Source: https://jusmundi.com/en/document/wiki/en-allocation-of-costs
Timestamp: 2020-07-13 20:08:36
Document Index: 309064985

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 40', 'Art. 38', 'Art. 28', 'Art. 61', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 52', 'Art. 28', 'Art. 42', 'Art. 42', 'Art. 33', 'Art. 33', 'Art. 34', 'Art. 38', 'Art. 34', 'Art. 49', 'Art. 28', 'Art. 33', 'Art. 38', 'Art. 28', 'Art. 49', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 64']

Mr Steven Finizio
Partner - Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
Mr Cem Kalelioğlu
Associate - Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
I. Definition of costs
II. Sources of the arbitral tribunal's authority to allocate costs
III. Cost allocation standards in international arbitration
IV. Approaches to cost allocation in reported investment arbitration cases
V. Cost allocation procedures in investment arbitration
Costs in investment arbitration (or investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS)), and more generally in international arbitration, are usually divided into two categories: arbitration costs (e.g., administrative costs including fees paid to an arbitral institution, tribunal fees and expenses, etc.), and the parties’ legal costs (e.g., counsel fees, expenses relating to witnesses, expert fees, translation costs, travel and accommodation costs, etc.).1 These costs can be significant,2 but are separate from monetary claims for reparation or damages.
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, 2013, Art. 40(2); ICC Rules of Arbitration, 1 March 2017, Art. 38; LCIA Arbitration Rules, 1 October 2014, Art. 28; SCC Arbitration Rules, 1 January 2017, Arts. 49-50; SIAC Rules, 1 August 2016, Rules 35-37; Miles, W.J., Costs Allocation in Investor-State Arbitration, International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation, and Dispute Management, 2014, pp. 413-431, p. 414; Gotanda, J.Y., Awarding Costs and Attorneys’ Fees in International Commercial Arbitrations, Michigan Journal of International Law, 1999, pp. 1-50, p. 9.
Finizio, S.P., and Galvin, R., Allocation of Costs in International Arbitration: A Comparative Analysis of Approaches in International Commercial Arbitration and Investment Treaty Arbitration, in Tung, S., and Others (eds.), Finances in International Arbitration: Liber Amicorum Patricia Shaughnessy, 2019, pp. 136-187.
An arbitral tribunal’s authority to allocate costs can be addressed in the applicable law, agreements of the parties, and applicable rules of arbitration.
In some investment arbitrations not taking place under the ICSID Convention, the parties may agree to a procedural law to govern the arbitration or the procedural law of the place of arbitration may apply. Although some procedural laws address the question of cost allocation, many do not do so. Some arbitration laws are simply silent on cost allocation. For example, the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Arbitration, which has been adopted by or is the basis for arbitration legislation in a number of jurisdictions, does not address the issue of costs (except with regard to orders for interim measures and preliminary orders). Other procedural laws refer to cost allocation, but provide no standard for allocating costs.3 Other laws start with a presumption as to how costs should be allocated, but many of those also provide that the tribunal has the discretion to allocate costs as it considers appropriate under the circumstances.4 Moreover, most such laws are not mandatory and provide that the parties can agree to another approach.5 With respect to arbitrations subject to the ICSID Convention, the Convention does not provide a default standard, and states that the tribunal has discretion to allocate costs as it deems appropriate.6
Cost allocation may also be addressed in the parties’ agreement. In investment arbitration, the arbitration agreement between the parties is usually found in an investment treaty, in the form of an offer to arbitrate by the host State that is then accepted by the foreign investor when it initiates the arbitration, or in an investment contract.7 (See Arbitration clause, Arbitration contract). Most investment treaties are either silent on costs8 or provide that the tribunal has the discretion to take a different approach than that provided.9 Parties may also address cost allocation in a separate agreement, and such agreement may be evidenced in, inter alia, procedural orders, terms of reference, or in settlement agreements.10
The parties may also have addressed the tribunal’s authority to allocate costs by agreeing to rules to govern the arbitration. Many arbitration rules provide a default rule or standard for allocating costs, but those rules also usually provide that the tribunal has discretion to allocate costs based on the circumstances of the case.11 Other rules simply provide that the tribunal may allocate costs as appropriate under the circumstances without referring to standard.12 The ICSID Rules do not provide a default rule or standard, but provide the tribunal discretion to allocate costs as it deems appropriate.13 A number of rules also provide that the tribunal can consider party conduct in deciding on cost allocation.14 The proposed revisions to the ICSID Rules expressly provide that the tribunal consider the parties’ conduct when allocating costs.15
Swiss Federal Statute on Private International, Ch. 12; Mr. Jürgen Wirtgen, Mr. Stefan Wirtgen, and JSW Solar (zwei) GmbH & Co.KG v. Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2014-03, Final Award, 11 October 2017, para. 478.
