hub that the UK has also entered into BITs with Kuwait, Libya, Qatar and Zambia, but no further information nor the tex of the treaties is publicly available.

      1 Recourse may be had to local courts only following negotiations with the host state.

      2 Recourse may be had to arbitration only if the investor has commenced proceedings before the relevant local court / administrative tribunal of the host state and, after 18 months have passed following the commencement of those proceedings, no final decision has been rendered or the Investor disputes such final decision.

      3 By diplomatic notes, the Contracting Parties agreed to extend application of the BIT to Hong Kong, the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man (notes dated 8 March 1983); the Turks and Caicos Islands (notes dated 10 December 1985); and the Cayman Islands (notes dated 4 February 1986).

      4 Recourse may be had to arbitration only if the dispute concerns compensation for losses owing to war or other armed conflict, a state of emergency or civil disturbance; expropriation; or breach of the obligation to allow unrestricted transfers of payments relating to the investment.

      5 No recourse may be had to arbitration if an investor has already submitted the dispute to the host state's courts.

      6 Recourse may be had to arbitration only if the dispute concerns "an amount of compensation".

      7 Recourse may be had to arbitration only if the dispute concerns a breach of a specific agreement concluded between the Investor and the host state; compensation for losses owing to war or other armed conflict, a state of emergency or civil disturbance; expropriation; or breach of the obligation to allow the repatriation of the Investment and returns.

      8 By diplomatic notes dated 18 May 1999, the Contracting Parties agreed to extend this BIT to the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

      9 Following a cooling off period, recourse may be had either to arbitration or another dispute resolution mechanism agreed by the parties to the dispute.

      10 By diplomatic notes dated 30 July 1999, the Contracting Parties agreed to extend this BIT to the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

      11 By diplomatic notes, the Contracting Parties agreed to extend this BIT to the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man (notes dated 14 June 1981) and to Hong Kong (notes dated 14 May 1986).

      12 By diplomatic notes dated 29 July 1999, the Contracting Parties agreed to extend this BIT to the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

      13 By diplomatic notes dated 13 March 2000, the Contracting Parties agreed to extend this BIT to the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

      14 By diplomatic notes dated 19 January and 16 March 1983, the Contracting Parties agreed to extend this BIT to Hong Kong, the  Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

      15 By diplomatic notes dated 21 July 1999, the Contracting Parties agreed to extend this BIT to the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

      16 By diplomatic notes dated 22 April 1999, the Contracting Parties agreed to extend this BIT to the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

      17 By diplomatic notes dated 11 October 1999, the Contracting Parties agreed to extend this BIT to the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

      18 By diplomatic notes, the Contracting Parties agreed to extend this BIT to the Cayman Islands (notes dated 3 June 1987) and to the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man (notes dated 5 May 1999).

      19 By diplomatic notes dated 4 May 1983, the Contracting Parties agreed to extend this BIT to the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

      20 By an exchange of diplomatic notes dated 17 December 1985, the Contracting Parties agreed to extend this BIT to the Turks and Caicos Islands.

      21 Recourse may be had to arbitration only if the dispute concerns a breach of Article 5 of the BIT (expropriation).

      22 By diplomatic notes dated 22 September 1983, the Contracting Parties agreed to extend this BIT to the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

      23 By diplomatic notes dated 22 March 1999, the Contracting Parties agreed to extend this BIT to the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

      24 Recourse may be had to arbitration only if the dispute concerns compensation for losses owing to war or other armed conflict, a state of emergency or civil disturbance; expropriation; or breach of the obligation to allow free repatriation of Investments and returns.

      25 By diplomatic notes dated 13 January 1978, the Contracting Parties agreed to extend this BIT to the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

      26 By diplomatic notes dated 14 January 1981, the Contracting Parties agreed to extend this BIT to the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

      27 By diplomatic notes dated 21 November 2001, the Contracting Parties agreed to extend this BIT to the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

      28 By diplomatic notes dated 17 June 1999, the Contracting Parties agreed to extend this BIT to the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

      29 Recourse may be had to local courts only following negotiations with the host State.

      30 Recourse may be had to arbitration only if the investor has commenced proceedings before the relevant local court/administrative tribunal of the host state and, after 18 months have passed following the commencement of those proceedings, no final decision has been rendered or the Investor disputes such final decision.

      31 By diplomatic notes dated 15 November 1999, the Contracting Parties agreed to extend this BIT to the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

      32 By diplomatic notes dated 9 June 1985, the Contracting Parties agreed to extend this BIT to the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man.

      33 The ECT establishes a multilateral framework for cross-border cooperation in the energy industry. The treaty covers all aspects of commercial energy activities including trade, transit, investments and energy efficiency.

      In addition to the United Kingdom, the countries that have ratified the ECT are: Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, the European Union, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

      States in which ratification is still pending are: Australia, Belarus and Norway. On 20 August 2009 the Russian Federation has officially informed the Depository that it did not intend to become a Contracting Party to the ECT and the Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects. In accordance with article 45(3(a)) of the ECT, such notification results in Russia's termination of its provisional application of the ECT.

      34 The national treatment and MFN obligations do not apply to the protection of Intellectual Property.

      35 The Contracting Parties listed in Annex IA to the ECT have withheld unconditional consent to arbitrate disputes arising under the last sentence of article 10(1) of the ECT (the umbrella clause).

    Qualifying criteria - any unique or distinguishing features?

  2. 2.Definition of “investor”. What are the distinguishing features of the definition of “investor” in this country’s investment treaties?
    1. The UK Model BIT does not use and does not define the term "investor". However, in Article 1 reference is made to "nationals" (meaning, in respect of the United Kingdom, "physical persons deriving their status as United Kingdom nationals from the law in force in the United Kingdom") and to "companies" (meaning "corporations, firms and associations incorporated or constituted under the law in force in any part of the United Kingdom or in any territory to which this Agreement is extended in accordance with the provisions of Article 12").

      Issue

      Distinguishing features in relation to the definition of “Investor”

      1. Seat of the Investor/place of business

      As far as companies are concerned, most of the UK's BITs and the ECT define "investor" as a company incorporated or constituted under the laws of a Contracting Party. This includes companies incorporated or constituted in territories to which the BIT is expressly extended, eg, Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, etc.

      Some UK BITs have additional requirements:

      • The Senegal BIT requires that the company should be "profit-seeking".
      • The Russian Federation BIT requires an investor to be "competent, in accordance with the laws of that Contracting Party [ie, the home state] to make investments in the territory of the other Contracting Party".
      • The Chile BIT requires a company to have a "registered office, central administration or principal place of business" in the home state's territory.
      • The Mexico BIT requires a company to be "engaged in business operations" in the territory of the home State.
      • The Philippines BIT requires a company to be "actually doing business under the laws in force in any part of the territory of the Contracting Party wherein a place of effective management is situated". Similarly, the Colombia BIT requires a company to have "substantial business activities in the territory of the United Kingdom or any territory to which this Agreement is extended".

