“Cooling-off periods” (also called “Waiting periods”) are features of International Investment Agreements which require the investor to abstain, for a specified period, from initiating arbitration proceedings against a host State and to attempt to settle the alleged dispute amicably. The obligation to attempt settling the dispute amicably has been described in itself as an obligation of means instead of an obligation of result, implying good effort negociations from both parties.1 Other tribunals have however upheld less stringent standards.2
Some investment treaties (such as the Azerbaijan - Georgia BIT (1996), Article 9) provide for inter-State negociation as a precondition to the investor's right to refer a dispute against a State-party to arbitration. The Tribunal in Hasanov v. Georgia found that the inter-State negociation condition, if not met, would preclude it from proceeding to the merits of this dispute. See Hasanov v. Georgia, Decision on Respondent’s Inter-State Negotiation Objection, 19 April 2022, para. 99.
Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. and others (formerly Giordano Alpi and others) v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 8 February 2013, para. 581; Guaracachi America, Inc. and Rurelec PLC v. The Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2011-17, Award, 31 January 2014, para. 392; Murphy Exploration and Production Company International v. Republic of Ecuador (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/08/4, Award on Jurisdiction, 15 December 2010, para. 135; Louis Dreyfus Armateurs SAS v. The Republic of India, PCA Case No. 2014-26, Decision on Jurisdiction, 22 December 2015, para. 79; Teinver S.A., Transportes de Cercanías S.A. and Autobuses Urbanos del Sur S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1, Decision on Jurisdiction, 21 December 2012, para. 108; State Development Corporation "VEB.RF" v. Ukraine, SCC Case No. 2019/113 and V2019/088, Partial Award on Preliminary Objections (Case No. V2019/088), 31 January 2021, para. 221; Nasib Hasanov v. Georgia, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/44, Decision on Respondent’s Inter-State Negotiation Objection, 19 April 2022, para. 89, 99 and 102-103.
Ganesh, A., Cooling-Off Period (Investment Arbitration) in Max Planck Encyclopedia for International Procedural Law, Working Paper 7, 2017 citing Pohl, J., Mashigo, K. and Nohen, A., Dispute Settlement Provisions in International Investment Agreements: A Large Sample Survey, OECD Working Papers on International Investment 17 (2012).
Agreement between Argentina and Austria for the Promotion and Protection of the Investments, adopted on 7 August 1992, Art. 8.3.3.a; Agreement between the Argentine Republic and the Kingdom of Spain on the reciprocal promotion and protection of investments, adopted on 3 October 1991, Art. X.3; The Energy Charter Treaty, adopted on 17 December 1994, Art. 26.2; Agreement between the Swiss Confederation and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, adopted on 7 October 1988, Article 10. 2; Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of Ecuador concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, adopted on 27 August 1993, ARTICLE VI. 3.a.
Although they are a common feature of BITs, cooling-off periods can vary significantly in duration. The most common duration is 6 months,5 although periods ranging from 60 days6 to 24 months7 may be found. Periods shorter than 6 months are more common than cooling-off periods of a longer duration.8
The cooling-off period often begins when an investor sends a written notification of the existence of a dispute to the host State, commonly referred to as a trigger letter.9 Other, less formal triggers for the cooling-off period, however, have been accepted by the tribunals in the past.10 Tribunals have held that where a BIT requires investors to send a formal notice of the dispute, the cooling-off period should be calculated from the date of the notification and not the date of the alleged breach of the treaty.11 Tribunals have also held that formal notifications must detail the existence and nature of the dispute in sufficient detail and cover all claims the investor expects to make, so as to give the parties a realistic picture of the matter before them and enable them to reach a negotiated settlement.12 The cooling-off period typically cannot be waived but there have been exceptions.13 A Most Favoured Nation clause has however been used in the past to circumvent the requirement of a cooling-off period.14 Moreover, a showing of futility may obviate the need to observe the cooling-off period.15
Cambodia-Turkey Bilateral Investment Treaty, concluded on 21 October 2018, Art. 9(2); Agreement between the government of the Portuguese Republic and the government of the State of Qatar on the reciprocal promotion and protection of investments, concluded on 21 April 2009, Art. 11; Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden and the Government of the Republic of Korea on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, concluded on 30 August 1995, Art. 9; Agreement between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of Romania for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, concluded on 18 May 1994, Art. 9; Agreement between the Belgo-Luxemburg Economic Union and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, on the reciprocal promotion and protection of investments, concluded on 14 January 1998, Art. X; Japan-Morocco BIT (2020), Art. 16.4; Agreement between the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the United Arab Emirates for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, Art. 8(5); Investment Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (2019), Art. 24(1); North American Free Trade Agreement, adopted on 17 December 1992, Article 1120: Submission of a Claim to Arbitration.
