Turkey: Principle Of Good Faith In Determining The Juristicdion Of ICSID And Commentary On The Phoenix Case

Last Updated: 24 July 2018
Article by Özge Çevik and Can Şimşek

ABSTRACT

Since the jurisdiction of ICSID, which was established under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, does not cover all kind of disputes arising from international investments, in order to resolve a dispute it is required to meet with some of the criteria regarding jurisdiction. Such criteria are classified as (i) condition of consent, (ii) jurisdiction ratione personae and (iii) jurisdiction ratione materiae. Within this scope, one of the most important dispute issues arising from determining the jurisdiction ratione materiae is the scope of the term "investment". Since such term is not defined under Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between states and Nationals of Other States, whether the commercial activities in the concrete case constitute an investment which falls within the jurisdiction of ISCID is determined through the instrumentality of criteria which were set out by international investment treaties, the doctrine and precedent. During the determination of jurisdiction process, together with the generally accepted criteria for an investment which have been set out by the Salini case, the presence of an investment under the principle of good faith is also taken into consideration by the tribunals as an additional criterion. As such, the Phoenix case is one of the most important cases on the principle of good faith. Despite the fact that the investment criteria were fulfilled in the present case, the arbitral tribunal concluded that principal of good faith had been violated and decided that it had no jurisdiction due to the absence of a protected investment.

I. INTRODUCTION

INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT Disputes ("ICSID"), which has been established under Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States ("ICSID Convention") which was entered into force in the year of 1996, aims to resolve the disputes between foreign investors and host states by arbitration. However not all kind of disputes are covered under the jurisdiction of ICSID, therefore in order for a dispute to be resolved under ICSID, some criteria as to the jurisdiction is required to be fulfilled. The jurisdiction criteria which need to be fulfilled under Article 25 of the ICSID Convention are classified as (i) condition of consent, (ii) jurisdiction ratione personae and (iii) jurisdiction ratione materiae. Nevertheless, it is observed that several problems occur in terms of the aforesaid jurisdiction criteria during the determination of jurisdiction of ICSID. Since the tribunals in ICSID arbitration have been vested with the authority to determine their jurisdiction for examining the dispute in the present case (competence-competence rule), the tribunals determine whether the criteria mentioned above are present in the concrete case by examining the jurisdiction.

The required conditions for presence of jurisdiction ratione materiae, are (i) a legal dispute, (ii) the dispute arising from an investment transaction and (iii) a direct relationship between the relevant investment and the dispute. As these conditions would be analyzed in details in the following sections, one of the most important issues arising from establishment of jurisdiction ratione materiae is the scope of investment. Since the definition of investment is not found under the ICSID Convention, it is determined whether there is an investment which falls within the jurisdiction of ICSID in the present case through the criteria which were set out by international investment treaties, the doctrine and precedent. In this context, in addition to the generally accepted criteria for investment in practice, the presence of an investment under the principle of good faith is taken into consideration as an additional criterion by the arbitral tribunals during the examination of jurisdiction. As such, the Phoenix case is one of the most important cases on the principle of good faith.

Within this framework, occurrence of ICSID arbitration, trial phases and its practice around the world will be discussed under the first section of our study. In the second section, Salini test will be examined in terms of the criteria taken into consideration during the determination of jurisdiction of ICSID and especially jurisdiction rationa materiae. In the last section of our study, principle of good faith will be discussed within the framework of the Phoenix case.

II. ICSID ARBITRATION

A. Establishment of ICSID

It is argued that the establishment of a process for an impartial settlement of investment disputes and founding a legal basis for this process to support the flow of international private investments will be beneficial to strengthen the international investments. In this way, it was foreseen that setting foreign investors free from fear of political risks, is possible by splitting matter of disputes from the local jurisdiction and political pressures.1 By taking abovementioned reasons into consideration, with the purpose of adopting measures for easing and improving the flow of international capital to the developing countries, a movement was started by the World Bank to develop proper instruments for the settlement of disputes arising from foreign investments,2 and consequently, Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States which is also called as Washington Convention entered into force in 14 October 1966. Turkey had signed the ICSID Convention on 24 June 1987 and officially became a party on 2 April 1989. Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 1 of the ICSID Convention, International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes aims to provide facilities for conciliation and arbitration of investment disputes between contracting states and nationals of other contracting states.