      The ECT allows host states to deny benefits to a legal entity falling within the scope of the definition of "investor" if citizens or nationals of a third state own or control such entity and if that entity has no substantial business activities in the area of the Contracting Party in which it is organised.

      2. Nationals

      "Investor" is typically defined to include persons having the citizenship or nationality of a Contracting Party.

      Generally, the UK's BITs state that "nationals" are persons deriving their status "as United Kingdom nationals from the law in force in the United Kingdom". A very similar definition is employed in the ECT.

      The Jordan BIT expands the definition of "national" to "Any British subject not possessing citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies or the citizenship of any other Commonwealth country or territory, but who has the right of abode in the United Kingdom and who claims to benefit under this Agreement" Such individual "shall declare his status before making any investment" (article 1(c)).

  3. 3.Definition of “investment”. What are the distinguishing features of the definition of “investment” in this country’s investment treaties?
    1. The UK Model BIT defines "Investment" at article 1(a) as "every kind of asset, owned or controlled directly or indirectly, and in particular, though not exclusively, includes: (i) movable and immovable property and any other property rights such as mortgages, liens or pledges; (ii) shares in and stock and debentures of a company and any other form of participation in a company; (iii) claims to money or to any performance under contract having a financial value; (iv) intellectual property rights, goodwill, technical processes and know-how; (v) business concessions conferred by law or under contract, including concessions to search for, cultivate, extract or exploit natural resources".

      Issue

      Distinguishing features in relation to the concept of “investment”

      1. Eligible assets

      All of the UK's BITs and the ECT refer to a non-exhaustive list of eligible assets, often using the phrase "every kind of asset owned or controlled".

      Two BITs limit the scope of eligible assets by reference to economy activity:

      • The Colombia BIT refers to "every kind of economic asset".
      • The Bulgaria BIT refers to "every kind of asset connected with economic activities".

      The ECT allows a host state to deny the advantages of that treaty to an investment if the investment is one of an investor of a third state with or as to which the host state does not maintain a diplomatic relationship or as to which the host state adopts or maintains measures that prohibit transactions with investors of that state and such measures would be violated or circumvented if the benefits of Part III of the ECT were accorded to Investors of that state or to their investments.

      2. Indirect control of assets

      The definition of "Investment" in almost all of the UK's BITs makes no specific reference to indirectly controlled assets. Only the Colombia BIT explicitly refers to assets controlled indirectly in its enumeration of eligible assets.

      By contrast, the ECT, like the UK Model BIT, refers to "every kind of asset, owned or controlled directly or indirectly".

      3. Exclusion of certain assets

      Some of the UK's BITs exclude from the definition of investment certain type of assets such as debts, claims to money, credit transactions (Mexico and Colombia BITs) and loans to a Contracting Party (Mexico BIT).

      4. Commencement of coverage

      Most of the UK's BITs apply to investments made after the BIT has come into force. However, some of the UK's BITs  protect investments existing as at the date on which the treaty entered into force (for example, China and Bulgaria BITs). Some apply to all investments, whether made before or after the treaty entered into force (India and Hong Kong BITs).  

      5. Accordance with local laws

      Some of the UK's BITs explicitly require that investments have been admitted by a host state subject to its law (see, for example, the Philippines and Singapore BITs).

      The Thailand BIT extends the benefits of the BIT only to those investments of capital that "have been approved in writing by the competent authority of the [host state]". Furthermore, "[w]hen granting approval in respect of any investment the approving Contracting Party shall be free to lay down appropriate conditions".

    Substantive protections - any unique or distinguishing features?

  4. 4.Fair and equitable treatment.  What are the distinguishing features of the fair and equitable treatment standard in this country’s investment treaties?
    1. Article 2(2) of the UK Model BIT states: "Investments of nationals or companies of each Contracting Party shall at all times be accorded fair and equitable treatment ...". 

      Issue

      Distinguishing features of the fair and equitable treatment standard

      1. Illustration of the FET standard

      The majority of the UK's BITs and the ECT provide that each Contracting Party shall accord fair and equitable treatment to investments.

      The Colombia BIT specifies that the FET standard includes a prohibition against the "denial of justice in criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings in accordance with the principle of due process embodied in the main legal systems in the world".

      The FET clause in the Belize BIT includes a prohibition of "unreasonable or discriminatory treatment".

      2. International law/Customary International Law

      The UK's BITs generally do not link the FET standard with international law or customary law. There are a small number of exceptions:

      -The UAE BIT refers to treatment "in a manner consistent with international law".

      -The Colombia BIT states that "The concept of 'fair and equitable treatment' … do[es] not require additional treatment to that required in accordance with international law."

      -The Mexico BIT states that "The Contracting Parties do not intend that the obligations in paragraph 1 above in respect of 'fair and equitable treatment' … to require treatment in addition to or beyond that which is required by the customary international law minimum standard of treatment of aliens."

  5. 5.Expropriation. What are the distinguishing features of the protection against expropriation standard in this country’s investment treaties?
    1. Article 5 of the UK Model BIT states that neither Contracting Party will nationalise, expropriate or subject to measures having effect equivalent to nationalisation or expropriation the investments of investors of the other Party, unless certain conditions are fulfilled. These conditions are that: (i) the expropriation should be for a public purpose related to the internal needs of the Contracting Party, (ii) the expropriation is not discriminatory, and (iii) the expropriation is accompanied by the payment of prompt, adequate and effective compensation.

      The standard of compensation prescribed in the UK Model BIT is:

      "the genuine value of the investment expropriated immediately before the expropriation or before the impending expropriation became public knowledge, whichever is earlier, shall include interest at a normal commercial rate until the date of payment, shall be made without delay, be effectively realizable and be freely transferable." The UK Model BIT moreover provides that: "The national or company affected shall have a right, under the law of the Contracting Party making the expropriation, to prompt review, by a judicial or other independent authority of that Party, or his or its case and of the valuation of his or its investment in accordance with the principles set out in this paragraph."

      Issue

      Distinguishing features of the “expropriation” standard

      1. Right to regulate for a public purpose

      The condition that the expropriation should be for a public purpose related to the internal needs of the contracting party is common to the UK's BITs. While also referring to public purposes more generally, a few of the UK's BIT enumerate more specific conditions in which expropriations may be carried out:

      • The Philippines BIT permits expropriations "in the interest of national defence".
      • The Peru (and similarly the Panama) BIT permits expropriations "in a social interest related to the internal needs of [the host State]".
      • The Nigeria BIT permits expropriations "related to the internal policies of [the host state]".
      • The India BIT permits expropriations "related to the internal requirements for regulating economic activity".

      In defining "public purpose", the Addendum to the Costa Rica BIT refers to article 45 of the Costa Rican Constitution.