English Arbitration Act 1996, 17 June 1996, S. 61(2); Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance, 2019, S. 74(3); German Code of Civil Procedure, 10 October 2013, S. 1057(1).
English Arbitration Act 1996, 17 June 1996, S. 61(1); Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance, 2019, SS. 74(8)-(9); German Code of Civil Procedure, 10 October 2013, S. 1057(1).
Convention on the settlement of investment disputes between states and nationals of other states, 18 March 1965, 14 October 1966, Art. 61(2); Italba Corporation v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/9, Award, 22 March 2019, para. 295; Saba Fakes v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20 , Award, 14 July 2010, para. 152; Víctor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2, Award, 8 May 2008, para. 726.
Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe Anonyme S.A. v. Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/24, Award, 30 March 2015, para. 835.
Rusoro Mining Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/5, Award, 22 August 2016, para. 864.
Treaty between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic Concerning the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, 2 October 1990, 2 August 1992, Art. 9(5); Mr. Jürgen Wirtgen, Mr. Stefan Wirtgen, and JSW Solar (zwei) GmbH & Co.KG v. Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2014-03, Final Award, 11 October 2017, para. 477; Finizio, S.P., and Galvin, R., Allocation of Costs in International Arbitration: A Comparative Analysis of Approaches in International Commercial Arbitration and Investment Treaty Arbitration, in Tung, S., and Others (eds.), Finances in International Arbitration: Liber Amicorum Patricia Shaughnessy, 2019, p. 126.
EVN AG v. Macedonia, former Yugoslav Republic of, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/10, Award embodying the parties' settlement agreement, 2 September 2011, para. 16; Miles, W.J., Costs Allocation in Investor-State Arbitration, International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation, and Dispute Management, 2014, pp. 413-431, p. 431.
CIETAC Arbitration Rules, 1 January 2015, Art. 52(2); LCIA Arbitration Rules, 1 October 2014, Art. 28(4); PCA Arbitration Rules, 17 December 2012, Art. 42(1); UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, 2013, Art. 42(1).
DIS Arbitration Rules, 1 March 2018, Art. 33(3); HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules, 1 November 2013, Art. 33.2; HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules, 1 November 2018, Art. 34.3; ICC Rules of Arbitration, 1 March 2017, Art. 38(4); ICDR International Arbitration Rules, 1 June 2014, Art. 34; SCC Arbitration Rules, 1 January 2017, Art. 49(6); SIAC Rules, 1 August 2016, Rule 37.
ICSID Convention Arbitration Rules, 10 April 2006, Art. 28(1).
DIS Arbitration Rules, 1 March 2018, Art. 33(3); ICC Rules of Arbitration, 1 March 2017, Art. 38(5); LCIA Arbitration Rules, 1 October 2014, Art. 28(4); SCC Arbitration Rules, 2017 Schedule of Costs applicable to arbitrations commenced on 1 January 2020 or after, Art. 49(6); International Bar Association Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, 29 May 2010, Art. 9(7).
ICSID, Proposal for Amendment of the ICSID Rules, February 2020, Rule 52(1).
As discussed above, under the applicable law and rules, arbitral tribunals generally have broad discretion when deciding on cost allocation. Two broad approaches to cost allocation are often identified in international arbitration: (a) the “loser pays” or “costs follow the event” approach (sometimes known as the “English Rule”), under which the losing party compensates the prevailing party for the costs it has incurred, and (b) the “bear your own costs” or “pay your own way” approach (sometimes known as the “American Rule”), under which each party bears its own legal costs and its proportional share of the arbitration costs.16 In practice, however, tribunals often use their discretion and allocate costs as they deem appropriate taking into consideration factors such as, inter alia, relative success on all the issues presented (rather than whether one party prevailed overall), party conduct, and whether the proceedings were conducted in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Tribunals may also take a different approach depending on the nature of the costs—e.g., treating legal costs differently from administrative costs.
