POPULARITY
6 episodes with icsid
5 episodes with icsid
2 episodes with icsid
2 episodes with icsid
3 episodes with icsid
2 episodes with icsid
2 episodes with icsid
Lecture summary: This lecture will explore the parameters of State immunity at the international level and as reflected in different national legal systems (including England & Wales, the United States and others). It will include an overview of foundational and more recent jurisprudence in international and domestic courts, and will give particular focus to select aspects of State immunity in the context of enforcement against State assets.Hussein Haeri KC is a Partner at Withers LLP in London and Head of the firm's Public International Law Group. He is a King's Counsel and was the only Solicitor Advocate to take Silk in 2024. Hussein has extensive experience as counsel and advocate on international dispute resolution matters for almost 20 years in London, Paris and New York, including before the ICJ, ITLOS, under ICSID and UNCITRAL arbitration rules and in national courts. He has been recognised for many years by the major legal directories including Chambers & Partners, which refers to him as an "outstanding lawyer", and Legal 500 which states that "he combines huge intellectual powers with great client handling".He is a Partner Fellow at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, a Senior Fellow at SOAS in London and has lectured at various other universities including the University of Oxford, Sciences Po in Paris and Roma Tre University in Rome.
Lecture summary: This lecture will explore the parameters of State immunity at the international level and as reflected in different national legal systems (including England & Wales, the United States and others). It will include an overview of foundational and more recent jurisprudence in international and domestic courts, and will give particular focus to select aspects of State immunity in the context of enforcement against State assets.Hussein Haeri KC is a Partner at Withers LLP in London and Head of the firm's Public International Law Group. He is a King's Counsel and was the only Solicitor Advocate to take Silk in 2024. Hussein has extensive experience as counsel and advocate on international dispute resolution matters for almost 20 years in London, Paris and New York, including before the ICJ, ITLOS, under ICSID and UNCITRAL arbitration rules and in national courts. He has been recognised for many years by the major legal directories including Chambers & Partners, which refers to him as an "outstanding lawyer", and Legal 500 which states that "he combines huge intellectual powers with great client handling".He is a Partner Fellow at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, a Senior Fellow at SOAS in London and has lectured at various other universities including the University of Oxford, Sciences Po in Paris and Roma Tre University in Rome.
Lecture summary: This lecture will explore the parameters of State immunity at the international level and as reflected in different national legal systems (including England & Wales, the United States and others). It will include an overview of foundational and more recent jurisprudence in international and domestic courts, and will give particular focus to select aspects of State immunity in the context of enforcement against State assets.Hussein Haeri KC is a Partner at Withers LLP in London and Head of the firm's Public International Law Group. He is a King's Counsel and was the only Solicitor Advocate to take Silk in 2024. Hussein has extensive experience as counsel and advocate on international dispute resolution matters for almost 20 years in London, Paris and New York, including before the ICJ, ITLOS, under ICSID and UNCITRAL arbitration rules and in national courts. He has been recognised for many years by the major legal directories including Chambers & Partners, which refers to him as an "outstanding lawyer", and Legal 500 which states that "he combines huge intellectual powers with great client handling".He is a Partner Fellow at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, a Senior Fellow at SOAS in London and has lectured at various other universities including the University of Oxford, Sciences Po in Paris and Roma Tre University in Rome.