B. ICSID Practice Around the World

From the year of 1966 to the present, 767 arbitration cases were brought before ICSID in total. 259 of such cases are still in progress while 495 cases were concluded. Additionally, there is no information published by ICSID as to other 13 cases. Statistically, approximately 65% of the ICSID cases were concluded and when the awards are considered, it is observed that 180 cases were concluded in favor of the host country whereas 132 cases were concluded in favor of the investor.

Under the 495 concluded cases, 12 of them were decided as not in favor of any of the parties therefore there is no damage suffered by the parties although there is liability. Additionally, it is possible for the parties to reach a settlement by themselves during the arbitration process and therefore the parties settled in 121 cases and ended the proceedings with consensus. Lastly, it is observed that the judgement of nolle prosequi was reached in 50 cases.3

C. Phases of ICSID Proceedings

In order to start an arbitration process before ICSID, the application must be submitted in writing to the General Secretariat of ICSID. The documents in the application must clearly state (i) the addresses of all parties, (ii) parties' consent regarding the arbitration, and (iii) the dispute. As the first phase, the General Secretariat examines the application in the framework of the above-mentioned elements to determine whether the dispute is within the jurisdiction of ICSID, and decides to accept the application in the presence of these elements. Following the referred decision, an arbitral tribunal is formed according to the procedural rules or the agreement between the parties.4

The arbitral tribunal is entitled to decide whether the dispute is within the jurisdiction of ICSID. Article 25 of the ICSID Convention5 explains the fundamental jurisdiction of ICSID. As understood from the content of the specified article, the preconditions for the presence of the jurisdiction of ICSID on a dispute are; jurisdiction ratione personae, jurisdiction ratione materiae and the existing consent of the parties. Designation of jurisdiction is going to be discussed in detail under the second section.

If the dispute is decided by the arbitral tribunal to be within the jurisdiction of ICSID, the dispute is carried out to the merits phase. Otherwise, the arbitration process ends in favor of the defendant country with the decision of lack of jurisdiction.

Following the completion of the trial, the dispute is concluded on the merits by the award of the arbitral tribunal. After this stage, under the ICSID Convention, there is no court of appeals to which the parties could apply against the award and local courts do not have any authority over such award.6 However, if one of the parties seeks the annulment of the award by claiming one or more of the reasons for annulment under Article 52 of the ICSID Convention, an ad hoc committee is formed and such tribunal is entitled to annul the award.

III. DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION

In order for an arbitral tribunal to examine a dispute on its merits, firstly it must be determined that whether ICSID has jurisdiction over the dispute. The issue of jurisdiction can be examined by the arbitral tribunal ex officio or upon the objection of one of the parties. At this stage, it is necessary to raise an objection to the jurisdiction and draw the attention of the arbitral tribunal on the jurisdiction.7

The issue of jurisdiction is regulated under Article 25 of the ICSID Convention and such article focuses on three fundamental elements: (i) consent of the parties, (ii) jurisdiction ratione personae and (iii) jurisdiction ratione materiae. In this section, these three conditions will be examined in detail.

A. Consent of the Parties

Article 25 of the ICSID Convention binds the jurisdiction of ICSID to the condition of written consent of both parties. Consent for future disputes can be granted via an arbitration clause in a contract or an independent arbitration agreement. In addition, the parties can give their consent before or after the dispute.8 In other words, the parties are able to present their consents through correspondences after the occurrence of the dispute and to recognize the jurisdiction of ICSID over the dispute. The condition of consent is also deemed to have been fulfilled through a provision, regarding the arbitrating future disputes, in a contract between the investor and the host country where the investment has been made. In this way, the parties are deemed to consent to settle the disputes through conciliation or arbitration before ICSID.9 Such a provision may also be incorporated in a bilateral investment treaty between the host state and another state of which the investor is a national. For instance, the PSEG/Konya Ilgın case,10 which is the first ICSID case against Turkey, was brought on basis of the Treaty Concerning the Reciprocal Encouragement and Protection of Investments between Turkey and the United States.11 To summarize, most of the regional investment treaties and bilateral investment treaties contain provisions for the settlement of disputes through arbitration. Finally, it is also possible that the consent of a contracting state may be granted through the laws on encouragement of investment.12