      The ECT permits expropriation "in the public interest".

      2.  In accordance with the "due process of law"

      Very few of the UK's BITs, but also the ECT, require that an expropriation should be carried out in accordance with due process of the law. For example, the Panama BIT states that an expropriation should be carried out "in conformity with the internal law" and the Antigua and Barbuda BIT states that an expropriation should be carried out "in accordance with the provisions of a law applicable to taking of possession and acquisition".

      The United Arab Emirates BIT provides that the expropriation should not be "contrary to any contractual obligation undertaken by a Contracting Party in favour of an investor".

      3. Protection of minority shareholders

      A distinguishing feature of the expropriation clause of most of the UK's BITs is a further provision that a contracting party that expropriates a company incorporated or constituted in accordance with its own laws and in which nationals of the other contracting party own shares shall ensure that the expropriation provision of the BIT is applied to the extent necessary to guarantee prompt, adequate and effective compensation in respect of such shares.

      4. Compensation

      The UK's BITs and the ECT require prompt and full compensation. Different formulations of what constitutes "full" compensation are employed. For example, "the full value of the investment expropriated immediately before the investment became known" (Bangladesh BIT); "the real value of the investment expropriated immediately before the expropriation or impending expropriation became public knowledge" (China BIT); and "the genuine value of the investment expropriated immediately before the expropriation or impending expropriation became public knowledge, whichever is earlier" (Kyrgyzstan BIT) are some of the formulations one may encounter. The ECT refers to the "fair market value" of the investment immediately before the expropriation became known.

      Most BITs and the ECT include interest in the compensation to be made.

      Most BITs and the ECT require that the compensation shall be made in a freely convertible currency.

      4. Right to arbitration

      Some of the UK's BITs limit the right to pursue arbitration only to instances where the dispute relates to alleged expropriation (Poland BIT) or only in relation to the amount of compensation due following the breach of particular provisions of the BIT, including the expropriation provision (China and Russian Federation BITs).

  6. 6.National treatment/most-favoured-nation treatment. What are the distinguishing features of the national treatment/most-favoured-nation treatment standard in this country’s investment treaties?
    1. Article 3 of the UK Model BIT states:

      "(1) Neither Contracting Party shall in its territory subject investments or returns of nationals or companies of the other Contracting Party to treatment less favourable than that which it accords to investments or returns of its own nationals or companies or to investments or returns of nationals or companies of any third State.

      (2) Neither Contracting Party shall in its territory subject nationals or companies of the other Contracting Party, as regards their management, maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal of their investments, to treatment less favourable than that which it accords to its own nationals or companies or to nationals or companies of any third State.

      (3) For the avoidance of doubt it is confirmed that the treatment provided for in paragraphs (1) and (2) above shall apply to the provisions of Articles 1 to 12 of this Agreement."

      Article 7(1) of the UK Model BIT clarifies that:

      "The provisions of this Agreement relative to the grant of treatment not less favourable than that accorded to the nationals or companies of either Contracting Party or of any third State shall not be construed so as to preclude the adoption or enforcement by a Contracting Party of measures which are necessary to protect national security, public security or public order, nor shall these provisions be construed to oblige one Contracting Party to extend to the nationals or companies of the other the benefit of any treatment, preference or privilege resulting from:

      (a) any existing or future customs, economic or monetary union, a common market or a free trade area or similar international agreement to which either of the Contracting Parties is or may become a party, and includes the benefit of any treatment, preference or privilege resulting from obligations arising out of an international agreement or reciprocity arrangement of that customs, economic or monetary union, common market or free trade area; or

      (b) any international agreement or arrangement relating wholly or mainly to taxation or any domestic legislation relating wholly or mainly to taxation; or

      (c) any requirements resulting from the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union including measures prohibiting, restricting or limiting the movement of capital to or from any third country."

      Issue

      Distinguishing features of the “national treatment” and/or “most favoured nation” standard

      1. Scope

      All of the UK's BITs and the ECT include national treatment and MFN clauses. The equality of treatment applies to investments, associated activities and returns of investments or nationals of the host State and/or third party States (for example, the Saint Lucia BIT) or to the management, maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal of investments (for example, the Saint Lucia BIT and the ECT).

      The national treatment and MFN obligations of the ECT include an aspirational commitment ("Each Contracting Party shall endeavour…") to accord national treatment and MFN status at the time that investments are made. A supplementary treaty is intended to regulate the conditions for national and MFN treatment in the making of investments.

      The ECT, moreover, provides that where two or more Contracting Parties have entered into a prior international agreement granting an investor and/or investment rights more favourable than foreseen in Parts III and V of the ECT, the prior international agreement shall prevail (Article 16).

      2. Common limitations

      Many of the UK's BITs state that the provision of national treatment and MFN status does not extend to the benefits of membership of a customs union, a monetary union or a free trade area, nor to taxation agreements and/or taxation. Moreover, it is stated in many of the UK's BITs that the national treatment and MFN obligations shall not be construed as obliging the Contracting Parties to extend to the nationals or companies of the other Contracting Party the benefit of any treatment resulting from the requirements of the UK's membership of the European Union.

      3. Limitation on national treatment and MFN obligations

      Some of the UK's BITs create carve outs to the national treatment and MFN obligations:

      • The Jamaica and Papua New Guinea BITs provide a carve out for "special incentives granted by one Contracting Party only to its nationals in order to stimulate the creation of local industries".
      • The Panama BIT provides a carve out in respect of "domestic legislation in force at the time of signature of the BIT relating to specific economic activities reserved to nationals or companies of one Contracting Party".
      • The Morocco BIT includes a further exception for "any government aids reserved for its own nationals in the context of national development programmes and activities".
      • The Vietnam BIT sets forth certain measures exempt from the national treatment obligation in an annex to the BIT.
      • The Korea BIT allows the host State to adopt measures in favour of the host state's nationals, so long as all foreign nationals and companies (ie, not only of the home state) are affected equally.

      The ECT excludes application of the national treatment and MFN obligations from intellectual property protections, which shall be specified in other international agreements.

      4. Extension to the whole treaty

      Most of the UK's BITs and the ECT are silent as to whether the national treatment and MFN obligations extend to every other obligation under the treaty, including the dispute resolution clause.

      Exceptions are to be found, for example, in the Lebanon, Ukraine and Venezuela BITs, which confirm that the national treatment and MFN obligations extend to the remainder of the treaty.

  7. 7.

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

    1. Article 2(2) of the UK Model BIT states that investments "shall enjoy full protection and security in the territory of the other Contracting Party".

      Issue

      Distinguishing features of the “protection and security” standard

      1. Scope

      The obligation on the host State to accord full protection and security is included in all of the UK's BITs and the ECT (but expressed there as "most constant protection and security").

