Tags
afirca, America, Arbitral tribunal, Arbitration, Argentina, artagorapolis, Asia, China, Christian, commodity, Computers, crisis, currency, Debt restructuring, democracy, design, Deutschland, dollar, ecology, England, Entertainment, environment, Espana, etnia avatar, eu, euro, finance, food, France, fundamentalism, future, Gaming, gender, Germany, gli speculari, Global issues, Government debt, Greece, hunger, i, IMF.EU, intelligence, International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Iran, Islam, Israel, Italia, Italy, job, Jurisdiction, justice, law, mato, Muslim, NATO, NSA, nuclear, nukes, oil, peace, Plaintiff, politics, prosumerzen, prosumerzen open tv, risk management, Russia, SA, social, spiriterial, tax, terrorism, trend, turn your message into, uandshop, UK, USA, war, WB, westphalia
On August 4, 2011, an arbitral tribunal at the International Centre for
Settlement of Investment Disputes (“the ICSID”) set new precedent for the
arbitration world. In Abaclat (and others) v. The Argentine Republic, the Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear claims brought by some 60,000
Italian nationals against the Republic of Argentina following Argentina’s
default and later partial restructuring of its sovereign debt. This decision is
unprecedented in at least two respects. It is the first decision to hold that an
arbitral tribunal has the legal authority to hear claims that a sovereign’s
default and debt restructuring may have breached a bilateral investment
treaty (“BIT”). Second, Abaclat is the first arbitral decision to hold that
60,000 Claimants may join in one mass claims arbitration under the institutional rules of the ICSID. If the Abaclat decision is followed in the future, it
will likely have significant impact on sovereign debt restructuring, the
drafting of arbitration clauses, and the scope of ICSID jurisdiction over mass
claims arbitrations.
This commentary begins with a brief sketch of the circumstances leading
to the Abaclat arbitration and then discusses the claims at issue in the most
recent stage of the arbitration, the jurisdictional phase. The third section
discusses the Abaclat tribunal’s (“The Tribunal”) rulings on the jurisdictional issues. Finally, the fourth section discusses the potential impact of the
case …http://www.harvardilj.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/HLI206.pdf
©2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THE AUTHOR(S) AND THE PUBLISHER
—————————————————————————————————————————–
Dear Readers
We invite you to visit our internet magazines and stream TV
About geopolitics and geofinance. Prosumerzen www.prosumerzen.net
About the trends between states and non state actors : WestphaliaXXI www.westphaliaxxi.com
About spiritual and material sustainable life style : Spiriterial www.spiriterial.com
About art and culture : Artagorapolis www.u4art.com
Our Open TV. Not only video but also more than 4.000 releases each day selected inside the top 100 newspapers in the world: www.info4tv.org
Il Romanzo www.glispeculari.com
