This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The Court considered that “the suggestion that it was unnecessary to call any expert witnesses was plainly not an expression of a balanced and impartial view, or merely a concern about the hearing over-running, or an attempt by the arbitrator to impose an orderly and economical procedure on the parties.”
Relevant Background According to the award , in 2001, Colombia adopted its Mining Code (Law 685), which provides that mining rights are vested if (i) a mining title exists, (ii) an environmental license is issued, and (iii) a Mining Works Program (“PTO”) has been approved. We do not discuss the tribunal’s jurisdictional reasoning.
Relevant Background According to the award , in 2001, Colombia adopted its Mining Code (Law 685), which provides that mining rights are vested if (i) a mining title exists, (ii) an environmental license is issued, and (iii) a Mining Works Program (“PTO”) has been approved. We do not discuss the tribunal’s jurisdictional reasoning.
In July 2001, state parties to the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) issued a joint interpretation , limiting the FET under NAFTA to the minimum standard of treatment under customary international law. States have taken three approaches to prevent what they consider to be an expansive interpretation of the FET.
Its main contentions were that the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption, and enforcement would be contrary to public policy. Accordingly, two issues came before the Court: What were the appropriate legal principles for a case management stay; and On balance, whether the case management stay should be granted.
These included Sections 67 , 68 and 69 of the English Arbitration Act, 1996 ; Section 49 of the Singapore Arbitration Act, 2001 ; Section 11 of the US Federal Arbitration Act, 1925 ; and Section 34A of Australian Model Commercial Arbitration , all of which expressly carve-out powers for the court to vary an arbitral award in limited circumstances.
The coverup of sexual assault against Indian children and subsequent whistleblowing in 2001 on Theft from Ground Zero ended my highly successful twenty-five-year career in the FBI. Congresss work on behalf of whistleblowers has enabled the United States to become the leading country in the world in fighting corruption.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content