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
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. Such framing sets a higher threshold for establishing a violation of FET.
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. The Court held that the fact that the Claimant itself was applying for a stay did not alter the threshold as established in Tomolugen.
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