Austria-Kazakhstan BIT, concluded on 21 January 2010, Art. 13; Agreement between the Republic of Austria and the Kingdom of Cambodia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, concluded on 17 December 2004, Art. 12; Agreement between the Lebanese Republic and the Republic of Austria on the reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, concluded on 26 May 2001, Art. 12.
Germany-Argentina BIT, concluded on 04 April 1991, Art. 10(2); Agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Arab Emirates for the Promotion and the Reciprocal Protection of Investments, concluded on 21 June 1997, Art. 8; Agreement between the Government of the United Arab Emirates and the Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, concluded on 26 October 2007, Art. 9.
Ganesh, A., Cooling-Off Period (Investment Arbitration), in Max Planck Encyclopedia for International Procedural Law, Working Paper 7, 2017 citing Pohl, J., Mashigo, K. and Nohen, A., Dispute Settlement Provisions in International Investment Agreements: A Large Sample Survey, OECD Working Papers on International Investment 17 (2012).
Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Bolivia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, adopted on 24 May 1988, Art. 8.1; Treaty between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Argentine Republic on the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, adopted on 9 April 1991, Art. 10.2; Cyprus - Libya BIT (2004), Art. 9.2; Germany - India BIT (1995), Art. 9.1-2; Agreement between BLEU (Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union) and Cameroon for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, adopted on 27 March 1980, Art. 10.2; Model BIT United Kingdom, Art. 8(1).
Teinver S.A., Transportes de Cercanías S.A. and Autobuses Urbanos del Sur S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1, Decision on Jurisdiction, 21 December 2012, para. 112; Khan Resources Inc., Khan Resources B.V. and Cauc Holding Company Ltd. v. the Government of Mongolia and Monatom Co., Ltd., PCA Case No. 2011-09, Decision on Jurisdiction, 25 July 2012, para. 404; Ascom Group S.A., Anatolie Stati, Gabriel Stati and Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, SCC Case No. 116/2010, Award, 19 December 2013, paras. 829-830; Link-Trading Joint Stock Company v. Department for Customs Control of the Republic of Moldova, Award on Jurisdiction, 16 February 2001, para. 8.6; Alps Finance and Trade AG v. The Slovak Republic, Award, 5 March 2011, para. 200.
Note however that in Eco Oro v. Colombia, Decision on Jurisdiction, Liability and Directions on Quantum, the tribunal took into consideration the date of the trigger letter but also the date of the final measure leading to the dispute in conformity with Article 821(2)(b) of the Canada-Colombia FTA (2008).
Lauder v. Czech Republic, Final Award, 3 September 2001, para. 185; Burlington Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Jurisdiction, 2 June 2010, para. 336; Tulip Real Estate Investment and Development Netherlands B.V. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/28, Decision on Bifurcated Jurisdictional Issue, 5 March 2013, para. 71; Murphy Exploration and Production Company International v. Republic of Ecuador (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/08/4, Award on Jurisdiction, 15 December 2010, para. 108; Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/41, Decision on Jurisdiction, Liability and Directions on Quantum, 9 September 2021, para. 338.
Goetz and Others v. Burundi (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/95/3, Award (Embodying the Parties’ Settlement), 10 February 1999, paras. 90-93; Tulip Real Estate Investment and Development Netherlands B.V. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/28, Decision on Bifurcated Jurisdictional Issue, 5 March 2013, para. 92; Khan Resources Inc., Khan Resources B.V. and CAUC Holding Company Ltd. v. Government of Mongolia and Monatom Co., Ltd., PCA Case No. 2011-09, Decision on Jurisdiction, 25 July 2012, para. 404; Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, Final Award, 26 March 2021, para. 81; Alejandro Diego Diaz Gaspar v. Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/13, Award, 29 June 2022, para. 222.
The approach of the tribunal would be that of a "specific investor". See below Zaza v. Georgia.