B. Jurisdiction Ratione Personae

The definitions of the terms "investor" and "host state" are directly related to the jurisdiction ratione personae because of the condition that the dispute to be settled should arise between the investor and the host state, as per the ICSID Convention. Therefore, it would be useful to examine the definitions given under the ICSID Convention. Pursuant to Article 25, the investor, whether a natural or juridical person, must be national of a country which is a party to the ICSID Convention. Furthermore, the investor must not be a national of the host state.

If an individual has a dual citizenship, even if there is no effective citizenship since one of the citizenships is in the host state, it is considered that the investor cannot fulfil the "foreign investor" condition.13 The concept of effective citizenship is used to describe the country with which the persons with dual citizenship are more closely related.

In terms of juridical person, it is important to examine the Article 25 in detail. By virtue of its wording, paragraph (b) of Article 25/214 ensures that foreign investments carried out by means of a locally incorporated companies are not excluded from the scope of ICSID. To overcome the issue of juridical person's nationality, in the determination thereof, ICSID takes the place of registry of the company or the workplace as a basis.15 In this case, how bilateral investment treaties define the juridical person investor gains great importance. In many cases, the arbitral tribunal determined the nationality of the juridical person investor by prioritizing the definitions in bilateral investment treaties.16

In some bilateral treaties, measures are taken to prevent the investment from shifting to a different country for profit purposes; a real economic relationship is sought between the relevant state and the company. In those agreements, a strong bond with financial essence is sought between the company and the state of which the citizenship was claimed, and this bond is assessed by the operations carried out in that state or the effects of the citizens of the relevant state on the company.17

C. Jurisdiction Ratione Materiae and Salini Test

Pursuant to the Article 25 of the ICSID Convention, the jurisdiction of ICSID extends to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment. For this reason, ICSID's jurisdiction over a case requires three elements in terms of ratione materiae; namely, (i) the dispute needs to be a legal dispute, (ii) the dispute must arise out of an investment, and (iii) there must be a direct relationship between the dispute and the investment in question.

By way of interpretation of the paragraph 1 of Article 25 of the ICSID Convention, it is inferred that a dispute can be considered as a legal dispute to establish jurisdiction of ICSID if it includes a legal right or responsibility, or includes compensation for a breach of legal responsibility. For this reason, political, economic, financial or commercial disputes are excluded from the scope of ICSID adjudication.18 Other elements are that the dispute must arise directly from an investment and there must be a direct link between the investment and the legal dispute. The word "direct" stated under the Article is interpreted by the arbitral tribunals as that the ICSID's jurisdiction exists where the dispute is directly arisen from investment.19 In this framework, it is important to determine whether there is an investment, and to define investment relating to that.

To prevent restriction of competence of ICSID, it appears that investment is not defined under the ICSID Convention. For this reason, the criteria which were set out by bilateral or multilateral investment treaties, the doctrine and precedents are important, when the existence of an investment is determined by the arbitral tribunals during the proceedings. In this context, as stated in the Salini case which is regarded as a precedent in terms of investment disputes, an investment infers: contribution of money or assets, a certain duration, an element of risk and a contribution to the economic development of the host State of the investment.20 Additionally, it is seen that the criteria such as that the investment serving the public interest and the investment providing know-how are emphasized.21 In this respect, it is generally accepted in other ICSID adjudications that such criteria must exist for a transaction in order to be considered as an investment.22 In addition, it appears that the above-mentioned elements and the additional criteria such as the investor making a commitment which could be considered as important are adopted in the doctrine.23 It important to point out at this stage that the examination of the existence of an investment by adapting the criteria which were set out in the Salini case to the present case is called as "Salini test" in ICSID practice.

In case of that the criteria stipulated by the Salini test are consistent with the present case, it is possible to refer to an investment under ICSID. Although the arbitral tribunals are free to take these criteria into account, it would not be wrong to say that the Salini test is well established in ICSID practice.24 However, a protected investment must also exist for a dispute to be within the jurisdiction of ICSID, in addition to the condition of an existing investment. In other words, even if the investment subjected to the dispute fulfils the above-mentioned criteria, the investment must also be examined in the context of good faith principle.