      The UK's BITs and the ECT generally do not describe the scope of full protection and security obligation.

      The Colombia BIT clarifies that "The 'full protection and security' standard does not imply, in any case, a better treatment to that accorded to nationals of the Contracting Party in whose territory the Investment has been made".

      2. International law/ Customary International law

      The obligation to provide full protection and security is not generally linked with international law or customary law. There are a small number of exceptions:

      • The UAE BIT refers to treatment "in a manner consistent with international law".
      • The Colombia BIT states that "The concept of … 'full protection and security' do[es] not require additional treatment to that required in accordance with international law."
      • The Mexico BIT states that "The Contracting parties do not intend that the obligations in paragraph 1 above in respect of … 'full protection and security' to require treatment in addition to or beyond that which is required by the customary international law minimum standard of treatment of aliens."
  8. 8.

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

    1. Article 2(2) of the UK Model BIT states: "Each Contracting Party shall observe any obligation it may have entered into with regard to investments of nationals or companies of the other Contracting Party".

      Issue

      Distinguishing features of any “umbrella clause”

      1. Scope

      Most of the UK's BITs and the ECT contain an umbrella clause. The exceptions are the Jamaica, Lebanon, Mexico and Colombia BITs.

      2. Qualification of the obligation

      The umbrella clause in the Philippines BIT applies to any obligation arising from a particular commitment that the host state may have entered into with regard to a specific investment.

      The umbrella clause of the Venezuela BIT applies to any obligation that the host state may have entered into with regard to the 'treatment' of investments of Investors.

      The ECT allows contracting states to enter a reservation to the effect that they do not give unconditional consent to arbitration in respect of a dispute arising in respect of the umbrella clause.

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

      Other substantive protections

      1. Free transfer of payments

      Article 6 of the UK Model BIT states: "Each Contracting Party shall in respect of investments guarantee to nationals or companies of the other Contracting Party the unrestricted transfer of their investments and returns. Transfers shall be effected without delay in the convertible currency in which the capital was originally invested or in any other convertible currency agreed by the investor and the Contracting Party concerned. Unless otherwise agreed by the investor transfers shall be made at the rate of exchange applicable on the date of transfer pursuant to the exchange regulations in force."

      Article 7(2) of the UK Model BIT also states that: "Where, in exceptional circumstances, payments and capital movements between the Contracting Parties cause or threaten to cause serious difficulties for the operation of monetary policy or exchange rate policy in either Contracting Party, the Contracting Party concerned may take safeguard measures with regard to capital movements between the Contracting Parties for a period not exceeding six months if such measures are strictly necessary. The Contracting Party adopting the safeguard measures shall inform the other Contracting Party forthwith and present, as soon a possible, a time schedule for their removal."

      Most of the UK's BITs and the ECT contain a provision requiring the Contracting Parties to permit investors freely to transfer investments and investment returns.

      Such protection is always subject to the monetary policy of both parties.

      It can also be subject to the host State's right to enact laws limiting free transfers (Thailand, Paraguay, China and Mexico BITs) and also, in exceptional cases, to regulate balance of payments difficulties and, for a limited period, to the exercise equitably and in good faith the powers conferred by a Contracting Party's laws (Argentina BIT).

      2. Non-impairment

      Article 2(2) of the UK Model BIT states that "Neither Contracting Party shall in any way impair by unreasonable or discriminatory measures the management, maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal of investments in its territory of nationals or companies of the other Contracting Party".

      Most of the UK's BITs and the ECT include an obligation not to impair by unreasonable or discriminatory measures the management, maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal of investments of nationals or companies of the other Contracting Party in its territory. Some BITs limit this obligation:

      - The China BIT makes the obligation dependent on the laws of the home State.

      - The Morocco and Colombia BITs mention only "discriminatory measures".

      - The Venezuela BIT mentions only "arbitrary and discriminatory measures".

      3. Armed conflict/civil unrest

      Article 4 of the UK Model BIT states that:

      "(1) Nationals or companies of one Contracting Party whose investments in the territory of the other Contracting Party suffer losses owing to war or other armed conflict, revolution, a state of national emergency, revolt, insurrection or riot in the territory of the latter Contracting Party shall be accorded by the latter Contracting Party treatment, as regards restitution, indemnification, compensation or other settlement, no less favourable that that which the latter Contracting Party accords to its own nationals or companies or to nationals or companies of any third State. Resulting payments shall be freely transferable.

      (2) Without prejudice to paragraph (1) of this Article, nationals or companies of one Contracting Party who in any of the situations referred to in that paragraph suffer losses in the territory of the other Contracting Party resulting from: (a) requisitioning of their property by its forces or authorities, or (b) destruction of their property by its forces or authorities, which was not caused in combat action or was not required by the necessity of the situation, shall be accorded restitution or adequate compensation. Resulting payments shall be freely transferable."

      Most of the UK's BITs and the ECT include a provision for the compensation of losses arising out of armed conflict and civil unrest.

      Many BITs, such as the Argentina, Ghana and Mexico BITs, make explicit reference to the national treatment and MFN obligation in respect of the compensation of such losses, which compensation may also include restitution, indemnification and other settlement.

    Procedural rights in this country’s investment treaties

  10. 10.

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

    1. The UK Model BIT includes two alternative dispute resolution provisions at article 8. Alternative 1 is a reference to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID):

      "(1) Each Contracting Party hereby consents to submit to the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (hereinafter referred to as “the Centre”) for settlement by conciliation or arbitration under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States opened for signature at Washington DC on 18 March 1965 any legal dispute arising between that Contracting Party and a national or company of the other Contracting Party concerning an investment of the latter in the territory of the former.

      (2) A company which is incorporated or constituted under the law in force in the territory of one Contracting Party and in which before such a dispute arises the majority of shares are owned by nationals or companies of the other Contracting Party shall in accordance with Article 25(2)(b) of the Convention be treated for the purposes of the Convention as a company of the other Contracting Party.

      (3) If any such dispute should arise and agreement cannot be reached within three months between the parties to this dispute through pursuit of local remedies or otherwise, then, if the national or company affected also consents in writing to submit the dispute to the Centre for settlement by conciliation or arbitration under the Convention, either party may institute proceedings by addressing a request to that effect to the Secretary-General of the Centre as provided in Articles 28 and 36 of the Convention. In the event of disagreement as to whether conciliation or arbitration is the more appropriate procedure the national or company affected shall have the right to choose. The Contracting

      Party which is a party to the dispute shall not raise as an objection at any stage of the proceedings or enforcement of an award the fact that the national or company which is the other party to the dispute has received in pursuance of an insurance contract an indemnity in respect of some or all of his or its losses.

      (4) Neither Contracting Party shall pursue through the diplomatic channel any dispute referred to the Centre unless:

      (a) the Secretary-General of the Centre, or a conciliation commission or an arbitral tribunal constituted by it, decides that the dispute is not within the jurisdiction of the Centre; or

      (b) the other Contracting Party shall fail to abide by or to comply with any award rendered by an arbitral tribunal."