In international commercial arbitration, tribunals often start with a “costs follow the event” approach, but adjust the allocation based on the circumstances.17 In contrast, as discussed below, in investment treaty arbitration, many tribunals have historically required the parties to bear their own costs, although, in recent cases, an increasing number of tribunals have taken the approach of allocating costs between the parties.18
Finizio, S.P., and Galvin, R., Allocation of Costs in International Arbitration: A Comparative Analysis of Approaches in International Commercial Arbitration and Investment Treaty Arbitration, in Tung, S., and Others (eds.), Finances in International Arbitration: Liber Amicorum Patricia Shaughnessy, 2019, pp. 115-188, pp. 117-118; Miles, W.J., Costs Allocation in Investor-State Arbitration, International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation, and Dispute Management, 2014, pp. 413-431, p. 414; Franck, S., Rationalizing Costs in Investment Treaty Arbitration, Washington University Law Review, 2011, pp. 769-852, pp. 791-795.
ICC, ICC Commission Report: Decisions on Costs in International Arbitration, ICC Dispute Resolution Bulletin, 2015, pp. 4-5; Salinas Quero, C. E., Costs of Arbitration and Apportionment of Costs under the SCC Rules, The Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce 2016; Finizio, S.P., and Galvin, R., Allocation of Costs in International Arbitration: A Comparative Analysis of Approaches in International Commercial Arbitration and Investment Treaty Arbitration, in Tung, S., and Others (eds.), Finances in International Arbitration: Liber Amicorum Patricia Shaughnessy, 2019, pp. 115-188, p. 124.
Franck, S.D., Rationalizing Costs in Investment Treaty Arbitration, Washington University Law Review, 2011, pp. 769-852, p. 777.
Many investment arbitration awards do not explain in any detail how the tribunal reached its conclusion on costs,19 and there has not been a consistent approach to cost allocation in investment arbitration.20 Historically, many tribunals have required parties to bear their own costs21 (except in some cases where the conduct of a party has caused an increase in costs),22 although that approach has not been uniform, and it is increasingly common for tribunals to allocate costs. Ordering parties to bear their own costs is similar to the approach in interstate disputes,23 which is often justified on the basis of comity. Taking this approach in investment treaty cases is sometimes justified as a comity measure intended to avoid straining relations between states,24 or as a concern about the potential economic impact of adverse cost orders on states or smaller investors.25
The number of tribunals that have allocated costs in investment arbitration has increased significantly in recent cases,26 with several tribunals describing this as the “emerging trend” in investment arbitration.27 Taking this approach in investment arbitration is sometimes justified as necessary to indemnify the successful party, to ensure that a party that has suffered loss and has had to litigate to obtain compensation is made whole,28 and to protect States against frivolous claims and investors against frivolous defences.29
In many of the investment cases in which the tribunal has allocated costs, the tribunal has applied the “costs follow the event” principle as a starting point and adjusted the allocation by taking into account factors such as the relative success of the parties (looking at all the issues raised during the case), reasonableness of the parties’ positions, the complexity and novelty of the issues, the reasonableness of the costs claimed by the successful party, and the parties’ conduct.30 In a majority of investment arbitration awards issued between 2015 and 2019 in which the tribunal allocated costs, the cost award was in favor of the respondent State.31
Finizio, S.P., and Galvin, R., Allocation of Costs in International Arbitration: A Comparative Analysis of Approaches in International Commercial Arbitration and Investment Treaty Arbitration, in Tung, S., and Others (eds.), Finances in International Arbitration: Liber Amicorum Patricia Shaughnessy, 2019, pp. 115-188, p. 116.
Guardian Fiduciary Trust, Ltd, f/k/a Capital Conservator Savings & Loan, Ltd v. Macedonia, former Yugoslav Republic of, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/31 , Award, 22 September 2015, para. 149; Stadtwerke München GmbH and others v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/1, Award, 2 December 2019, para. 398.