IV. GOOD FAITH PRINCIPLE AND PHOENIX CASE

Principle of good faith, which is one of the basic principles of law, is also essential regarding the protection of international investments. In order to protect the transactions, which have all of the elements of an investment, in international platforms; there must be an investment made pursuant to the good faith principle. It is seen that the arbitral tribunals brought up this issue in many previous cases.25 Undoubtedly, the Phoenix case is one of the most notable cases relating good faith. Because the arbitral tribunal concluded with a general determination to express its duty as "ensuring that only investments that are made in compliance with the international principle of good faith and do not attempt to misuse the system are protected" in the decision.26

In the present case, a company in Israel was established with the aim of asserting certain claims in international law which cannot be claimed under domestic law, and this company acquired two other companies in the Czech Republic. The arbitral tribunal concluded that the claimant did not invest in order to develop economic activity, but to invoke an international judicial process against the host state.27 In this context, by ruling that the related investment was not an investment made within the framework of good faith and protected under the ICSID system, the tribunal decided that it had no jurisdiction based on abusing of the system. The following determination made by the arbitral tribunal draws attention due to the importance attributed to the good faith principle:

"States cannot be deemed to offer access to the ICSID dispute settlement mechanism to investments not made in good faith. The protection of international investment arbitration cannot be granted if such protection would run contrary to the general principles of international law, among which the principle of good faith is of utmost importance."28

When the decision given by the arbitral tribunal is examined, it is seen that the Salini test was applied in order to establish whether there is an investment in the present case. In this context, it is determined that the four essential criteria of the Salini test are (i) contribution of money or assets, (ii) a certain duration, (iii) an element of risk and (iv) a contribution to the economic development of the host State where the investment were fulfilled.29 In addition, an investment made in accordance with the laws of the host country is another criteria which was fulfilled in the present case. However, it was concluded by the arbitral tribunal that an investment made under the principle of good faith was accepted as an additional criteria, and the present case did not fulfill this. In other words, the Salini test was taken one step further by the arbitral tribunal of the Phoenix case whereby good faith was also accepted as one of the criteria which must be included in an investment.30

The matters such as timing of the investment and the claims, acquisition of the companies which were party to the ongoing disputes in domestic law and yet already suffered losses, and the claimant company having no economic operation in the related market were taken into consideration by the arbitral tribunal, and then, it was decided that the present case constituted a misuse of the system.

The Phoenix case, which is precedent for the similar cases, also came up in some cases which Turkey was a party. For instance, as the arbitral tribunal in the case of Europe Cement stated, the principle of good faith is a valid international legal principle regarding the interpretation and application of the obligations of the parties in international investment treaties, and this subject is widely accepted in investment arbitration.31 In this context, according to the opinion of the arbitral tribunal, as in the Phoenix case, a claim that is based on the purchase of an investment solely for the purpose of commencing litigation is an abuse of process, then surely a claim based on the false assertion of ownership of an investment is equally an abuse of process.32

The case of Alapli Elektrik, which Turkey was a party, is also one of the cases which the principle of good faith was at the forefront. In this case, dissenting arbitrator asserted that a ruling on the lack of jurisdiction should have been made since the contribution element under Salini test was not fulfilled and accordingly it is impossible to find the existence of an investment. Another arbitrator stated that there might be an investment because the claimant had the shares of the Turkish company which was operating the project. However, by drawing attention to the timing of share transfer, the arbitrator focused on whether the investment is a protected investment. According to the opinion of the said arbitrator, it is clear that the investment was made in the time when the dispute existing with the public authority had been known by the Turkish companies who are the sponsors of the project, and only to attain the international competence of ICSID. As a result, it is argued that an investment which was not made within good faith cannot benefit from international protection and the arbitral tribunal is not competent in this dispute.33 In spite of the dissenting opinion of the third arbitrator, the case concluded in favor of Turkey with the majority vote.

