• Search

Investment Treaty Arbitration

Last verified on Friday 27th September 2019

Mexico

    Overview of investment treaty programme

  1. 1.

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

    1. 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

      Argentina (22 July 1998)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Austria (26 March 2001)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Bahrain (30 July 2014)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Belarus (27 August 2009)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Belgium (18 March 2003)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      China (6 June 2009)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Cuba (29 March 2002)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Czech Republic (14 March 2004)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Denmark (24 September 2000)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Finland (20 August 2000)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      France (11 October 2000)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Germany (23 February 2001)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Greece (27 September 2002)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Iceland (28 April 2006)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      India (23 February 2008)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Italy (4 December 2002)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Korea (6 July 2002)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Kuwait (28 April 2016)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Luxembourg (18 March 2003)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Netherlands (1 October 1999)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Panama (14 December 2006)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Portugal (4 September 2000)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Singapore (3 April 2011)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Slovakia (8 April 2009)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Spain (3 April 2008)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Sweden (1 July 2001)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Switzerland (14 March 1996)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Trinidad & Tobago (16 September 2007)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Turkey (17 December 2017)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      United Kingdom (25 July 2007)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Uruguay (1 July 2002)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      FTAs

      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

      Central America (22 November 2011)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Chile (17 April 1998)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Colombia (11 June 2010)

      No

      Yes

      No

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Costa Rica (5 April 1994)

      No

      Yes

      No

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      CPTPP (8 March 2018)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Japan (17 September 2004)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      180 days

      Yes

      Yes

      NAFTA (17 December 1992)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Nicaragua (18 December 1997)

      No

      Yes

      No

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Pacific Alliance (6 June 2012)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Panama (3 April 2015)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Peru (6 April 2011)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala (29 June 2000)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

      Uruguay (15 November 2003)

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      Yes

      No

      6 months

      Yes

      Yes

    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. Issue

      Distinguishing features in relation to the definition of ‘investor’

      Seat of the investor/place of business

      Most of the investment treaties concluded by Mexico state that an investor is a national of a contracting party or an enterprise constituted under the laws of one of the contracting parties making or having made an investment in the other contracting party’s territory. For example, the BIT with Austria defines investor as “a natural person having the nationality of a Contracting Party in accordance with its applicable law; or an enterprise constituted or organised under the applicable law of a Contracting Party making or having made an investment in the other Contracting Party’s territory.” A similar definition is found in the investment treaties with Argentina, Korea, Sweden, among others.

      For enterprises, some investment treaties concluded by Mexico require the seat of the company is in the territory where it is constituted to be considered an investor under the treaty. This is the case for the BITs with Argentina, Finland, Spain, among others. For example, the BIT with Argentina in its article 1 states that an investor can be “a legal person, constituted in accordance with the laws and regulations of one of the contracting parties and having its seat in the territory of that contracting party.”

      Likewise, recent treaties concluded by Mexico are now requiring company-investors to have “substantial business activities” in the territory where they are constituted. For example, the BITs with China, Kuwait, Singapore and Turkey. The BIT with Trinidad and Tobago states that an investor is “a company that is constituted or otherwise organized according to the laws of a Contracting Party, and having substantial business activities in the territory of that Contracting Party.”

      Control by a non-national

      Generally, most of the BITs, MITs or FTAs signed by Mexico exclude non-nationals from seeking BIT protection. The general rule for seeking BIT protection is for the investor(s) to be a national of any of the contracting parties. Even in the case where an entity owns or controls an investment, the entity must be a national.

      Permanent residents

      Generally, the investment treaties concluded by Mexico only require natural persons to be “nationals” of a contracting party to be considered an investor of that contracting party. Treaties tend to refer to the local laws of each contracting party to determine the nationality of the individual.

      There is no permanent residence requirement in most of the investment treaties concluded by Mexico. The only treaty having this type of requirement is the BIT with Cuba, providing as follows: “national means: a) with respect to the Republic of Cuba: the natural persons that are citizens of that State in accordance with their national legislation and have their permanent residence in the national territory.”

      However, it should be considered that in some cases, the local law of a contracting party may require residency in order to be considered a national of that contracting party. Therefore, a residency requirement could indirectly exist thought the domestic laws of the contracting parties. In Mexico, the nationality of an individual does not depend on any residency requirements.