M.C.I. Power Group, L.C. and New Turbine, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/6 , Award, 31 July 2007, para. 372; Alasdair Ross Anderson and others v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/3, Award, 19 May 2010, para. 62; Belenergia S.A. v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/40, Award, 6 August 2019, para. 647; Anglo American PLC v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/14/1, Award, 18 January 2019, paras. 555-560; Cengiz İnşaat Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S v. Libya, ICC Case No. 21537/ZF/AYZ, Award, 7 November 2018, paras. 658-665; Masdar Solar & Wind Cooperatief U.A. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/1, Award, 16 May 2018, paras. 694-696; Fábrica de Vidrios Los Andes, C.A. and Owens-Illinois de Venezuela, C.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/21, Award, 13 November 2017, para. 320; Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.à r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36, Award, 4 May 2017, paras. 484-485; Supervision y Control S.A. v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/4, Award, 18 January 2017, para. 357; Blusun S.A., Jean-Pierre Lecorcier and Michael Stein v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/3, Award, 27 December 2016, para. 418; Corona Materials, LLC 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. 279; Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/11/2, Award, 4 April 2016, para. 960; Tenaris S.A. and Talta - Trading e Marketing Sociedade Unipessoal Lda v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/11/26, Award, 29 January 2016, paras. 623-625; Joseph Houben v. Republic of Burundi, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7, Award, 12 January 2016, para. 259; Gambrinus, Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/31 , Award, 15 June 2015, paras. 284-285; Accession Mezzanine Capital L.P. and Danubius Kereskedöház Vagyonkezelö Zrt. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/3, Award, 17 April 2015 , paras. 200-202; Poštová banka, a.s. and Istrokapital SE v. Hellenic Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/8, Award, 9 April 2015, paras. 377-378; Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Vivendi Universal, S.A. (formerly Aguas Argentinas, S.A., Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Vivendi Universal, S.A.) v. Argentine Republic (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Award, 9 April 2015 , para. 115; Mobil Investments Canada Inc. and Murphy Oil Corporation v. Government of Canada (I), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/4, Award, 20 February 2015, paras. 176-177; Finizio, S.P., Galvin, R., Allocation of Costs in International Arbitration: A Comparative Analysis of Approaches in International Commercial Arbitration and Investment Treaty Arbitration, in Tung, S., Fortese, F., Baltag, C. (eds.), Finances in International Arbitration Liber Amicorum Patricia Shaughnessy, 2020, p. 128; Smith, D., Shifting Sands: Cost-and-Fee Allocation in International Investment Arbitration, 51 Virginia Journal of International Law, 2011, pp. 758-761.
LESI, S.p.A. and Astaldi, S.p.A. v. People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3, Award, 12 November 2008, para. 186; Alasdair Ross Anderson and others v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/3, Award, 19 May 2010, para. 62.
Statute of the International Court of Justice, Art. 64.
Stadtwerke München GmbH and others v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/1, Award, 2 December 2019, paras. 398-406; Perenco Ecuador Limited v. Republic of Ecuador (Petroecuador), ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6, Award, 27 September 2019, para. 990; ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V., ConocoPhillips Hamaca B.V. and ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/30, Award, 8 March 2019, paras. 988-1008; Glencore International A.G. and C.I. Prodeco S.A. v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/6, Award, 27 August 2019, paras. 1641-1644; NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. and NextEra Energy Spain Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/11, Award, 31 May 2019, paras. 31-32; WA Investments-Europa Nova Limited v. The Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2014-19, Award, 15 May 2019, paras. 721-726; Photovoltaik Knopf Betriebs-GmbH v. The Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2014-21, Award, 15 May 2019, paras. 624-639; Voltaic Network GmbH v. The Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2014-20, Award, 15 May 2019, paras. 640-645; I.C.W. Europe Investments Limited v. The Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2014-22, Award, 15 May 2019, paras. 674-679; Antin Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. and Antin Energia Termosolar B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/31, Award, 15 June 2018, paras. 744-745; Greentech Energy Systems A/S, NovEnergia II Energy & Environment (SCA) SICAR, and NovEnergia II Italian Portfolio SA v. The Italian Republic, SCC Case No. V 2015/095, Award, 23 December 2018, para. 593; Foresight Luxembourg Solar 1 S.À.R.L., et al. v. Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No. 2015/150, Final Award, 14 November 2018 , paras. 560-561; Cortec Mining Kenya Limited, Cortec (Pty) Limited and Stirling Capital Limited v. Republic of Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/29, Final Award, 22 October 2018, paras. 388-389; UP and C.D Holding Internationale v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/35, Award, 9 October 2018, Award, 9 October 2018, paras. 613-616; A11Y LTD. v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. UNCT/15/1, Award, 29 June 2018, paras. 246-248; Georg Gavrilovic and Gavrilovic d.o.o. v. Republic of Croatia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/39, Award, 26 July 2018, para. 1316; Unión Fenosa Gas, S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/4, Award, 31 August 2018, paras. 12.15-12.16; Finizio, S.P., Galvin, R., Allocation of Costs in International Arbitration: A Comparative Analysis of Approaches in International Commercial Arbitration and Investment Treaty Arbitration, in Tung, S., Fortese, F., Baltag, C. (eds.), Finances in International Arbitration Liber Amicorum Patricia Shaughnessy, 2020, pp. 133-187.