Maffezini v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 25 January 2000, paras. 19-64; Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona,S.A. and Interagua Servicios Integrales de Agua, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17, Decision on Jurisdiction, 16 May 2006, para. 66; Gas Natural SDG, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/10, Decision of the Tribunal on Preliminary Questions on Jurisdiction, 17 June 2005, para. 31; Siemens A.G. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Decision on Jurisdiction, 3 August 2004, paras. 103–106; Teinver S.A., Transportes de Cercanías S.A. and Autobuses Urbanos del Sur S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1, Decision on Jurisdiction, 21 December 2012, paras. 159-186; Zaza Okuashvili v. Georgia, SCC Case No. V 2019/058, Partial Final Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 31 August 2022, paras. 223-224.
Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. and others (formerly Giordano Alpi and others) v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 8 February 2013, paras. 597–628; Giovanni Alemanni and others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/8, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 17 November 2014, para. 301–317; Teinver S.A., Transportes de Cercanías S.A. and Autobuses Urbanos del Sur S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1, Decision on Jurisdiction, 21 December 2012, para. 126–129; Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Decision on Jurisdiction, 9 September 2008, paras. 90-96; Ethyl Corporation v. The Government of Canada, Award on Jurisdiction, 24 June 1998, para. 84; A11Y LTD. V. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. UNCT/15/1, Decision on Jurisdiction, 9 February 2017, para. 150; Westwater Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/46, Procedural Order No. 2, 28 April 2020, paras. 35, 37; Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, Final Award, 26 March 2021, para. 80.
Evrobalt LLC and Kompozit LLC v. Moldova, SCC Case No. EA 2016/082, Award on Emergency Measures, 30 May 2016, paras. 22 – 23; Kompozit LLC v Republic of Moldova, SCC Case No. 2016/95, Emergency Award on Interim Measures, 14 June 2016, para. 56; TSIKinvest LLC v. Republic of Moldova, Emergency Decision, 29 April 2014, para. 66.
Four main views have been taken on the consequences of an investor’s failure to comply with a clause providing for a cooling-off period:
Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, para. 343-346; SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13, Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2003, para. 184; Ping An Life Insurance Company of China, Limited and Ping An Insurance (Group) Company of China, Limited v. Kingdom of Belgium, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/29, Award, 30 April 2015, para. 121; Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005, paras. 100, 102; Mr. Franz Sedelmayer v. The Russian Federation, Arbitration Award, 7 July 1998, para. 322; Ethyl Corporation v. The Government of Canada, Award on Jurisdiction, 24 June 1998, para. 84; Ronald S. Lauder v. Czech Republic, Award, 3 September 2001, para. 187-191; Link-Trading Joint Stock Company v. Department for Customs Control of the Republic of Moldova, Award on Jurisdiction, 16 February 2001, para. 8.6; El Paso Energy International Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Decision on Jurisdiction, 27 April 2006, para. 38; Pan American Energy LLC and BP Argentina Exploration Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/13, Decision on Preliminary Objections, 27 July 2006, para. 41; Mohammad Ammar Al-Bahloul v. The Republic of Tajikistan, SCC Case No. 064/2008, Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 2 September 2009, paras. 154-155; Alps Finance and Trade AG v. The Slovak Republic, Award, 5 March 2011, paras. 200-204; Abaclat and others (formerly Giovanna A. Beccara and others) v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 4 August 2011, paras. 564-565; Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1, Award, 7 December 2011, para. 335; Mohamed Abdulmohsen Al-Kharafi & Sons Co. v. Libya and others, Final Arbitral Award, 22 March 2013, pp. 244-245; Ascom Group S.A., Anatolie Stati, Gabriel Stati and Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, SCC Case No. 116/2010, Award, 19 December 2013, para. 829; Enkev Beheer B.V. v. The Republic of Poland, PCA Case No. 2013-01, First Partial Award, 29 April 2014, paras. 315-318, 321; Casinos Austria International GmbH and Casinos Austria Aktiengesellschaft v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/32, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 June 2018, paras. 275-276, 279-280, 337; Westwater Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/46, Procedural Order No. 2, 28 April 2020, paras. 35, 37; Olin Holdings Limited v. State of Libya, ICC Case No. 20355/MCP, Partial Award on Jurisdiction, 28 June 2016, paras. 214-218.