  3. 3.

    Definition of "investment"

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

    1. Issue

      Distinguishing features in relation to the concept of ‘investment’

      Eligible assets

      Most Mexican investment treaties define “investment” broadly. They tend to include every kind of asset, owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by investors of one contracting party admitted in accordance with the laws, regulations and policies of the other.

      Nevertheless, other treaties include a definition of what does not constitute investment. For instance, the BIT signed with United Kingdom at article 1, provides that “investment” does not mean a loan to an enterprise nor a claim for money that arise solely from commercial contracts for the sale of goods or services or the extension of credit with a commercial transaction. Another example of agreements that provide what is not considered as investment is the FTA signed with Nicaragua and the FTA signed with Uruguay.

      Profit and interest, etc

      There is no general rule, it depends on the treaty. For instance, the BIT signed with Trinidad and Tobago provides in its article 1(5), that profit and interest, capital gains, dividends, royalties and fees are comprised within the investment definition.

      Duration of investment

      There is no general rule, it depends on the treaty. The BIT signed with Denmark contains a specific provision about duration, by stating in its article 1(1) that the BIT covers only those investments that have the purpose of establishing lasting economic relations with an enterprise.

    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. Issue

      Distinguishing features of the fair and equitable treatment standard

      Illustrations of the FET standard

      In general, the investment treaties concluded by Mexico have an unqualified FET formulation. Meaning that the treaty simply accords fair and equitable treatment to investments. The typical formulation found is “each contracting party shall ensure fair and equitable treatment of the investments of nationals of the other contracting party.” The BITs with Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Korea, the Netherlands, among others have almost the same wording. This unqualified formulation is mainly found in the first generation of investment treaties concluded by Mexico.

      However, some investment treaties, particularly the new ones, link the FET standard to the minimum standard of treatment under customary international law of treatment of aliens. For instance, the BIT with Bahrain states that: “the concepts of “fair and equitable treatment” and “full protection and security” do not require treatment in addition to or beyond that which is required by the customary international law minimum standard of treatment of aliens.” Such FET formulation is similarly found in the BITs with China, India, Kuwait, Singapore, Trinidad & Tobago and Turkey.

      Illustrations of the FET standard (cont.)

      Other investment treaties add other substantive contents to the FET standard. For example, the BIT with China stipulates the irrelevance of a breach of a different treaty norm: “a determination that there has been a breach of another provision of this Agreement, or of a separate international agreement, does not establish that there has been a breach of this Article [FET].” The treaties with Singapore and Trinidad & Tobago also provide such restriction.

      Interestingly, the Central America investment treaty specifies that the FET protection includes, but it is not limited, to the obligation not to deny justice in criminal, civil and administrative procedures, in accordance with the principle of due process incorporated into the main legal systems of the world.

  5. 5.

    Expropriation

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

    1. Issue

      Distinguishing features of the ‘expropriation’ standard

      Definition

      Most of the investment treaties where Mexico is part state the typical expropriation clause: “a contracting party shall not expropriate or nationalise, directly or indirectly, an investment of an investor of the other Contracting Party or to take any measures having equivalent effect.” Such definition is found in the BIT with Argentina, Austria, United Kingdom, Uruguay, among others. Similarly, other investment treaties have the following wording “neither contracting party may expropriate or nationalize an investment either directly or indirectly thought measures tantamount to expropriation or nationalization” such as the CPTPP, FTA with Japan or the BITs with Bahrein, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, among others

      Interest and compensation

      Most of the investment treaties signed by Mexico do not consider interest paid and resulting from an expropriation as part of the compensation. However, some investment treaties, such as the BITs signed with Korea, Singapore, Greece and France, do.

      Grounds for expropriation

      Most of the treaties refer to similar grounds for expropriation, including:

      • it must serve a public purpose;
      • it must be non-discriminatory;
      • it must be carried out in accordance with due process of law; and
      • it must be accompanied by payment as means of compensation.

      Some of the last concluded treaties define the concept of “indirect expropriation”. For example, the CPTPP provides that indirect expropriation is “an action or series of actions by a Party” that “ has an effect equivalent to direct expropriation without formal transfer of title or outright seizure.” Such analysis requires a “case-by-case, fact-based inquiry” and considering several factors such as the economic impact of the government action, the extent to which the government action interferes with distinct, reasonable investment-backed expectations, the character of the government action, among others.