The case of Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador is also one of the decisions referring to the principle of good faith in international law. Since the "applicable law" clause in the bilateral investment treaties to be applied to the merits of the dispute in this case referred to the general principles and rules of international law, the arbitral tribunal decided that international law must be applied before domestic law.34 Due to this, it is examined whether the fraudulent behaviours of the claimant company was against to the generally accepted principles of international law including the principle of good faith, before examining the whether they are against domestic law.35 As a result, the arbitral tribunal concluded that the claimant obtained various benefits from the respondent through its fraudulent behaviors and false statements, and that was against to the generally accepted principles of international law including the principle of good faith, the principle of "no one can be heard to invoke his own turpitude" (nemo auditor propriam turpitudinem allegans), international public order and prohibition of unjust enrichment.36

The principle of good faith has been the object of analysis in various cases concerning the dispute between foreign investor and the respondent state and it is likely to be relevant to other similar cases in the future. Although it is claimed in the doctrine that a broad interpretation of the jurisdiction of ICSID made by the arbitral tribunals, and the cases were tried to be taken into the scope of jurisdiction as much as possible,37 it is seen that there is a very strict view on good faith. In this context, the following determination of the arbitral tribunal in the Hamester case is likely to constitute a precedent for future cases:

"An investment will not be protected if it has been created in violation of national or international principles of good faith; by way of corruption, fraud, or deceitful conduct; or if its creation itself constitutes a misuse of the system of international investment protection under the ICSID Convention."38

V. CONCLUSION

ICSID, which was established in 1996 with the purpose of settlement of disputes arising between foreign investors and host states through arbitration, hosted 767 cases until today, the 495 of which were resolved. When the arbitration proceedings before ICSID are taken into consideration, the lack of jurisdiction ruling is one of the circumstances which ends the arbitration process in favor of the respondent state. For this reason, determination of jurisdiction is one of the most important phases of the arbitration process.

To establish jurisdiction of ICSID on a dispute under the Article 25 of the ICSID Convention, (i) condition of consent, (ii) jurisdiction ratione personae and (iii) jurisdiction ratione materiae must be fulfilled. Jurisdiction rationae materia, which is the subject matter of our study, is basically based on the determination whether there is an investment. In this framework, since the investment is not defined under ICSID Convention, it is striven for determining what kinds of commercial activities constitute investment through the criteria which were set out by investment treaties, the doctrine and precedents.

In addition to the investment criteria in Salini test, which is the most frequently used method by arbitral tribunals to determine whether activities in the present case constitute an investment, it is seen that principle of good faith is also accepted as an additional criteria in most cases, particularly in the case of Phoenix. The arbitral tribunal defined its duty as ensuring that only investments that are made in compliance with the international principle of good faith and do not attempt to misuse the system are protected, and in this context, it stated that investments which are against to the principles of international law, particularly principle of good faith, is not to be protected. From this point of view, even if the all investment criteria in Salini test were fulfilled in the present case, the lack of jurisdiction decision was rendered due to violation of the principle of good faith. For this reason, by means of both the Phoenix case and other precedents in this respect, we can reach the conclusion that a new element, "an investment made in the framework of good faith principle", or briefly "principle of good faith" was added to the Salini test.

Footnotes

1 Christopher Schreuer, The ICSID Convention – A Commentary, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 6.

2 Dikran Zenginkuzucu, Devlet ve Yabancı Yatırımcılar Arasındaki Uyuşmazlıkların Çözümünde Uluslararası Yatırım Uyuşmazlıklarının Çözümü Merkez (ICSID)'nin Kuruluşu ve İşlevi, Legal Yayıncılık 2012, p. 77.

3 http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/ISDS, Access Date: 28.06.2017.

4 Zenginkuzucu, p. 114.

5 ICSID Convention, Article 25/1: The jurisdiction of the Centre shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment, between a Contracting State (or any constituent subdivision or agency of a Contracting State designated to the Centre by that State) and a national of another Contracting State, which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to submit to the Centre. When the parties have given their consent, no party may withdraw its consent unilaterally.