Earl Rivera-Dolera is an accomplished arbitrator with extensive experience in Singapore, Vietnam and Japan. Earl shares her transition from a tribunal law clerk to becoming a prominent figure in international arbitration, the valuable lessons from her mentors, and her advice for those aspiring to enter the field. Arbitration is gathering steam in Japan so this episode is a wonderful fountain of knowledge of what it's like to work in this area of law. If you enjoyed this episode and it inspired you in some way, we'd love to hear about it and know your biggest takeaway. Head over to Apple Podcasts to leave a review and we'd love it if you would leave us a message here!In this episode you'll hear:How Earl's initial interest in detective stories led her into lawThe challenges and enriching experiences she faced moving from the Philippines to Singapore, Vietnam, and JapanThe intriguing cultural nuances in arbitration in different countriesThe blend of competence and confidence needed to succeed in the arbitration landscapeHer favourite podcast, book and other fun facts About EarlEarl is a Partner at Tokyo International Law Office specializing in dispute resolution (i.e. arbitration, litigation, mediation) and investigations. She represents clients or acts on matters in arbitrations across key hearing jurisdictions such as Japan, Singapore, London, Vietnam, and New York under major arbitral institutions like ICC, SIAC, HKIAC, LCIA, VIAC, KCAB, SCC, ICSID. Her expertise spans a wide spectrum of sectors including but not limited to traditional and renewable energy, commodities, cross-border sale of goods, and construction.Earl has served as arbitrator for cases seated in Japan, the Philippines, Singapore, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Indonesia, and India. She has served as sole arbitrator, chair of the tribunal, and party-nominated arbitrator. She is impaneled as an arbitrator or mediator at several institutions, including JCAA, KCAB, CAAI, AIAC, THAC, HKIAC, SIAC, and E-bram, and has been appointed under the ICC rules.Her experience includes working as a tribunal law clerk for leading international arbitrators in proceedings held globally, from Nigeria and London to France, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, the Republic of Korea, and the USA, under institutions like ICC, SIAC, LCIA, AIAC, AMTAC, VIAC, KCAB, SCMA, AAA-ICDR and ICSID. With involvement in more than 180 matters, her work in dispute resolution encompasses total claims exceeding US$8 billion. Earl has co-authored two editions of “Halsbury's Laws of Singapore: Arbitration” and authored the definitive guide, “Arbitration in Vietnam”. Her hobbies include: hiking, onsen-hopping (in Japan), reading true crime/ detective stories, piano-playing and singing.Connect with EarlLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/earldolera/ Website: https://www.tkilaw.com/en/members/earldolera LinksHuberman Lab: https://www.hubermanlab.com/ The Relentless Elimination of Hurry: https://amzn.asia/d/13b1obf Connect with Catherine Linked In https://www.linkedin.com/in/oconnellcatherine/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawyeronairYouTube: https://youtube.com/@lawyeronair
Sergey Alekhin is Partner at ELWI, specializing in international commercial and investment arbitration, with a focus on the post-Soviet region.Admitted to practice in France and Russia, he has represented clients before major arbitration centers like the ICC, ICSID, and LCIA, as well as in UNCITRAL-based ad hoc proceedings.Sergey also serves as an arbitrator and holds advanced degrees in law from Sciences Po, the University of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne, and the Russian Academy of State Service. Recognized as a "Future Leader" by Who's Who Legal, he frequently writes and speaks on arbitration topics. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.
This episode of the Private Company Strategies podcast is the first of our series, From Start-Up to Stand-Out. Hosts Adam Diederich, Berin S. Romagnolo, and Sara Rosenberg discuss the essential legal considerations for starting a business in the United States. They cover topics such as the importance of forming a legal entity, the various types of entities available, tax implications, the significance of ownership agreements, and the necessity of hiring professional support. The conversation also touches on the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and its requirements for new businesses.