  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. Issue

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

      Difference between the most favoured nation (MFN) and the national treatment (NT) clauses.

      Among the investment treaties concluded by Mexico, national treatment clauses generally provide that each contracting party shall accord to investors of the other contracting party and their investments, treatment no less favourable than that it accords to its own investors and to investments of its own investors. By contrast, most-favoured-nation clauses provide that no less favourable treatment shall be accorded to investors and to investments of investors of any third State.

      Some investment treaties specify that the treatment no less favourable, for both standards, must be with respect to the management, maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposition of investments. This is the case for the BITs with Bahrein, Belarus, China, France, Greece, Iceland, India, among others. Some even add the requirement “in like circumstances” to be considered in the analysis, such as the BITs with Belarus, Iceland and India.

      NAFTA model addresses these two concepts in different articles. Such formulation is followed by the investment treaties and BITs executed with Belarus, Central America, Chile, China, Costa Rica, CPTPP, India, Japan, Nicaragua, Pacific Alliance, Peru, Slovakia, Trinidad & Tobago, among others. In contrast, some investment treaties like the ones executed with Colombia, Argentina, Cuba, France, Korea and Spain address the protections in the same article.

      Most of the investment treaties of Mexico expressly provide that the provision of the most-favoured national and/or national treatment does not extend to the benefits of membership of an association, an economic union, a common market or a free trade area or taxation.

      Taxation measures

      Mexico’s investment treaties commonly include a reservation providing that, by virtue of a treaty to avoid double taxation, there is no obligation to extend to the investors or investments of one contracting party advantages granted to investors or investments of the other contracting party or of a country that is not a party.

      For instance, such a provision can be found in articles 17-03.4 and 17–06 of the FTA between Colombia and Mexico and in article 5.3 of the BIT between Mexico and Turkey.

      Similarly, article 16–07 of the investment treaty executed with Nicaragua establishes that MFN treatment and national treatment do not apply to purchases made by a party or a state company, nor to subsidies or contributions – including governmental loans – guarantees and insurance granted by a party or a state company.

  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. Issue

      Distinguishing features of the ‘protection and security’ standard

      Extent of obligation

      The general rule provided by the investment treaties signed by Mexico is the general obligation of the host state to provide full protection and security. Most treaties do not define the scope of such obligation.

      Nevertheless, some investment treaties clarify the scope of such standard by stating the following: “for greater certainty the concepts of fair and equitable treatment” and “full protection and security” do not require additional treatment to what is required by the minimum level of treatment of foreigners under customary international law.” This is the case for the BITs with China, India, Kuwait, Singapore, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, the free trade agreement with Peru, among others. Notably, the Central America investment treaty slightly modifies the wording by establishing that “full protection and security” requires a Party to grant the level of police protection that is required by international law.”

  8. 8.

    Umbrella clause.

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

    1. Issue

      Distinguishing features of any ‘umbrella clause’

      Standardisation

      The investment treaties concluded by Mexico that have an umbrella clause generally have the following formulation: “each contracting party shall observe any other obligation it has assumed in writing, with regard to investments in its territory by investors of the other contracting party. Disputes arising from such obligations shall be settled under the terms of the contracts underlying the obligations.”

      Mexico has concluded twelve BITs containing an umbrella clause (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland BITs).

      Specific chapter for umbrella clause

      Most of the treaties that contain this clause have a specific chapter that regulates it. Only two, Denmark and Netherlands BITs do not have a specific chapter regulating 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

      Compensation for losses

      Several investment treaties guarantee protection and security for investments of the other Contracting Party referring to special situations. For instance, the typical clause says that if the investment of a Contracting Party suffers losses because of war, or other armed conflict, resulting from a state of national emergency, civil disturbance or other similar events, investments should be treated with the same national investments privileges as those of nationals. For instance, the BITs signed with Austria, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, China, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, Korea, Kuwait, Netherlands, Luxemburg, Portugal, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Trinidad & Tobago and Turkey provide such protection

    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. Issue

      Procedural Rights

      Fork-in-the-road

      Some of the investment treaties signed by Mexico contain fork-in-the-road provisions (Spain, Argentina, Korea, Greece, India, Iceland, Panama, Portugal, UK, Czech Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay).