      Alternative 2 is a more general provision regulating the settlement of disputes between an Investor and a host State:

      "(1) Disputes between a national or company of one Contracting Party and the other Contracting Party concerning an obligation of the latter under this Agreement in relation to an investment of the former which have not been amicably settled shall, after a period of three months from written notification of a claim, be submitted to international arbitration if the national or company concerned so wishes.

      (2) Where the dispute is referred to international arbitration, the national or company and the Contracting Party concerned in the dispute may agree to refer the dispute either to:

      (a) the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (having regard to the provisions, where applicable, of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States, opened for signature at Washington DC on 18 March 1965 and the Additional Facility for the Administration of Conciliation, Arbitration and Fact-Finding Proceedings); or

      (b) the Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce; or

      (c) an international arbitrator or ad hoc arbitration tribunal to be appointed by a special agreement or established under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.

      If after a period of three months from written notification of the claim there is no agreement to one of the above alternative procedures, the dispute shall at the request in writing of the national or company concerned be submitted to arbitration under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law as then in force. The parties to the dispute may agree in writing to modify these Rules."

      Most of the UK's BITs include the latter formulation.

      Issue

      Procedural rights

      1. Fork in the road

      Most of the UK's BITs do not include a fork in the road provision.

      However, under the Chile BIT, no recourse may be had to arbitration if the dispute was previously submitted to the host state's courts.

      The ECT provides a choice as between proceedings before the courts or administrative tribunals of the host State; any previously agreed dispute settlement procedure; or arbitration.

      2. Exhaustion of local remedies

      Some of the UK's BITs give recourse to arbitration only when local remedies have been exhausted:

      - Under the Argentina and Uruguay BITs, recourse may be had to arbitration only if the investor has commenced proceedings before the relevant local court(s) and/or administrative tribunal(s) of the host State and, after 18 months have passed following the commencement of those proceedings, no final decision has been rendered or the investor disputes such final decision (Argentina BIT) or the decision has been manifestly unjust (Uruguay BIT).

      - The Colombia BIT requires the exhaustion of local administrative remedies, if required by the law of the host state, but such administrative law procedure shall in any event last no longer than 6 months from the date of the investor's written notification of a dispute. Upon expiry of the 6 months, it is the investor's choice whether to proceed before the host State's courts or arbitration. If the investor notifies its intent to proceed with arbitration, a 6-month cooling off period applies from the date on which the notice of intent to commence arbitration was given.

      3. Failure to conciliate or litigate

      Most of the UK's BITs do not refer to the need to go to conciliation.

      Recourse to arbitration is limited under the India BIT to circumstances where the parties do not agree to conciliation or conciliation proceedings fail to resolve the parties' dispute.

      The ECT does not refer to conciliation; litigation is not a prerequisite to arbitration under the ECT.

      4. ICSID or ad-hoc Arbitration.

      Most of the UK's BITs provide recourse to ICSID. Some BITs allow investors to pursue arbitral claims through ICSID, the ICC or through an ad-hoc tribunal in accordance with the UNCITRAL rules (for example, Colombia, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malta, South Africa, Slovenia and Ukraine, BITs); others foresee a choice between ICSID or an ad-hoc tribunal under the UNCITRAL rules (Argentina, China, India, Poland and Uruguay BITs); and some foresee arbitration only under the UNCITRAL rules (Bulgaria and Hong Kong BITs).

      The Russian Federation BIT provides for arbitration under the SCC Rules or the UNCITRAL rules.

      The ECT provides an option as between ICSID, ICSID Additional Facility, UNCITRAL and SCC arbitration. As far as the determination of the nationality of the claimant is concerned in ICSID proceedings, the ECT provides that a legal entity which has the nationality of the host state as at the date on which the investor states its intent to pursue arbitration, but that legal entity was controlled by investors of another Contracting Party to the ECT before the dispute arose, shall be considered a national of that other Contracting Party.

      5. Time limits

      Two of the UK's BITs provide a limitation period within which claims must be brought by an investor: the Mexico BIT (three years) and the Colombia BIT (five years); the other BITs and the ECT do not.

      6. Applicable law

      Most of the UK's BITs are silent as to what law would govern the parties' dispute. Unless otherwise indicated, tribunals typically apply the terms of the treaty and principles of international law.

      Where a dispute has been brought under the ICSID Rules, article 42 of the ICSID Convention provides that the applicable law shall be those rules of law as may be agreed between the parties (which includes the applicable BIT). If no law has been agreed, the Tribunal shall apply the law of the host State (including its rules on the conflict of laws) and such rules of international law as may be applicable.

      The Mexico BIT provides that the tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordance with the treaty and the applicable rules and principles of international law.

      The ECT provides that any arbitral tribunal "shall decide the issues in dispute in accordance with this Treaty and applicable rules and principles of international law".

      7. Preliminary Issues

      The Colombia BIT provides that the tribunal has the power to rule on preliminary questions of competence and admissibility before determining the merits of a dispute.

      The UK's other BITs and the ECT do not address how preliminary issues shall be dealt with.

  11. 11.

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

    1. The UK remains open to negotiating new investment treaties.

    Practicalities of commencing an investment treaty claim against this country

  12. 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?

    1. Government entity to which claim notices are sent

      None specified; suggest sending claim notices to: FCO Legal Advisor, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, King Charles Street, SW1A 2AH London, United Kingdom

  13. 13.

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

    1. Government department which manages investment treaty arbitrations

      Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

  14. 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?

    1. Internal/External counsel

      Internal counsel used in only known claim, external counsel may be used in future.

    Practicalities of enforcing an investment treaty claim against this country

  15. 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.

    1. Washington Convention implementing legislation

      The Washington Convention entered into force for the United Kingdom on 18 January 1967. The UK implemented the Washington Convention by the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966.

  16. 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.

    1. New York Convention implementing legislation

      The United Kingdom ratified the New York Convention on 24 September 1975 (subject to the so-called reciprocity reservation). It has implemented the New York Convention by sections 100 to 104 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

  17. 17.

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

    1. Legislation governing non-ICSID arbitrations

      No.

  18. 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?

    1. Compliance with adverse awards

      No publically available awards have been rendered against the United Kingdom.

  19. 19.

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

    1. Attitude of government towards investment treaty arbitration

      The UK government is generally favourable towards investment treaty arbitration, evidenced by the over 100 BITs and the ECT entered into by the United Kingdom which typically offer investors the right to enforce their treaty rights through investment treaty arbitration.

