Header graphic for print
ARBlog International Arbitration News, Trends and Cases

Tag Archives: Bilateral investment treaty

Macanese Investor Succeeds in Reversing Singapore High Court’s Decision on Jurisdiction in its BIT Claim

A Macanese investor, Sanum Investments Ltd (“Sanum“), has successfully appealed a Singapore High Court decision on a tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine Sanum’s claims under the bilateral investment treaty (“BIT“) between the People’s Republic of China (“China“) and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (“Laos“). The Court of Appeal’s decision in Sanum Investments Ltd v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic [2016] SGCA 57, which was handed down on 29 September 2016, is discussed below. Background While Macau was under Portuguese rule, the China-Portugal Joint Declaration (“Declaration“) was signed in 1987,

Poland considers terminating its Bilateral Investment Treaties

On 25 February 2016, Poland’s State Treasury announced its intention to terminate its Bilateral Investment Treaties (“BITs”). Poland currently has around 60 BITs in force, all of them signed between 1987 and 1998. Poland concluded BITs with almost every EU Member State (“intra-EU BITs”). It remains, however, the only EU Member State that is not a party to the ICSID Convention. The State Treasury indicated its intention to terminate all 60 BITs. Shortly thereafter a new announcement recommended that the Polish Government take the step of terminating intra-EU BITs only.

India’s New BIT and Arbitration Law Send Mixed Signals to Foreign Investors

On December 28, 2015, the Government of India released the text for its revised model Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). In this release, the Government of India also announced that the Department of Economic Affairs will be leading all negotiations on BITs and investment chapters of trade agreements to ensure continuity between trade and investment issues.

Singapore High Court rules on the application of the PRC-Laos bilateral investment treaty to Macau

In Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (“Laos”) v Sanum Investments Ltd (“Sanum”) [2015] SGHC 15, the Singapore High Court allowed an appeal under section 10 of the Singapore International Arbitration Act (the “IAA”) to an UNCITRAL arbitral tribunal’s ruling on jurisdiction, finding that the bilateral investment treaty between the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) and the Laos (the “BIT”) did not extend to the Macau Special Administrative Region of China (“Macau”). Sanum, a Macau-based entity, had invested in Laos’ gaming and hospitality industry through a joint venture with

Germany Reverses its Support for Investor-State Dispute Settlement in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Germany has announced that it is opposing the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in the TTIP.  Brigitte Zypries, a German junior Economy Minster, recently advised the German parliament that “special investment protection rules are not necessary” in the TTIP because “US investors in the European union have sufficient legal protection in the national courts.”  This announcement will present another complication for TTIP investment negotiators, particularly as France has previously expressed its opposition to including ISDS in the TTIP. Germany’s announcement appears to represent a stark reversal of its long-held

Indonesia terminates its Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) with the Netherlands from 1 July 2015 and may terminate all of its BITs

Indonesia has decided to terminate its Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) with the Netherlands, pursuant to a statement issued by the Dutch Embassy in Jakarta on 21 March 2014.  The termination will be effective from 1 July 2015.  However, because of a “sunset” provision in the BIT, its protections will extend for existing investments of investors until 1 July 2030. Indonesian Vice President Boediono confirmed Indonesia’s decision at a summit in The Hague on 23 March 2014.  He pledged that “Indonesia will create a new bilateral investment agreement that will be

U.S. Supreme Court decides first case related to international investment treaty arbitration

The United States Supreme Court (the “Court”), on 5 March 2014, issued its first decision in the area of international investment treaty arbitration. The Court, by a 7-2 majority, decided BG Group PLC. v. The Republic of Argentina in favor of BG Group. The Court effectively elected not to second-guess procedural rulings made by investment treaty tribunals. The Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that an UNCITRAL tribunal lacked the authority to decide a US$185 million dispute, and instead upheld the tribunal’s award in