Finizio, S.P., Galvin, R., Allocation of Costs in International Arbitration: A Comparative Analysis of Approaches in International Commercial Arbitration and Investment Treaty Arbitration, in Tung, S., Fortese, F., Baltag, C. (eds.), Finances in International Arbitration Liber Amicorum Patricia Shaughnessy, 2020, pp. 133-187; Georg Gavrilovic and Gavrilovic d.o.o. v. Republic of Croatia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/39, Award, 26 July 2018, para. 1316; Blue Bank International & Trust (Barbados) Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/20, Award, 26 April 2017, paras. 207-208; Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25, Award (Excerpts), 18 April 2017, para. 311; Hassan Awdi, Enterprise Business Consultants, Inc. and Alfa El Corporation v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/13, Award, 2 March 2015, para. 529; Adel A Hamadi Al Tamimi v. Sultanate of Oman, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/33, Award, 3 November 2015, para. 473; EDF (Services) Limited v. Republic of Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13 , Award, 8 October 2009, paras. 322-327; Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.à r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36, Award, 4 May 2017, para. 484.
Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3, Award, 20 May 1992, para. 207; Gemplus, S.A., SLP, S.A., and Gemplus Industrial S.A. de C.V. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/04/3, Award, 16 June 2010, para. 17.21.
Fouad Alghanim & Sons Co. for General Trading & Contracting, W.L.L. and Mr. Fouad Mohammed Thunyan Alghanim v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/38, Award, 14 December 2017, para. 514; Bear Creek Mining Corporation v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/21, Award, 30 November 2017, paras. 730-734; Koch Minerals Sàrl and Koch Nitrogen International Sàrl v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/19, Award, 30 October 2017, paras. 11.23-11.25; Eli Lilly and Company v. Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2, Final Award, 16 March 2017, paras. 455-456; Anglia Auto Accessories Limited v. The Czech Republic, SCC Case No. 2014/181, Final Award, 10 March 2017, paras. 318-319; J.P. Busta and I.P. Busta v. The Czech Republic, SCC Case No. 2015/014, Final Award, 10 March 2017, paras. 453-456; Ansung Housing Co., Ltd. v. People's Republic of China, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/25, Award, 9 March 2017, paras. 159-163; Rosell, J., Arbitration Costs as Relief and/or Damages, 28(2) Journal of International Arbitration, 2011, pp. 118-121.
Finizio, S.P., Galvin, R., Allocation of Costs in International Arbitration: A Comparative Analysis of Approaches in International Commercial Arbitration and Investment Treaty Arbitration, in Tung, S., Fortese, F., Baltag, C. (eds.), Finances in International Arbitration Liber Amicorum Patricia Shaughnessy, 2020, p. 134.
Procedures for addressing cost allocation can vary greatly. The more common practice is for costs to be addressed either after the completion of a phase of the case (e.g., in a bifurcated proceeding, after a decision on jurisdiction) or at the end of the case. However, parties in some cases may seek payment of their costs after each decision or event (e.g., after an application for interim measures or a disclosure decision), Tribunals may address costs in the form of an order or a partial award, although tribunals in investment treaty cases most often address costs in the final award.32
Approaches to issues of the burden of proof, as well as the form of submissions and the level and type of proof required in costs submission can vary widely and may be addressed through party agreement during the proceedings. In practice, parties often agree or the tribunal may decide that costs do not need to be fully substantiated.33
Wehrli, D., Contingency Fees/Pactum de Talnario “Civil Law Approach,” 26(2) ASA Bulletin, 2008, p. 254.
Abdel Wahab, M.S., Costs in International Arbitration: Navigating Through the Devil’s Sea, in Kalicki, J.E., and Abdel Raouf, M. (eds.), Evolution and Adaptation: The Future of International Arbitration, 2019, pp. 465-503.