      Under most of these treaties, investors must opt to pursue their claim through the local courts or by means of international arbitration. They cannot do both. Meaning that if the investor chooses to submit a claim before local courts, such choice is final and loses the right to access the investor-state arbitration. For example, the Central America treaty states in its article 11.20.4: “ if a disputing investor chooses to submit a claim of the type described in this article to the judicial or administrative courts or tribunals of a disputing party or any other solution procedures for disputes, national or international, that choice will be final, and the disputing investor may not subsequently submit the dispute to conciliation or arbitration under this article.”

      Coexistence of local remedies and international arbitration

      There is the possibility of a contracting party submitting a claim to arbitration that has already been brought before a national court, provided that the competent national tribunal has not rendered judgment in the first instance or on the merits of the case (Germany and Netherlands BITs)

      BITs that prioritise arbitration.

      Some investment treaties signed by Mexico give more importance to arbitration than to local court proceedings, such as the Germany, Netherlands and Argentina BITs.

  11. 11.

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

    1. The Mexican Ministry of Economy has stated that Mexican economic policy is always looking to offer proper conditions for investment and economic growth. Accordingly, the Ministry of Economy has created the Foreign Trade Sub-secretariat (Subsecretaría de Comercio Exterior) which is in charge of the negotiation, authentication and enforcement of investment and foreign trade treaties.

      On August 2018, after years of inconsistency, Mexico finally became part of ICSID, strengthening the legal regime for dispute resolution on investment disputes.

      Currently, Mexico and the European Union are working in a new free trade agreement, which will contain an investment section, and Mexican senate has already approved the new United-States Mexico-Canada agreement. However, it has not yet entered into force because Canada and the U.S. have not approved it.

    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

      In an arbitration claim against Mexico, notice of arbitration must be submitted before the Dirección General de Consultoría Jurídica de Comercio Internacional, which is subordinate to the Ministry of Economy.

  13. 13.

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

    1. Government department that manages investment treaty arbitrations

      In Mexico the Ministry of Economy manages investment treaty arbitrations.

  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

      In recent cases, the legal counsel serving with the Dirección General de Consultoría Jurídica de Comercio Internacional in the Ministry of Economy has represented Mexico. However, according to the public version of procedural order 1 of the ongoing case of Oro Negro v. Mexico, the firm Tereposky & De Rose LLP is also representing Mexico. Therefore, Mexico has used external counsels in investor-state arbitrations.

    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

      Yes, in April 2018, the Mexican Congress approved the Washington Convention. The Convention entered into force on 26 August 2018. In Mexico, there is no need to have a legislation implementing the treaties to which Mexico is a party. In Mexico, when a treaty is ratified and published in the official gazette, it is automatically considered part of the Mexican legal system.

  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

      Mexico signed the New York Convention on 14 April 1971.

      In addition, by incorporation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Arbitration into Mexico’s Commerce Code (applicable to local and international arbitration), UNCITRAL provisions are now found in domestic legislation.

  17. 17.

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

    1. Legislation governing non-ICSID arbitrations

      There is no specific legislation governing non-ICSID investment arbitrations. However, claims have been brought against the United Mexican States outside ICSID, under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules in cases such as:

      • GAMI Investments Inc v Mexico (concluded)
      • International Thunderbird Gaming Corp v Mexico (concluded)
      • Shanara and Marfield v. Mexico (pending)
      • Carlos Sastre v. Mexico (pending)
      • Billy Joe Adams et.al. v. Mexico (discontinued)
      • Robert J. Frank v. Mexico (discontinued)
  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

      Mexico has a good record when it comes to complying with awards. Currently all awards have been ultimately satisfied.

  19. 19.

    Describe the national government’s attitude towards investment treaty arbitration

    1. Attitude of government towards investment treaty arbitration

      It is favourable; the execution of over twenty BITs granting access to investment arbitration to foreign investors confirms it.

  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

      I am not aware of any award that has not been voluntarily recognised by Mexico.

    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

      Substantive protections

      Procedural rights

      FET

      Expropriation

      Other

      Local courts

      Arbitration

      Law of Foreign Investment

      No

      No

      This law regulates and provides legal certainty to foreign investment in several economic sectors, and abolishes restrictions in most areas. It does not provide specific types of protections or rights.