      The UK government had previously signalled that it supports the newly-cast ISDS provision included in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (see House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, Oral evidence, The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Inquiry, HC 533, p.9). Since the UK electorate voted to leave the European Union following the referendum on 24 June 2016, the UK government has indicated that it is considering the inclusion of arbitration provisions in UK-EU agreements post-Brexit (see HM Government, "Enforcement and Dispute Resolution: A Future Partnership Paper", https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/639609/Enforcement_and_dispute_resolution.pdf).

       

  20. 20.

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

    1. Attitude of local courts towards investment treaty arbitration

      In Ioan Micula & Others v Romania [2017] EWHC 31 (Comm), an English court considered an ICSID arbitration award rendered against Romania. It held that the application by Romania and the European Commission (as an intervening party) to set aside the order registering the ICSID Award should be refused, but also that enforcement of the award should be stayed pending the outcome of proceedings before the European Court seeking the annulment of a decision by the European Commission holding that the implementation or execution of the award by Romania would constitute new incompatible state aid. The Court emphasised that an ICSID award is equal to a final domestic judgment in the UK for enforcement purposes.

      In The Mayor and Commonalty & Citizens of the City of London v Ashok Sancheti v United Kingdom [2008] EWCA 1283, an English court addressed issues relating to the relationship between international arbitration under a UK BIT and national court proceedings. In particular, a dispute arose between Mr Sancheti, a lawyer of Indian nationality, and his landlord, the City of London with regard to a rent increase. The Corporation commenced national litigation against Mr Sancheti for the amounts allegedly due but Mr Sancheti sought to stay court proceeding under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996, on the basis that ithe had filed a notice of arbitration under the UK-India BIT against the UK government. In this regard, the Court of Appeal had to consider whether Roussel-Uclaf v GD Searle & Co Ltd [1978] 1 Lloyd's Rep 225 was right to give a very extensive interpretation of the stay provisions of what is now section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996, so to apply it to persons who were not parties to the arbitration agreement. The Court of Appeal overturned the above extensive interpretation and refused to grant the stay on the grounds that the City of London was not a party to the arbitration agreement under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996. In this regard, the Court emphasised that it would be wholly inconsistent with the purpose and structure of the Arbitration Act 1996 if a stay could be obtained against a claimant who was not a party to the arbitration agreement.

      There have been other cases in which the English courts have addressed questions relevant to investment treaty disputes not involving a UK BIT:

      In Occidental Exploration & Production Co v Ecuador [2005] EWCA Civ 1116, the Court of Appeal held that English courts have jurisdiction to entertain an application of the Respondent, challenging the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.

      In Czech Republic v European Media Ventures SA [2007] EWHC 2851, an application to set aside an arbitral award issued in England was refused by the Court of Appeal on grounds that the Belgium-Luxembourg–Czech Republic BIT authorised an arbitral tribunal to determine entitlement to compensation for expropriation and not merely issues as to quantification.

      In Republic of Ecuador v Occidental Exploration & Production Co [2007] EWCA Civ 656, an appeal of a decision declining to set aside an arbitral award was denied by the Court of Appeal on grounds that an arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to make an award in respect of a dispute involving matters of taxation that arose in connection with a BIT between the United States and Ecuador.

      In ETI Euro Telecom International NV v (1) Bolivia (2) Empresa Nacional de Telecommunicaciones Entel SA [2008] EWCA Civ 880,the Court of Appeal held that the English court did not have jurisdiction under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 section 25 and the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Interim Relief) Order 1997 to make a freezing injunction in aid of attachment proceedings in New York, which proceedings in turn were in aid of an ICSID arbitration.

      Gold Reserve Inc v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela [2016] EWHC 153 – the court declined to set aside an ex parte order giving a Canadian company the right to enforce an arbitration award against Venezuela as if it were a judgment; Venezuela had agreed to arbitrate and was therefore not entitled to state immunity.

      In two cases, foreign courts commented on BITs to which the UK is party:

      Judgment of the Bolivian Constitutional Court in relation to the Bolivia BIT (10 May 2006) – the Constitutional Court of Bolivia confirmed the constitutionality of the Bolivia BIT.

      Judgment on the Constitutionality of the Ecuador BIT (Ecuador Constitutional Court, 2010) – the Constitutional Court of Ecuador held that articles 8 and 9 of the Ecuador BIT are inconsistent with article 422 of the Ecuadorian Constitution.

    National legislation protecting inward investments

  21. 21.

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

    1. National Legislation

      There is no specific national legislation which protects foreign investment in the UK. The laws of (i) England and Wales, (ii) Northern Ireland and (iii) Scotland do not distinguish between domestic and foreign investments, except in limited circumstances where investments are deemed to affect national security.

      English law and Scottish law protects against unlawful expropriation without compensation and provides for judicial review of government decisions.

    National legislation protecting outgoing foreign investment

  22. 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?
    1. Relevant guarantee scheme

      Qualifying criteria, substantive protections provided and practical considerations

      Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD)

      The Export Credits Guarantee Department (UK Export Finance, http://www.ukexportfinance.gov.uk) is the UK's export credit agency. UK Export Finance complements the private market by providing assistance to exporters and investors, principally in the form of insurance and guarantees to banks.

      UK Guarantees

      In 2015, the government announced that availability of the UK Guarantees scheme will be extended to March 2021. The £40 billion exports refinancing facility will provide long-term loans for overseas buyers of UK exports at competitive rates by guaranteeing a series of short-term bank loans.

      See: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-guarantees-scheme-key-documents. 

      Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Act 1988

      The UK has enacted legislation to give effect to the Convention establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA 1985). Under the Convention, UK nationals and corporate entities are eligible to acquire, for the payment of a premium, political risk insurance from MIGA in respect of certain developing states, provided that certain conditions are met. To be eligible for assistance, the investment must be medium to long term in nature, support the host country's development goals, comply with MIGA's policy on Social and Environmental Sustainability and anti-corruption and fraud standards, and also be financially viable.  

    Awards

  23. 23.

