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
These included ongoing issues such as poor institutional coordination, lack of transparency, high levels of corruption, and murky lines of accountability. Early reformers in this first revolution were Ethiopia (2005), Ghana (2005), Kenya (2007), Tanzania (2004), Uganda (2003), and Zambia (2006).
First published in 2004 (the “2004 IBA Guidelines”) and then revised in 2014 (the “2014 IBA Guidelines”) (collectively, the “IBA Guidelines”), the IBA Guidelines have become a go-to guide for arbitrators, counsel, and arbitral institutions in identifying conflicts of interest and assessing the need for disclosure.
These were the public interest in: (i) the operation and practice of arbitration; and (ii) the desirability of public scrutiny as a means by which confidence in the courts can be maintained and the administration of justice made transparent.
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.
In doing so, many have cited language originating in the 2004 Occidental v. On their part, governments that want to attract green investment should engage with investors and do whatever they can to provide regulatory stability, procedural transparency, and good old basic fairness.
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