6 Zenginkuzucu, p. 138.

7 Ziya Akıncı, Milletlerarası Tahkim, Vedat Kitapçılık, 2016, p.46.

8 Süleyman Dost, Yabancı Yatırım Uyuşmazlıkları ve ICSID Tahkimi, Asil Yayın, 2006, p. 161.

9 AMCO v. Indonesia, Introductory Note. ICSID Review – FILJ,, 1995, p. 160.

10 PSEG Global Inc. and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Uretim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5.

11 İnci Ataman Figanmeşe, "Son On Yıl İçinde Türkiye'nin Taraf Olduğu ICSID Davaları", Uluslararası Tahkim Kongresi Tebliğler Kitabı, Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara 2012, p. 21.

12 Şule Akyüz, "The Jurisdiction of Icsid: the Application of the Article 25 of Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States", Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Ankara 2003, Volume: 52, Issue: 3, p. 338.

13 Champion Trading Company, Ameritrade International, Inc. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/9.

14 ICSID Convention, Article 25/2: "National of another Contracting State" means:

(a) any natural person who had the nationality of a Contracting State other than the State party to the dispute on the date on which the parties consented to submit such dispute to conciliation or arbitration as well as on the date on which the request was registered pursuant to paragraph (3) of Article 28 or paragraph (3) of Article 36, but does not include any person who on either date also had the nationality of the Contracting State party to the dispute; and

(b) any juridical person which had the nationality of a Contracting State other than the State party to the dispute on the date on which the parties consented to submit such dispute to conciliation or arbitration and any juridical person which had the nationality of the Contracting State party to the dispute on that date and which, because of foreign control, the parties have agreed should be treated as a national of another Contracting State for the purposes of this Convention.

15 Zenginkuzucu, p. 91.

16 Tokios Tokelès v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18.

17 Zenginkuzucu, p.94.

18 Dost, p. 156.

19 Fedax v. Venezuella, ICSID Case No: ARB/96/3, Jurisdiction, para. 21-26.

20 Salini Costruttori SpA and Italstrade SpA v. Morocco (ICSID Case No: ARB/00/4), Decision on Jurisdiction, para. 52.

21 Salini, para. 57.

22 Check for the similar decisions: Bayındır Insaat Turizm Ticaret ve Sanayi ve A.Ş. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (ICSID Case No: ARB/03/29), Joy Mining Machinery Limited v. Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11), Jan de Nul N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No: ARB/04/13).

23 Mehmet Can Açıkalın, "Uluslararası Yatırım Uyuşmazlıklarının Çözüm Merkezi'nin (ICSID) Yargılama Yetkisine Dair Bir İnceleme: Saba Fakes v. Turkey", Prof. Dr. Ata Sakmar'a Armağan, Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2011/1, p. 41-42.

24 Alex Grabowski, "The Definition of Investment under the ICSID Convention: A Defense of Salini", Chicago Journal of International Law: Vol. 15, No:1, p. 308.

25 Check for the similar decisions: Fraport v. Philippines (ARB/03/25), Cementownia v. Turkey (ARB(AF)/06/02); Hamester v Ghana (ARB/07/24); Amco Asia Corporations and Others v. Republic of Indonesia, (ARB/81/1); Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, (ARB/03/24); Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador (ARB/03/26).

26 Phoenix Action Ltd. v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No: ARB/06/05, Award of 15 April 2009, para. 113.

27 Phoenix, para. 113-145.

28 Phoenix, para. 106.

29 PLC Arbitration, Bad Faith Transaction Is Not An Investment, (Last Access: 02.07.2017), https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com.

30 Grabowski, p. 300.

31 Europe Cement Investment & Trade S.A. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)07/2, para. 171.

32 Europe Cement Investment, para. 175.

33 Alapli Elektrik B.V. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/13, Excerpts of Award dated July 16, 2012, para. 416-417.

34 Inceysa Vallisoletana v El Salvador (Award), ICSID Case No ARB/03/26, 2 August 2006, para. 224.

35 Stephan W. Schill, "Good Faith Limitations On Protected Investments And Corporate Structuring", Amsterdam Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2017-16, p. 7.

36 Schill, p. 7; Inceysa, para. 230-257.

37 Akyüz, p. 359.

38 Gustav FW Hamester GmbH & Co KG v Ghana (Award), ICSID Case No ARB/07/24, 18 June 2010, para. 123-124.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions