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 Helow approach is consistent with the statement of principle of the Privy Council in Miller v Dickson [2001] UKPC D 4 : “The appearance that justice is being done is as important as the actual doing of justice. The principle is far too important to allow it to be passed over [….]” The views expressed in this post are the author’s own.
This would be in line with article 125 of the Civil Code 19 of 2001 which addresses the interpretation of contracts. This understanding may influence the way courts interpret the parties’ agreement in cases of doubt.
A Review Under the Rules of Attribution of Conduct In relation to the first question, guidance can be found in the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts ( Draft Articles ) adopted by the UN International Law Commission in 2001.
In recent years, many States have signed investment treaties containing this type of clause based on the US Model BIT (2004), which itself reflects NAFTA case law following the FTC 2001 Note of Interpretation , which clarified that tribunals must apply the MST and no other standard. But these few isolated decisions remain outliers.
The program bridged and expanded the discussion that took place at a highly popular program featured in the 2022 edition of WAW on the influence of public international law (“PIL”) on ISDS (read the prior KAB coverage here ). 2001-4, Partial Award, 17 March 2006.
More recent advancements in Mongolia’s international investment initiatives include the Canada-Mongolia BIT (2016) and Japan-Mongolia Economic Partnership Agreement (2015) (which replaced and superseded the Japan-Mongolia BIT (2001) ).
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.
104 
Let's personalize your content