SGS v. Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13, Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2003, paras. 183-184; Lauder v. Czech Republic, Award, 3 September 2001, para. 187; Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22 , Award, 24 July 2008, para. 343; Ascom Group S.A., Anatolie Stati, Gabriel Stati and Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, SCC Case No. 116/2010, Award, 19 December 2013, para. 829; Ascom Group S.A., Anatolie Stati, Gabriel Stati and Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd. V. Republic of Kazakhstan, SCC Case No. 116/2010, Memorandum Opinion of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, 5 August 2016, paras. 31-32.
Reed, L., Paulsson, J. and Blackaby, N., Guide to ICSID Arbitration, 2nd ed., Wolters Kluwer, pp. 97-98.
Ganesh, A., Cooling-Off Period (Investment Arbitration), Max Planck Encyclopedia for International Procedural Law, Working Paper 7, 2017.
Schreuer, C., Travelling the BIT Route: Of Waiting Periods, Umbrella Clauses and Forks in the Road, The Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol 5, Issue 2, 2004, p. 239.
Murphy v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/4, Award on Jurisdiction, 15 December 2010, para. 149; Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets L.P. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 Jan 2004, para 88; Burlington Resources Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Jurisdiction, 2 June 2010, paras 310-318; Supervision y Control S.A. v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/4, Award, 18 January 2017, paras. 340-341.
Murphy v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/4, Award on Jurisdiction, 15 December 2010, para 155; Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005, para. 102; Kompozit LLC v Republic of Moldova, SCC Case No. 2016/95, Emergency Award on Interim Measures, 14 June 2016, para. 55; Mohammad Ammar Al-Bahloul v. The Republic of Tajikistan, SCC Case No. 064/2008, Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 2 September 2009, paras. 154-156; SL Mining Limited. v. Republic of Sierra Leone, ICC Case No. 24708/TO, Judgment of the United Kingdom High Court of Justice [2021] EWHC 286, 15 Feb 2021, para. 32.
Akhman, A., Consent to Submit Investment Disputes to Arbitration under Article 26 of the Energy Charter Treaty, 3 Int. Arb. L. Rev. 61, 2007.
Ambiente Ufficio and Others v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 8 February 2013, para. 585; Ethyl Corporation v. Canada, Award on Jurisdiction, 24 June 1998, para. 84; Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation (formerly Enron Corporation) and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 January 2004, para. 87; Westwater Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/46, Procedural Order No. 2, 28 April 2020, paras. 35, 37; Evrobalt LLC v. Moldova, SCC Case No. EA 2016/082, Award on Emergency Measures, 30 May 2016, para. 22; Consortium Groupement L.E.S.I. – DIPENTA v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/8, Award, 10 January 2005, Part II, para. 32; Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Decision on Jurisdiction, 9 September 2008, para. 94; Louis Dreyfus Armateurs SAS v. The Republic of India, PCA Case No. 2014-26, Decision on Jurisdiction, 22 December 2015, paras. 94, 96.
The same has been held by national courts. See below.
RREEF Infrastructure (G.P.) Limited and RREEF Pan-European Infrastructure Two Lux S.à r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/30, Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 June 2016, para. 225; Western NIS Enterprise Fund v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/2, Order taking note of the discontinuance issued by the Tribunal, pursuant to Arbitration Rule 43(1), paras. 5-7; Philip Morris Brand Sàrl (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products S.A. (Switzerland) and Abal Hermanos S.A. (Uruguay) v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Decision on Jurisdiction, 2 July 2013, para. 138; B-Mex, LLC Deana Anthone, Neil Ayervais, Douglas Black and others v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/16/3, Judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario - 2020 ONSC 2376, 20 July 2020, para. 114; Wena Hotels Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 June 1999, para. 60; Casinos Austria International GmbH and Casinos Austria Aktiengesellschaft v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/32, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 June 2018, para. 280; Rusoro Mining Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/5, Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal, 7 June 2022, para. 52.
Westwater Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/46, Procedural Order No. 2, 28 April 2020, para. 34; Daimler Financial Services AG v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/1, Award, 22 August 2012, paras. 185-187; Ronald S. Lauder v. Czech Republic, Award, 3 September 2001, para. 190.
Tulip Real Estate Investment and Development Netherlands B.V. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/28 , Decision on Bifurcated Jurisdictional Issue, 5 March 2013, para. 72; Guaracachi America, Inc. and Rurelec PLC v. The Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2011-17, Award, 31 January 2014, paras. 388-390; Ascom Group S.A., Anatolie Stati, Gabriel Stati and Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, SCC Case No. 116/2010, Dissenting Opinion by Magnus Ulriksson, para. 4; Casinos Austria International GmbH and Casinos Austria Aktiengesellschaft v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/32, Dissenting Opinion of Santiago Torres Bernárdez, 20 June 2018, para. 186; Westwater Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/46, Procedural Order No. 2, 28 April 2020, paras. 45, 47.
