Recognition of the ICSID Awards in the USA

This article deals with the current court practice of the US courts in connection with the recognition and enforcement of the decisions rendered by the international investment arbitration institutions, rendered in favor of the investor against any state (focusing on the ICSID arbitral awards). It also gives the up-to-date overview of the court practice (took place before 2015) with regard to such cases considered without notification of another party to a dispute (i.e. of the state). As the result of the research, the author concludes that at the moment the US court practice has two polar approaches, which leads to the following question: is it possible to apply the order for the recognition of the judgment of the other state so as to affirm the decision of the ICSID, where only one party is present? This question is also of importance for Russia as for the active party to different BITs

Concept of “Legitimate Expectationsˮ of Foreign Investors in the International Investment Arbitration Practice

Based on the practice of international investment arbitral tribunals this article outlines the notion of “legitimate expectations of investors”. This notion is not used in bi- and multilateral international investment treaties of Russia. However, as follows from the practice of international investment arbitral tribunals, legitimate expectations of investors constitute an integral part of the standard of fair and equitable treatment of foreign investor by the state hosting foreign investments. Only if a state gives specifi c representations and warranties to the investor, this creates legitimate expectations of the investor. If the state failed to perform such representations and warranties, it will not meet legitimate expectations of the foreign investor and, therefore, violated its obligation to treat such investor fairly and equitably. This may trigger liability of such state under international law towards the foreign investor, should he fi le a claim against such state with an international investment arbitral tribunal

“Yukos v. the Russian Federation” and the Jurisdictional Immunity of the State

Former shareholders of “Yukos” started proceedings aimed at recognition and enforcement of the 3 arbitral awards dated 18 July 2014 rendered on the claims against the Russian Federation. By these awards, the arbitral tribunal ordered Russia a compensation (ca US$50 billion) to the shareholders of Yukos. In some countries of the world, the claimants did manage to obtain orders of arrests of Russian property. This attracted attention (also of the highest Russian authorities) to the quality of the international law advice aimed at protection of the interests of Russia and its companies. In this context the issue on how the jurisdictional immunity of Russia’s property as a foreign state operates became of a particular importance