I. Due process in international law
II. Due process in the FET standard
Chile – US FTA, 6 June 2003, 1 January 2004, Art. 10.4; Oman – US FTA, 19 January 2006, 1 January 2009, Art. 10.5; Peru – United States FTA, 12 April 2006, 1 February 2009, Art. 10.5; US – Columbia TPA, 22 November 2006, 15 May 2012, Art. 10.5; ; ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement, 26 February 2009, 24 February 2012, Art. 11; Central America-Dominican Republic-United States Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA), 5 August 2004, 1 January 2009, Art. 10.5.
III. Denial of fairness in the administration of justice
Metalclad Corporation v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, Award, 30 August 2000, para. 97; Pope & Talbot v Canada, UNCITRAL, Award on Merits Phase II, 10 April 2001, paras. 110, 118; Laird, I. A., Betrayal, Shock and Outrage-Recent Developments in Nafta Article 1105, Asper Review of International Business and Trade Law, 2003, pp. 185-214, p. 195; Weiler, T., Metalclad v. Mexico: A Play in Three Parts, The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 2001, pp. 685-711, pp. 690-692.
Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States (II) ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Award, 30 April 2004, para. 98; Eli Lilly and Company v. The Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2, Final Award, 16 March 2017, para. 219; S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada, Partial Award (Merits), 13 November 2000, para. 134; William Ralph Clayton, William Richard Clayton, Douglas Clayton, Daniel Clayton and Bilcon of Delaware Inc. v. The Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2009-04, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 17 March 2015, para. 435; MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Award, 25 May 2004, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, para.109.
IV. Denial of fairness in governmental procedures
Fairness in governmental procedures requires host States to act transparently,20 and free from coercion,21 inconsistency,22 and even handedness23 (see also Legitimate Expectations in FET).24
Cervin Investissements S.A. and Rhone Investissements S.A. v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/2, Award, 7 March 2017, para. 466; Corona Materials v. Dominican Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/14/3, Award on the Respondent's Expedited Preliminary Objections in Accordance with Article 10.20.5 of the DR-CAFTA, 31 May 2016, para. 248.
Adede, A.O., A Fresh Look at the Meaning of the Doctrine of Denial of Justice Under International Law, Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire Canadien de Droit International,1977, pp. 73-95.
Freeman, A.V., The International Responsibility of States for Denial of Justice, 1938.
Laird, I.A., Betrayal, Shock and Outrage-Recent Developments in NAFTA Article 1105, Asper Review of International Business and Trade Law, 2003, p. 185.
Paparinskis, M., The International Minimum Standard and Fair and Equitable Treatment, 2013.
Paulsson, J., Denial of Justice in International Law, 2005.
Tudor, I., The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in the International Law of Foreign Investment, 2008.
Schill. S., Fair and Equitable Treatment, the Rule of Law, and Comparative Public Law, in Schill, S. (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law, 2010.
Schreuer, C., and Dolzer, R., Principles of International Investment Law, 2008.
Weiler, T., Good Faith and Regulatory Transparency: The Story of Metalclad v. Mexico, in Weiler, T. (ed.), International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law, 2005.