Ganesh, A., Cooling-Off Period (Investment Arbitration), Max Planck Encyclopedia for International Procedural Law, Working Paper 7, 2017 citing Born, G., International Commercial Arbitration, Vol. 1, 2nd ed., Wolters Kluwer, 2014, p. 930.
Born, G. and Šćekić, M., Pre-Arbitration Procedural Requirements: ‘A Dismal Swamp’, in Practising Virtue, Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 249:
“In many cases, however, even a mandatory obligation to negotiate for a specified time period will not be treated as a condition precedent to arbitration, but will instead constitute only a contractual commitment whose breach entitles a party to damages (or other forms of procedural relief), but which is not a bar to commencement of arbitration. This conclusion rests in part on the underlying rationale that obligations to negotiate or conciliate are by nature imperfect and uncertain obligations, whose breach has only minimal consequences on the parties’ rights, and which are not intended to impose a bar to access to arbitration and adjudicative relief.”
Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction, 23 July 2001, para. 16; Noble Energy Inc. and Machala Power Cía. Ltd. v. Republic of Ecuador and Consejo Nacional de Electricidad, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/12, Decision on Jurisdiction, 5 March 2008, para. 212; Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 December 2003, para. 54; Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation (formerly Enron Corporation) and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 January 2004, para. 88; Generation Ukraine Inc. v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/9, Award, 16 September 2003, para. 14.3; Limited Liability Company Amto v. Ukraine, SCC Case No. 080/2005, Final Award, 26 March 2008, para. 50; Burlington Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Jurisdiction, 2 June 2010, paras. 312, 315, 317-318, 336-340; Murphy Exploration and Production Company International v. Republic of Ecuador (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/08/4, Award on Jurisdiction, 15 December 2010, paras. 132, 142, 146, 149, 151, 155-157; Abaclat and others (formerly Giovanna A. Beccara and others) v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Dissenting Opinion of Professor Georges Abi-Saab (Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility), para. 26; Western NIS Enterprise Fund v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/2, Order taking note of the discontinuance issued by the Tribunal, pursuant to Arbitration Rule 43(1), para. 5; Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. and others (formerly Giordano Alpi and others) v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 8 February 2013, para. 577-583; Tulip Real Estate Investment and Development Netherlands B.V. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/28, Decision on Bifurcated Jurisdictional Issue, 5 March 2013, paras. 70-73; Louis Dreyfus Armateurs SAS v. The Republic of India, PCA Case No. 2014-26, Decision on Jurisdiction, 22 December 2015, paras. 94-99; Casinos Austria International GmbH and Casinos Austria Aktiengesellschaft v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/32, Dissenting Opinion on Respondent’s Second Preliminary Objection and Declaration of Dissent concerning its First and Third Preliminary Objections of Arbitrator Santiago Torres Bernárdez, paras. 185-186; Almasryia for Operating & Maintaining Touristic Construction Co. L.L.C. v. State of Kuwait, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/2, Award on the Respondent's Application under Rule 41(5) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, 1 November 2019, para. 39.
Akhman, A., Consent to Submit Investment Disputes to Arbitration under Article 26 of the Energy Charter Treaty, International Arbitration Law Review, 2007, p. 61.
Born, G. and Šćekić, M., Pre-Arbitration Procedural Requirements: ‘A Dismal Swamp’, in Caron, D. and Others, Practising Virtue: Inside International Arbitration, 2015.
Schreuer, C., Travelling the BIT Route: Of Waiting Periods, Umbrella Clauses and Forks in the Road, Journal of World Investment and Trade: Law, Economics, Politics, 2004, pp. 231-256.
Deutsch, R., An ICSID Tribunal Denies Jurisdiction for Failure to Satisfy BIT’s Cooling-Off Period: Further Evidence of a Sea-Change in Investor-State Arbitration or a Meaningless Ripple?, Houston Journal of International Law, 2011, p. 590.
Chapman, S., Multi-Tiered Dispute Resolution Clauses: Enforcing Obligations to Negotiate in Good Faith, Journal of International Arbitration, 2010, p. 89.
Already registered ?