Source: https://oxia.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:iic/543-2012.case.1/law-iic-543-2012
Timestamp: 2019-10-15 16:07:13
Document Index: 123936081

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'art 7']

Investment Claims: Pac Rim Cayman Limited Liability Company v El Salvador, Decision on the respondent’s jurisdictional objections, ICSID Case No ARB/09/12, IIC 543 (2012), 1st June 2012, United Nations [UN]; World Bank; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]
Pac Rim Cayman Limited Liability Company v El Salvador, Decision on the respondent’s jurisdictional objections, ICSID Case No ARB/09/12, IIC 543 (2012), 1st June 2012, United Nations [UN]; World Bank; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]
List of Selected Legal Materials
Salvadoran Laws:
Decisions, Awards and Judgments:
Part 1: The Arbitration
A: The Parties
B: The Dispute
C: The Tribunal’s Decision of 2 August 2010
D: The Respondent’s Jurisdictional Objections
Procedural Orders:
Jurisdiction Memorials:
Post-Hearing Submissions:
E: Non-Disputing Party Written Submissions
F: Amicus Curiae
G: The Parties’ Claims for Relief as regards Jurisdiction
The Tribunal’s Request to the Parties:
H: The Jurisdictional Issues
Annex to Part 1: The Relevant Legal Texts
(01) The Investment Law
(02) CAFTA
(03) The ICSID Convention
(04) The ICSID Arbitration Rules
(5) ILC Articles on State Responsibility
Part 2: Issue A — Abuse of Process
(02) The Burden and Standard of Proof
(03) The Respondent’s Case
(04) The Claimant’s Case
(05) The CAFTA Member States
(06) Amicus Curiae Submission
(07) The Tribunal’s Analysis
The Relevant Measure(s) or Practice:
(i) One-Time Act:
(ii) Continuous Act:
(iii) Composite Act:
Application to this Case:
The Respondent’s Submission:
The Claimant’s Submission:
One-Time Acts:
Composite Act:
Continuous Act:
Ratione Temporis:
(08) Decisions
Part 3: Issue B — Ratione Temporis
(02) The Respondent’s Case
(03) The Claimant’s Case
(04) The Tribunal’s Analysis and Decisions
(ii) The Second Question:
(iii) The Third Question:
Part 4: Issue C — Denial of Benefits
(i) Substantial Business Activities:
(ii) Ownership/Control:
(iii) Timeliness:
(04) Non-Disputing Parties’ Submissions
(05) Amicus Curiae
Introductory Matters:
(06) The Tribunal’s Analysis and Decisions
Part 5: Issue D — Investment Law
(04) The Tribunal´s Analysis and Decisions
Part 6: Issue E — Legal and Arbitration Costs
(02) The Claimant’s Claim
(03) The Respondent’s Response
(04) The Respondent’s Claim
(05) The Claimant’s Response
Part 7: The Operative Part
ICSID Case No ARB/09/12 (Official Case No)
IIC 543 (2012) (OUP reference)
From: Investment Claims (http://oxia.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. date: 15 October 2019
To what extent the denial of benefits clause in Article 10(12)(2) of the DR-CAFTA was applicable as a barrier to jurisdiction for a Nevada (United States) based subsidiary of a Canadian mining company.
Whether there was an abuse of process for filing arbitration for a dispute that had already begun before a change of nationality in December 2007.