Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T01:44:26.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

AES Corporation and Tau Power BV v. Republic of Kazakhstan

ICSID (Arbitration Tribunal).  01 November 2013 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2021

Get access

Abstract

Jurisdiction — Consent — Revocation — Municipal law — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Whether a State may revoke consent to arbitration by repealing municipal law

Jurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Municipal law — Whether investments were excluded from jurisdiction by express exceptions under municipal law

Jurisdiction — Consent — Temporality — Municipal law — Whether the revocation of consent to arbitration through the repeal of municipal law affected investments made prior to repeal

Admissibility — Fork-in-the-road clause — Judicial act — Competition law — Whether claims for breach of competition law before municipal courts were the same as the investment treaty claims

Admissibility — Domestic litigation requirement — Whether the exhaustion of local remedies was required — Whether the question was best left to the merits stage

Contract — Legitimate expectation — Legal stability — Competition law — Whether an agreement between the claimants and the State gave rise to a legitimate expectation that the State would not amend competition law

Municipal law — Stabilisation clause — Legitimate expectation — Legal stability — Adverse effect — Whether the claimants had a legitimate expectation to be protected by a stabilisation clause that had been repealed — Whether the claimants had a legitimate expectation to be protected against legislative reform — Whether the claimants demonstrated any adverse effect from legislative reform — Whether it was predictable that the State would undertake reform of its competition law

Fair and equitable treatment — Legitimate expectation — Arbitrariness — Denial of justice — Legal stability — Whether changes to competition law were in breach of the investment treaties — Whether alleged harassment and coercion were in breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether the claimants were denied justice in the application of competition law by municipal courts

Umbrella clause — Municipal law — Contract — Legal stability — Whether a breach of municipal law could give rise to an investment treaty breach — Whether there was a breach of municipal law — Whether the State agreed not to reform competition law

Fair and equitable treatment — Legitimate expectation — Free transfer — Proportionality — Public interest — Whether the claimants had an expectation to make and have the right to dispose of a reasonable return on their investment — Whether the requirement to reinvest all profits was in breach of legitimate expectations — Whether the measure was a proportionate response in the public interest

Remedies — Restitution — Whether restitution was a feasible remedy in the circumstances

Remedies — Damages — Burden of proof — Quantum — Whether the claimants had established the scope of damage they suffered as a result of treaty breach

Remedies — Damages — Future damages — Whether the claim for future loss was premature

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)