Ben Hamida, W., Cost Issue in Investor-State Arbitration Decisions Rendered Against the Investor: A Synthetic Table, Transnational Dispute Management, 2005.
Bermann, G.A., Costs Allocation in International Arbitration: What Normative Source, If Any?, in Tung S., and Others (eds.), Finances in International Arbitration: Liber Amicorum Patricia Shaughnessy, 2019, pp. 27-34.
Bondar, K., Allocation of Costs in Investor-State and Commercial Arbitration: Towards a Harmonized Approach, Arbitration International, 2016, pp. 45-58.
Born, G., International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements: Drafting and Enforcing, 5th ed., 2016.
Born G., International Commercial Arbitration, 2nd ed., 2014.
Bradfield, M., and Verdirame, G., Costs in Investment Treaty Arbitration, in Giorgetti, C. (ed.), Litigating International Disputes, 2014, pp. 411-434.
Brown de Vejar, K., and Baldwin, C., The Economics of Access: Systemic Imbalances in ISDS, in Kalicki, J.E., and Abdel Raouf, M. (eds.), Evolution and Adaptation: The Future of International Arbitration, 2019, pp. 520-557.
Bühler, W., Costs, in Trenor, J.A. (ed.), Global Arbitration Review: The Guide to Damages in International Arbitration, 2016, p. 253.
Schreuer, C., The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, 2nd ed., 2009.
Donovan, D.F., Allocation of Costs, in Kinnear, M., and Others (eds.), Building International Investment Law: The First 50 Years of ICSID, 2015, pp. 555-566.
Finizio, S.P., and Galvin, R., Allocation of Costs in International Arbitration: A Comparative Analysis of Approaches in International Commercial Arbitration and Investment Treaty Arbitration, in Tung S., and Others (eds.), Finances in International Arbitration: Liber Amicorum Patricia Shaughnessy, 2019, pp. 115-188.
Flecke-Giammarco, G., The Allocation of Costs by Arbitral Tribunals in International Commercial Arbitration, in Huerta-Goldman, J.A., and Others (eds.), WTO Litigation, Investment Arbitration, and Commercial Arbitration, 2013, pp. 389-420.
Franck, S.D., Arbitration Costs: Myths and Realities in Investment Treaty Arbitration, 2019.
Franck, S.D., Rationalizing Costs in Investment Treaty Arbitration, Washington University Law Review, 2011, pp. 769-852.
Gotanda, J.Y., Awarding Costs and Attorneys’ Fees in International Commercial Arbitrations, Michigan Journal of International Law, 1999, pp. 1-50.
Hodgson, M., Costs in Investment Treaty Arbitration: The Case for Reform, Transnational Dispute Management, 2014, pp. 1-9.
Hodgson, M., Counting the Costs of Investment Treaty Arbitration, Global Arbitration Review, 2014.
Hodgson, M., and Evans, E., Allocation of Costs in ICSID Arbitration, in Baltag, C. (ed.), ICSID Convention after 50 Years: Unsettled Issues, 2017, pp. 453-480.
Kotick, B., Flying too Close to the Sun: Alternatives to the “Costs Follow the Event” Approach in Investor-State Arbitration, in Laird, A., and Weiler, T. (eds.), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law, Vol. 13 (forthcoming).
Miles,W.J., Costs Allocation in Investor-State Arbitration, International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation, and Dispute Management, 2014, pp. 413-431.
Power, J., Investment Arbitration – Determination of Costs in ICSID Arbitration, in Zeiler, G., and Others (eds.), Austrian Yearbook on International Arbitration, 2010, pp. 337-352.
Reed, L., and Others, Guide to ICSID Arbitration, 2nd ed., 2010.
Reed, L., Allocation of Costs in International Arbitration, ICSID Review: Foreign Investment Law Journal, 2011, pp. 76-87.
Rosell, J., Arbitration Costs as Relief and/or Damages, Journal of International Arbitration, 2011, pp. 115-126.
Smith, D., Shifting Stands: Cost-and-Fee Allocation in International Investment Arbitration, Virginia Journal of International Law, 2011, pp. 749-784.
Waincymer, J., Procedure and Evidence in International Arbitration, 2012.
Wehrli, D., Contingency Fees/Pactum De Palmerio “Civil Law Approach”, ASA Bulletin, 2008, pp. 241-258.