No abstract

No abstract

This article argues that while a mutually beneficial relationship can be cultivated between international investment arbitration and anti-corruption policies, the recent emergence of a state-invoked 'corruption defence' as a complete defence to liability for alleged breach of investment protection obligations may hamper the sustainability and effectiveness of such a relationship. In the context of a corrupt host state, for instance, and particularly a corrupt developing host state, the growing use of this defence may arguably frustrate the objectives of both foreign investment protection and anti-corruption policies. This was the case, for instance, in the 2006 investment arbitration World Duty Free Co. Ltd. v. Republic of Kenya, in which the arbitral tribunal accepted the corruption defence invoked by Kenya as a complete defence to the investor's claims of alleged breach of investment protection obligations. In so doing, the tribunal arguably disregarded the potentially detrimental effects such a decision may have on Kenya's ability to fight corruption and attract further foreign investment, both of which are of crucial importance to its future development. This article argues, therefore, that investment arbitration tribunals ought to proceed with caution when permitting a corrupt host state, and particularly a developing one, to rely on the corruption defence, and ought to devise alternative remedies to the complete rejection of the claims where investor corruption is established.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This article examines the potential contribution of international water law (IWL) to alleviating the negative cross-border impacts of ‘dam-induced migration’, the displacement of individuals or communities resulting from dam construction. While much has been written on efforts to deal with this global problem in other areas of international law, the application of IWL in this context has yet to be meaningfully explored. But since dams are frequently constructed on transboundary watercourses, the principles of IWL (no significant harm, equitable and reasonable utilisation, and the duty to cooperate) may prove relevant and useful to mitigating the harmful cross-border impacts of dam-induced migration. The no significant harm principle requires States to comply with a due diligence standard of conduct designed to avoid, minimise, or compensate for significant harm that might result from the use of shared watercourses, including harm to human life or health. The equitable and reasonable utilisation principle obligates each basin State to use an international watercourse in a manner that is equitable and reasonable vis-à-vis the other States sharing it. The duty to cooperate requires States to collaborate in the management and use of shared watercourses and sets out concrete measures to enable collaboration, such as information exchange, consultations, and the establishment of joint institutions. Taken together, these IWL principles can effectively guide the planning, construction, and operation of dams on shared watercourses. Applying them to the specific issue of dam-induced migration, moreover, could promote inter-State cooperation and accountability, facilitate the resolution of disputes, and alleviate negative cross-border impacts. In this way, IWL can supplement other areas of international law in providing a comprehensive solution to the growing problem of dam-induced migration.

This article examines the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment in Uber Technologies Inc v Heller from an international commercial arbitration perspective, focusing on two specific issues. The first issue is the Court’s application of a provincial domestic, rather than international, arbitration statute to Uber and Heller’s international arbitration agreement, on the ground that the agreement is not ‘commercial’. The article argues that this finding is not in line with international arbitration instruments and practice. The second issue is the Court’s interpretation and application of the competence–competence principle, which permits arbitral tribunals to decide their own jurisdiction. The article maintains that the Court’s approach does not offend this principle, but that the Court provides insufficient guidance to lower Canadian courts on how to implement this approach in future cases. The article concludes that the Court’s decision, while far-reaching in many respects, should not disturb the enforcement of routine international commercial arbitration agreements in Canada. The decision may have implications, however, for arbitration agreements contained in international contracts—particularly standard form contracts—that might give rise to employment disputes, such as those in the gig economy, or that contain terms that may seem to bar a party’s access to the arbitral process.