The latest
Página 12 | 20-Jul-2017
El Ministerio de Finanzas entregará a la petrolera francesa Total bonos por 210 millones de dólares para finalizar el juicio que la compañía mantenía contra el país en el tribunal arbitral dependiente del Banco Mundial.
Lexology | 18-Jul-2017
Two recent and potentially inconsistent decisions in claims by PRC investors have raised questions as to the scope of protection under PRC bilateral investment treaties (BITs).
keywords:
China,
investor-state disputes | ISDS
Portal Minero | 18-Jul-2017
La compañía recurrió en 2011 al Ciadi, luego que el gobierno del país islámico negara la licencia de la iniciativa, lo que acusan fue de manera ilegal.
Reuters | 17-Jul-2017
La minera canadiense Crystallex ganó en una corte estadounidense una medida que prohíbe a la empresa china Haitong International Securities Group transfiera activos propiedad de Venezuela.
Miningmx | 17-Jul-2017
AngloGold Ashanti joined Acacia Mining in entering into arbitration over legislative changes in Tanzania which entitles the East African country’s government to renegotiate business agreements with mining firms.
The Nation | 17-Jul-2017
Pakistan has rejected $11.5 billion damages claim made by the Tethyan Copper Company ltd (TCC) a joint venture between Antofagasta and Canada’s Barrick Gold Corporation in the Reko Diq case.
Reuters | 17-Jul-2017
Canadian miner Crystallex has won U.S. court approval to bar China’s Haitong International Securities Group Ltd from transferring securities owned by Venezuela, in a move to recoup damages from an expropriation by the OPEC nation.
Mondaq | 17-Jul-2017
APR Energy PLC and Nucoal have been making noise about bringing investor-state claims against Australia
DW | 14-Jul-2017
Bajo ese título publica REDES una nueva investigación que da cuenta de la fragilidad de los Estados frente a los mecanismos de solución de controversias, con impactos invisibilizados en las políticas públicas, los derechos y la soberanía para diseñar y ejecutar estrategias de desarrollo nacionales.
Info Justice | 14-Jul-2017
The cool reasoning of the Canadian Supreme Court does not acknowledge or reference “external” pressures or the Eli Lilly v. Canada ISDS case. However, courts do not decide cases in a vacuum. This case seems to have been decided in a pressure cooker.