MEMO CLAIMANT - ALVAREZ - FDI Moot

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AES Corporation v. Argentine Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/17 Aguas del Tunari, S.A. v. Bolivia, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3 Amco v. Republic of Indonesia, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1 Amco v. Republic of Indonesia, Decision on request for provisional measures of 9 December 1983, (ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1), ICSID Reports, 1993. Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/81/1 American International Group v. Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 93-2-3, 4 Iran-U.S. CTR 96 (1983) Amoco International Finance Corp. v. Iran, Award, 14 July 1987, 15 Iran-U.S. CTR 189 AMT v. Zaire, Award and Separate Opinion, ICSID Case No ARB/93/1 Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep. 1988 34 Azurix Corporation v. Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/01/12 Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd v. Ghana Investments Centre and Ghana, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 27 October 1989 Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, Procedural Order No. 3, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22 Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22 Burlington v. Ecuador, Procedural Order No, 1 of 29 June 2009, ICSID Case. No. ARB/08/05 Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka AS v. Slovakia, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/97/4 City Oriente v. Ecuador, Decision on provisional measures of 19 November 2007, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/21 CME Czech Republic BV v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 13 September 2001 CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/01/8 CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentina, Decision on Application for Annulment, ICSID Case No ARB/01/8 Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France), Judgment, ICJ Rep. 177 (2008) Elettronica Sicula S.P.A. (ELSI), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1989 ix
EnCana Corporation v. Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRA, Award, LCIA Case No. UN3481, 3 February 2006 Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, LP v. Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/01/3 Eureko v. Poland, UNCITRAL, Partial Award on Liability, 19 August 2005 Factory at Chorzow, Jurisdiction, Judgment, PCIJ 1927, Series A, No. 9 Feldman Karpa v. Mexico, Award and separate opinion, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/99/1 Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Philippines, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/03/25 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, ICJ Rep 7 (1997) Genin and others v. Estonia, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/99/2 Giovanna Beccara and Others v. Argentine Republic, Procedural Order No. 3, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5 Inceysa Vallisoletane, SL v. El Salvador, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/03/26 Interhandel Case (Switzerland v. United States), Judgement of March 21 st , 1959: I.C.J. Reports 1959 Israel Security Wall - Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep. 136 (2004) Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH and others v. Cameroon and Société Camerounaise des Engrais, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/2 Lauder v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 3 September 2001 Consorzio Groupement LESI and ASTALDI v. Algeria, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/05/3 LG&E Energy Corp and others v. Argentina, Decision on Liability, ICSID Case No ARB 02/1 Loewen Group Inc and Loewen v. United States, Award, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/98/3 Mafezzini v. Spain, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7 Maffezzini v. Spain, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID, 25 January 2000 Metalclad Corp v. Mexico, Award, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/97/1 Methanex v. United States, NAFTA, Amicus Curiae Decision on 3 August 2005. x
Page 1 and 2: ALVAREZ INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF CO
Page 3 and 4: 2. The purpose of the “umbrella c
Page 5 and 6: a. Expropriating Claimant was not f
Page 7 and 8: LIST OF AUTHORITIES BOOKS ALVAREZ,
Page 9: NAFTA Free Trade Commission, Notes
Page 13 and 14: Sempra Energy International v. Arge
Page 15 and 16: STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. Claimant is a
Page 17 and 18: 15. The facts of the case do not gi
Page 19 and 20: 24. In the light of the above, stat
Page 21 and 22: 32. BIT, Art. 11(3)(b) stipulates t
Page 23 and 24: creating the treaty norms of intern
Page 25 and 26: and treaty rights protected. The cl
Page 27 and 28: itself does not contain the definit
Page 29 and 30: MERITS B. NPCS’ ACTIONS ARE ATTRI
Page 31 and 32: activities. Only leaking wells were
Page 33 and 34: 82. Alternatively, these acts shall
Page 35 and 36: of CSE‟s actions) and thus contri
Page 37 and 38: stand against the very idea of the
Page 39 and 40: „to provide to international inve
Page 41 and 42: 116. This contractual content was m
Page 43 and 44: II. RESPONDENT DID NOT ACCORD CLAIM
Page 45 and 46: 135. In the circumstances of the pr
Page 47 and 48: 144. Additionally, since expropriat
Page 49 and 50: 153. Whereas Claimant concedes that
Page 51 and 52: 163. Respondent might submit that C
Page 53 and 54: actions beyond the bare minimum nec
Page 55 and 56: Art. 33 that the infringed rights
Page 57 and 58: 188. In addition to the outlined me
Page 59 and 60: 197. Respondent was not entitled to
Page 61 and 62:
public body. 215 This body had carr
show all

MEMO CLAIMANT - ALVAREZ - FDI Moot

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?