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

    1. Awards

      Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P. and Danubius Kereskedöház Vagyonkezelö Zrt v Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/3, Award, 17 April 2015 (UKHungary BIT)

      Ali Allawi v Islamic Republic of Pakistan, UNCITRAL, Award, 2016 (not public) (UK–Pakistan BIT)

      AWG Group Ltd v The Argentine Republic, UNCITRAL, initiated in 2003, Award, 9 April 2015, upheld by the US District Court for the District of Columbia, 30 September 2016 (UK–Argentina BIT)

      Asian Agricultural Products Ltd v Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3, Award, 27 June 1990 (UK–Sri Lanka BIT)

      BG Group Plc v Argentina, UNCITRAL, Award, 24 December 2007, Petition to Vacate or Modify Arbitration Award filled by the Respondent, 20 March 2008, Judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, 5 March 2014 (UK-Argentina BIT)

      Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008 (UK–Tanzania BIT)

      British Caribbean Bank Ltd v Government of Belize, UNCITRAL-PCA Case No. 2010-18, Award, 19 December 2014 (UK–Belize BIT)

      Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and 12/40, Award, 6 December 2016 (UKIndonesia BIT)

      Dunkeld International Investment Ltd v Government of Belize [I], PCA Case No. 2010-13, Award, 28 June 2016 (Tribunal correction 17 August 2016) (UK–Belize BIT and Exchange of Notes)

      EDF (Services) Limited v Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Award, 8 October 2009 (UK–Romania BIT)

      Garanti Koza LLP v Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/20, Award, 19 December 2016 (UKTurmenistan BIT)

      Guaracachi America Inc and Rurelec PLC v Plurinational State of Bolivia, UNCITRAL-PCA Case No. 2011-17, Award, 31 January 2014 (UK–Bolivia BIT)

      ICS Inspection and Control Services Limited (United Kingdom) v The Republic of Argentina, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2010-9, Award on Jurisdiction,10 February 2012 (UK–Argentina BIT)

      Inspection and Control Services Limited (ICS) v Argentina, UNCITRAL-PCA Case No. 2010-9, Award on Jurisdiction, 10 February 2012 (UKArgentina BIT)

      Ivan Peter Busta and James Peter Busta v Czech Republic, SCC Case No. V2014/181, Final Award, 10 March 2017 (UK-Czech Republic BIT)

      JKX Oil & Gas plc, Poltava Gas B.V and Poltava Petroleum Company v Ukraine, SCC Emergency Arbitration Case No. EA (2015/002), Emergency Award, 14 January 2015 (UK–Ukraine BIT, ECT)

      Joy Mining Machinery Limited v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11, Award on 6 August 2004 (UK–Egypt BIT)

      National Grid plc v Argentina, UNCITRAL, Award, 3 November 2008 upheld by the US District Court for the District of Columbia, 7 June (UK–Argentina BIT)

      Malaysian Historical Salvors, SDN, BHD v Government of Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Award on Jurisdiction, 17 May 2007; Decision on the Application for Annulment, 16 April 2009 (UKMalaysia BIT)

      Malicorp Limited v Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/18, Award, 7 February 2011 and Decision on the Application for Annulment of Malicorp Limited, 3 July 2013 (UKEgypt BIT)

      Menzies Middle East and Africa S.A. and Aviation Handling Services International Ltd v Republic of Senegal, ICSID Arbitration No. ARB/15/21, Award, 5 August 2016 (UK–Senegal BIT)

      Menzies Middle East and Africa SA and Aviation Handling Services International Ltd v Republic of Senegal, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/21, Award, 5 August 2016 (UKSenegal BIT)

      Oxus Gold plc v Kyrgyz Republic, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction (unpublished, 2008) (UK-Kyrgyzstan BIT)

      Oxus Gold plc v. Republic of Uzbekistan the State Committee of Uzbekistan for Geology & Mineral Resources, and Navoi Mining & Metallurgical Kombinat, UNCITRAL, Award Award on Jurisdiction, 1 January 2012; Award 17 December 2015 (UK–Uzbekistan BIT)

      Rafat Ali Rizvi v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/13, Award on Jurisdiction, 16 July 2013 (UK-Indonesia BIT)

      RosInvestCo UK Ltd v Russian Federation, SCC Case No. V079/2005, Award, 12 September 2010 award and decision partially set aside by Svea Court of Appeal, 5 September 2013 (UKRussian Federation BIT)

      Standard Chartered Bank v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/12, Award, 2 November 2012 (UK–Tanzania BIT)

      Vestey Group Ltd v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/4, Award, 15 April 2016, defendant application for annulment, 16 August 2016, claimant counter-memorial on annulment, 20 June 2017 (UK– Venezuela BIT) [reported in IAReporter]

      Wena Hotels Ltd v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4, Award, 8 December 2000, Decision on Application for Annulment, 5 February  2002, Decision on the Claimant's Application for Interpretation of the Arbitral Award, 31 October 2005 (UK–Egypt BIT)

      William Nagel v Czech Republic, SCC, Case No. 049/2002, Award, 9 September 2003 upheld by Svea Court of Appeal, 26 August 2005 (UK–Czech Republic BIT)

      WNC Factoring Ltd v Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2014-34, Award, 22 February 2017 (UK–Czech Republic BIT)

      Pending proceedings

      UK as respondent

      Ashok Sancheti v. United Kingdom, UNCITRAL, Notice of Arbitration, 16 September 2006, Judgment on Stay of Local Proceedings ([2008] EWCA Civ 1283), 11 November 2008 (UK–India BIT)

      UK as investor

      A11Y LTD v Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. UNCT/15/1, Decision on Jurisdiction, 9 February 2017 [reported in IAReporter] (UK–Czech Republic BIT)

      Ali Allawi v Pakistan, UNCITRAL, Notice of Arbitration, 21 December 2012 (UK–Pakistan BIT) [reported in IAReporter]

      Anglia Auto Accessories Ltd v The Czech Republic, SCC, initiated in 2015 (UK–Czech Republic BIT)

      Anglo American plc v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/14/1, Submission on Costs, 28 April 2017 (UK-Venezuela BIT)

      Astro and South Asia Entertainment v India, UNCITRAL, Request for Arbitration, 2016 (UK–India BIT)

      J.P. Busta and I.P. Busta v The Czech Republic, SCC, initiated in 2015 (UK–Czech Republic BIT)

      Cairn Energy PLC v India, UNCITRAL, Request for Arbitration March 2015 (UK–India BIT)

      Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and 12/40, Application for Annulment, 31 March 2017 (UK–Indonesia BIT)

      Cortec Mining Kenya Limited, Cortec (Pty) Limited and Stirling Capital Limited v. Republic of Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/29, Notice of Arbitration, 7 July 2015 (UK–Kenya BIT)

      Dunkeld International Investment Ltd v Government of Belize (Number 2), UNCITRAL-PCA Case No. 2010-21, Notice of Arbitration, 1 July 2010, Procedural Order No. 8 (suspending proceedings until further notice), 6 February 2014 (UK–Belize BIT)

      DP World Callao S.R.L., P&O Dover (Holding) Limited, and The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/21, Procedural Order No. 8 concerning procedural matters, 5 October 2016 (UK–Peru BIT)

      Raymond Charles Eyre and Montrose Developments (Private) Limited v Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/25, Procedural Order No. 1, 1 June 2017 (UK–Sri Lanka BIT)

      Gabriel Resources Ltd and Gabriel Resources (Jersey) v Romania, ICSID Arbitration No. ARB/15/31, Memorial on Merits, 30 June 2017 (UK–Romania BIT)

      Glencore Finance (Bermuda) Ltd v Plurinational State of Bolivia, initiated in 2016 (UK–Bolivia BIT)

