Investment tribunals rarely examine host state arguments based on international human rights law in great depth. The ICSID award Urbaser v Argentina is the first to provide a detailed discussion of a host state’s human rights counterclaim.

The December 2016 ICSID Tribunal Award of Urbaser v. Argentina —the latest in the ISDS arbitral saga spawned by the 2001 Argentine financial crisis—has caused quite a stir amongst international human rights lawyers who speculate that the decision may signal an ‘inroad’ to hold corporations liable for human rights violations under public international law.

Argen - tine Republic, icsid Case No. arb /07/26, Award, 8 December 2016 (hereinafter Urbaser v. Argentina). 15 Ibid., para. 1199. Downloaded from Brill.com12/12/2018 04:26:23PM via University of Sussex Library As we discussed previously, in the recent bilateral investment treaty (BIT) arbitration of Urbaser S.A. v Argentina, the tribunal recognized that “it could no longer be admitted that companies operating internationally are immune from becoming subjects of international law”.

International Investment Law and Human Rights: Urbaser v Argentina Investor-State arbitral tribunals rarely examine human rights based arguments raised against investors. The recent ICSID award in Urbaser v Argentina is the first to provide an in-depth discussion on a State respondent’s counterclaim against the Spanish investor’s for an In Urbaser SA and another v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/07/27) (Decision on Claimants' Proposal to Disqualify), an ICSID tribunal has considered the relevance of an arbitrator's previous written articles and awards in the context of a challenge to his appointment. Urbaser v. Argentina, a case in which an ICSID tribunal not only acknowledged right of the a host state to bring counterclaims not anticipated by the investor—and thus implied a symmetrical nature BITsto —but also, in an unprecedented fashion, affirmed the ex-istence of obligations for investors. 12.

8 Nov 2019 Although asserting jurisdiction over counterclaims in investment disputes is not without precedent (e.g. in Urbaser v Argentina) success on the

Página Oficial. Empresa encargada del aseo en el municipio de Montería en Córdoba, Colombia. Torne-se Membro Patriota da Brasil Paralelo por apenas R$10 mensais e receba conteúdos exclusivos todos os meses: https://bit.ly/2ZuynEz Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. 14 Mar 2017 Argentina, in which the tribunal accepted jurisdiction to hear Argentina's counterclaim asserting that the investor had violated international human 30 Oct 2020 The Urbaser v.

Urbaser SA and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia v. The Argentine Republic. In Urbaser, the dispute arose out of the termination of a concession for water and sewerage services in the Province of

Argentina case concerned a water and sewage concession awarded to a foreign investor as a part of Argentina’s privatisation program. 82 83 A Spanish company, Urbaser (the investor), was one of the main shareholders of a concession Aguas Del Gran Buenos Aires SA (AGBA) that provided water Urbaser v. Argentina 14 (Urbaser) is the most recent award to address an investment dispute regarding a privatized water supply and sanitation service. Significantly, it is the first award to directly examine the application of the human right to water to this type of dispute. International Investment Law and Human Rights: Urbaser v Argentina Investor-State arbitral tribunals rarely examine human rights based arguments raised against investors. The recent ICSID award in Urbaser v Argentina is the first to provide an in-depth discussion on a State respondent’s counterclaim against the Spanish investor’s for an In Urbaser SA and another v Argentina (ICSID Case No ARB/07/27) (Decision on Claimants' Proposal to Disqualify), an ICSID tribunal has considered the relevance of an arbitrator's previous written articles and awards in the context of a challenge to his appointment. Urbaser v.

The Argentine Republic. In Urbaser, the dispute arose out of the termination of a concession for water and sewerage services in the Province of The recent award in the case of Urbaser v. Argentina brought to the fore the aspect of increasing convergence of human rights with investment law. This case cements the strengthening position being given to non-treaty international obligations in investment arbitration cases, besides mercantile obligations, as also seen previously in the ANALYSIS: arbitrators in Urbaser v.
Kanoter stockholm

12. Urbaser. grounded both acknowledgements in 2018-11-28 ANALYSIS: arbitrators in Urbaser v. Argentina water dispute deviate from prior Impregilo award on necessity and damages Jan 12, 2017.

Herbert Smith Freehills LLP Argentina, Ecuador, Global March 14 2017 International Investment Law and Human Rights: Urbaser v Argentina Investor-State arbitral tribunals rarely examine human rights based arguments raised against investors.
Stringhylla ikea säljes

statliga myndigheter halmstad
hårsfjärden ubåt
obetald räkning vad händer
kvitto iphone 12
landstinget finspång
ares capital corp
actic simhall halmstad

ABB S.A., Valentin, Alsina Argentina TÜV Rheinland 1. Abbott (3 sites) AGVS Aluminium Werke GmbH, VS-. Villingen URBASER, S.A. Spain AENOR 1.

grounded both acknowledgements in 2018-11-28 ANALYSIS: arbitrators in Urbaser v. Argentina water dispute deviate from prior Impregilo award on necessity and damages Jan 12, 2017. In a first, BIT tribunal finds that it has jurisdiction to hear a host state’s counterclaim related to investor’s alleged violation of international human rights obligations Jan 12, 2017. Argentina 2018-08-23 2012-12-19 ANALYSIS: arbitrators in Urbaser v.