      No

      No

      Expropriation Law

      No

      Yes

      This provides a specific procedure and guarantees in favour of the person subject to expropriation.

      Yes

      No

    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

      No

      No

    Awards

  23. 23.

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

    1. Awards

      Case No.

      Claimant

      Under

      ARB/97/1

      Metalclad Corp

      NAFTA

      ARB/97/2

      Robert Azinian and Others

      NAFTA

      ARB/98/2

      Waste Management, Inc.

      NAFTA

      ARB/99/1

      Marvin Roy Feldman Karpa

      NAFTA

      ARB/00/2

      Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed SA

      Bilateral investment treaty (BIT) between Mexico and Spain

      ARB/00/3

      Waste Management, Inc

      NAFTA

      UNCITRAL

      GAMI Investment, Inc.

      NAFTA

      UNCITRAL

      International Thunderbird Gaming Corp.

      NAFTA

      ARB/02/1

      Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co

      NAFTA

      ARB/04/1

      Corn Products International, Inc

      NAFTA

      ARB/04/5

      Archer Daniels Midland Co and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc

      NAFTA

      ARB/04/3; ARB/04/4

      Gemplus SA, SLP SA, and Gemplus Industrial SA de CV, Talsud SA

      BITs between France and Mexico;

      BIT between Argentina and Mexico

      ARB/05/1

      Bayview Irrigation District and Others

      NAFTA

      ARB/05/2

      Cargill, Inc

      NAFTA

      UNCT/14/1

      KBR, Inc y Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral

      NAFTA

      ARB(AF)/09/0

      Abengoa, S.A. y COFIDES

      BIT between Mexico and Spain

      ARB(AF)/12/4

      Telefónica S.A.

      BIT between Mexico and Spain

      Cases initiated and pending resolution

      Lion Mexico Consolidated v. Mexico, ARB(AF)/15/2, NAFTA

      Shanara Maritime International, S.A. and Marfield Ltd. Inc., v. Mexico, Mexico-Panama BIT

      B-Mex, LLC & others, v. Mexico, ARB(AF)/16/3, NAFTA

      Blanco, Nelson & Tele Fácil v. Mexico, UNCT/171, NAFTA

      Anthone & others v. Mexico, ARB(AF)16/3, NAFTA

      Carlos Esteban Sastre v. Mexico, Argentina-Mexico BIT, Mexico-Spain BIT and Mexico-Switzerland BIT

      Eutelsat v. Mexico, ARB(AF)/17/2, France-Mexico BIT

      Legacy Vulcan & Calica v. Mexico, ARB/19/1, NAFTA

      Oro Negro v. Mexico, UNCT/18/4, NAFTA

      PACC Offshore Services Holding Ltd. v. Mexico, UNCT/18/5, Mexico-Singapore BIT

      Vento Motorcycles, Inc. v. Mexico, ARB(AF)/17/3, NAFTA

      See www.gob.mx/se/acciones-y-programas/comercio-exterior-solucion-de-controversias?state=published

      Active Notices of Intent

      Primero Mining Corp. v. Mexico

      Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. & Exploraciones Océanicas, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. Mexico

      Dal Tile Corporation (DTC) & Dal Tile International (DTI) v. Mexico

      Jinlong Dongli Minera Internacional, S.A. de C.V. v. Mexico

      Renaud Jacquet et. al. v. Mexico

    Reading List

  24. 24.

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

    1. Dolores Bentolila: Hacia Una Jurisprudencia Arbitral En El Arbitraje Internacional De Inversiones, Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional: México, Décimo Aniversario, 2012, pp. 373–420.

      Gonzalez de Cossio, Francisco: Arbitraje, Porrúa: México, 3th ed., 2011.

      Gonzalez de Cossio, Francisco: Arbitraje de Inversión, Porrúa: México, 2009.

      Legum, Barton, “Lessons Learned from the NAFTA: the New Generation of US Investment Treaty Arbitration Provisions”, ICSID Review Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vol. 19 p. 344, 2004.

      Rodriguez Jimenez, Sonia: El Sistema Arbitral CIADI, Porrúa: México, 2006.

Interested in contributing to this Know-how?

E-mail our Insight 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