      Thomas Gosling, Property Partnerships Development Managers (UK), Property Partnerships Developments (Mauritius) Ltd, Property Partnerships Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd and TG Investments Ltd v Republic of Mauritius, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/32, Procedural Order No. 2, 21 July 2017 (UK–Mauritius BIT)

      Devincci Salah Hourani and Issam Salah Hourani v Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/13, Procedural Order No. 4, 27 June 2017 (UK–Kazakhstan BIT)

      ICS Inspection and Control Services Limited v The Argentine Republic (II), UNCITRAL, initiated in 2015 (UK–Argentina BIT)

      ICW Europe Investments Limited v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL (UK–Czech Republic BIT, ECT) [no further information available]

      JKX Oil & Gas plc, Poltava Gas B.V. and Poltava Petroleum Company v. Ukraine, Interim Award, 23 July 2015 (UK–Ukraine BIT and ECT)

      Krederi Ltd v Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/17, Rejoinder on merits, 17 July 2017 (UK–Ukraine BIT)

      South American Silver Limited v Plurinational State of Bolivia, UNCITRAL-PCA Case No. 2013-15, Post-Hearing Briefs, 31 October 2016 (UK–Bolivia BIT)

      Vedanta Resources plc v India, UNCITRAL, initiated in 2016 (UK–India BIT)

      WNC Factoring Ltd (WNC) v The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, initiated in 2014 (UK–Czech Republic BIT)

      Settled or discontinued disputes

      AES Summit Generation Limited v Republic of Hungary, ICSID case No. ARB/01/4, Order pursuant to Rule 43(1) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, 3 January 2002 (UK–Hungary BIT)

      ANZEF Limited v India, UNCITRAL, Notice of Arbitration, 2004 (UK–India BIT)

      Booker plc v Co-operative Republic of Guyana, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/9, Order pursuant to Rule 43(1) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, 11 October 2003 (UK–Guyana BIT)

      Hortensia Margarita Shortt v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/30, Order pursuant to Rule 45 of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, 11 May 2015 (UK-Venezuela BIT)

      Indorama International Finance Ltd v Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/32, Procedural Order pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 43(1), 2 July 2015 (UK–Egypt BIT)

      JacobsGibb Limited v Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/12, Order pursuant to Rule 43(1) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, 13 October 2004 (UK–Jordan BIT)

      Joy Mining Machinery v Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11, Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2004, Order of the Annulment Committee pursuant to Rule 43(1) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, 16 December 2005 (UK–Egypt BIT)

      Indorama International Finance Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/32, Order pursuant to Rule 43(1) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, 2 July 2015 (UK–Egypt BIT)

      Paz Holdings Ltd v Plurinational State of Bolivia, UNCITRAL, settled in 2015 (UK-Bolivia BIT)

      Rafat Ali Rizvi v The Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/13, Application for Annulment of Award, 15 November 2013, Order taking note of the discontinuance of the proceeding pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rules 53 and 44, 4 May 2015 (UK–Indonesia BIT)

      Standard Chartered Bank v India, UNCTIRAL, Notice of Arbitration, 2004 (UK–India BIT)

      Tullow Uganda Operations PTY Ltd v Republic of Uganda, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/25, Order pursuant to Rule 43(1) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, 15 July 2015 (UK–Uganda BIT)

      UK Bank v Russian Federation, initiated, 2000 (UK–Russia BIT)

       

    Reading List

  24. 24.

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

    1. Chester Brown and Audley Sheppard, "United Kingdom", in Chester Brown (ed), Commentaries on Selected Model Investment Treaties, Oxford University Press (2013), pp. 697–754.

      Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, 'Beyond Trade Deals Charting a Post Brexit Course for UK Investment Treaties' http://ccsi.columbia.edu/files/2016/12/Beyond-trade-deals-charting-a-post-Brexit-course-for-UK-investment-treaties-Dec-2016.pdf (accessed 2 August 2017).

      Eileen Denza and Shelagh Brooks, "Investment Protection Treaties: United Kingdom Experience", (1987) 36 International Comparative Law Quarterly 908.

      Alejandro Escobar & Kate Hill, "Multilateral and Bilateral Investment Treaties and the United Kingdom" in Julian D.M. Lew, Harris Bor et al (eds), Arbitration in England (Kluwer Law International 2013), pp. 267–292.

      James Harrison, "The Protection of Foreign Investment: United Kingdom National Report" (Paper presented at the XVIII International Congress of Comparative Law, Washington DC, 2010), available at: http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/bacl/files/harrison.%20foreign%20investment.pdf (accessed 20 August 2014).

      House of Lords European Union Committee, The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (HL Paper 179) (13 May 2014).

      Francis A. Mann, "British Treaties for the Promotion and Protection of Investments" (1981) 52 British Yearbook of International Law 241.

      Arthur Nussbaum, "Arbitration Between The Lena Goldfields, Ltd and the Soviet Government" (1950–51) 36 Cornell Law Quarterly 31.

      L. Poulsen, J. Bonnitcha & J. Yackee, "Analytical Framework for Assessing Costs and Benefits of Investment Protection Treaties" (LSE Enterprise, March 2013) Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/260503/bis-13-1285-analytical-framework-for-assessment-costs-and-benefits-of-investment-protection.pdf (accessed 20 August 2014).

      Luke Eric Peterson, "UK Bilateral Investment Treaty Programme and Sustainable Development: Implications of Bilateral Negotiations on Investment Regulation at a Time When Multilateral Talks Are Faltering", Royal Institute of International Affairs: Briefing Paper No. 10 (February 2004), available at: http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Energy,%20Environment%20and%20
      Development/binvestfeb04.pdf
      .

      Thomas Roe, "Illegality and Jurisdiction in Investment Arbitration" (2016) Turkish Commercial Law Review Vol.2 Issue 1, pp.17–26.

      Jiries Saadeh, "The European Union, Investment Treaties and Investment Arbitration Post Brexit" available at http://arbitrationblog.practicallaw.com/the-european-union-investment-treaties-and-investment-arbitration-post-brexit/ (accessed 2 August 2017).

      V. V. Veeder Q.C., "The Lena Goldfields Arbitration: The Historical Roots of Three Ideas" (1998) 47 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 747.

      V. V. Veeder Q.C., "Lloyd George, Lenin and Cannibals: The Harriman Arbitration" (2000) 16 (2) Arbitration International 115.

      Andrew Walter, "British Investment Treaties in South Asia: Current Status and Future Trends" (Report Prepared for the Int'l Development Center of Japan, January 2000) See URL:  http://personal.lse.ac.uk/wyattwal/images/British.pdf (accessed 20 August 2014).

Interested in contributing to this Know-how?

E-mail our Co-Publishing Manager


GAR know-how provides reliable cross-jurisdictional insight to help cement the building blocks of international practice. In this section, select experienced practitioners answer commonly asked questions for key jurisdictions so allowing readers to be better-placed to solve the challenges of their working days.

All Jurisdiction