Prof. Dr. hc. Hartmut Esslinger HonRDI Hartmut Esslinger war der erste Designer, der mensch-gerechtes High-Touch-Design in die Welt komplexer Hardware- und Softwaretechnologie brachte. 1969 gründete er als Student „esslinger design“ in seiner Heimat Deutschland und etablierte als Teil seiner Partnerschaft mit Steve Jobs 1982 „frog design“ in den U.S.A. – und dann zusammen mit seiner Partnerin und Ehefrau Patricia Roller auf alle fünf Kontinente. Hartmut ist Ehrendoktor der Parsons New School, New York und HonRDI (honorable Royal Designer for Industry) der Royal Society of Arts, London. Wichtige Kunden waren – und sind teilweise immer noch - Wega, Sony, Louis Vuitton (LHMH), KaVo Dental, hansgrohe, Apple, Microsoft, Hewlett Packard, NEC, Olympus, Samsung, Canon, General Electric, Lufthansa, Shimano, Yamaha, Honda, Toyota, Docomo, Motorola, Texas Instruments, Kodak , Polaroid, Disney und Disney Cruise Lines, Nike, Sky Networks, Unilever, Hilti, SAP… 2005 erwarb Flextronics die Mehrheit an frog design und 2008 kam KKR als Investor dazu. 2021 erwarb CAPGEMINI INVENT alle Aktien. Mt 35 Studios und mehr als 2500 kreativen Mitarbeitern und Mitarbeiterinnen weltweit ist frog die einflussreichste Design- Agentur. Seit 2018 Hartmut Mit-Gründer der „Esslinger Group“, einem Unternehmen für IoT-Produkte in Hong Kong, Shenzhen und Silicon Valley. Seit 1989 ist Hartmut auch als Design-Dozent tätig. Er ist Gründungsprofessor der Hochschule für Gestaltung in Karlsruhe in Deutschland, lehrte sechs Jahre lang an der Universität für Angewandte Kunst in Wien und ist seit 2011 Dozent an der SIVA-DeTao Design School in Shanghai. 1969 erhielt Hartmut den ersten Bundespreis Gute Form, und 2017 wurde ihm die erstmalige World Design Medal der WDO (World Design Organisation – zuvor ICSID) als einflussreichster Designer seit der Gründung der WDO im Jahr 1957 verliehen. Linktipps von Hartmut Esslinger A fine line: How Design Strategies Are Shaping the Future of Business https://www.amazon.com/Fine-Line-Strategies-Shaping-Business/dp/0470451025 Keep it Simple, Apple's early Design Years https://www.amazon.com/Keep-Simple-Early-Design- Years/dp/3897904071/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2OIHFSB84L8IW&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.34DPjY4j LPpBUgflh52ueqiibsNXEBUCp9rIQzvGrPaEm9iY0Pt4rjbCloNCHOtBRJyjUKpBxgJp4f4 QhhKAqAKq0TW4WLFIA3DIhDNVaV4.hAYQBnXqdDt_Tm5iKlJfwfAEuXYy3HnA3m- TdlTP3PQ&dib_tag=se&keywords=keep+it+simple+esslinger&qid=1716850586&s=boo ks&sprefix=keep+it+simple+esslinger%2Cstripbooks%2C163&sr=1-1 Design Forward,:Creative Strategies for Sustainable Change https://www.amazon.com/Design-Forward-Creative-Strategies- Sustainable/dp/3897903814/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3P16OINRWPS6I&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ukv 2uVrPLu9DfDwyPmbYnWTAXDqCHzkrfxQXQCljlag.7N0FwKeIwgvuFcOiu2pkMYgJOZ DN3X790NP7MjZd58c&dib_tag=se&keywords=design+forward+esslinger&qid=171685 0632&s=books&sprefix=design+forward+esslinger%2Cstripbooks%2C175&sr=1-1 Hartmut Esslinger Design Matters with Debbie Millman https://podcasts.apple.com › podcast CONVERSATION WITH HARTMUT ESSLINGER https://ndion.de/en/we-were-system-innovators-in-conversation-with-hartmut- esslinger/ Hartmut Esslinger - Advice For Designers https://vimeo.com/59679411 Lifetime Achievement Award https://www.euipo.europa.eu/en/designs/designeuropa-awards/awards-2018/hartmut- esslinger A bit of a Biography https://www.immigrantentrepreneurship.org/entries/hartmut-esslinger/
En podkast om de virelig store byene. Hva er spesielt med dem? Hvordan preger og påvirker de samfunnet og verden? Hva vet vi, og hva har vi igjen å lære? Med Peter Butenschøn. Peter har utdannelse fra Trinity College i Cambridge, Harvard university, og Georgia Institute og Technology. Han var førsteamanuensis ved AHO 1973- 80, har ledet EUs Bymiljøkampanje, stiftet og ledet institutt for byutvikling (IN'BY), var spesialrådgiver i Kulturdepartementet, og var med på å grunnlegge norsk form, senere DOGA, som han ledet fra 1992-2002. Han har også vært rektor ved KHiO, styreformann i norsk folkemuseum, president i ICSID, formann i OAF og styreleder i stiftelsen Mela. Peter er også forfatter og har nylig gitt ut boka MEGALOPOLIS. Send oss en mail på podkast@lpo.no Følg gjerne Byggekunst på instagram. På gjenklang!
Prof. Dr. hc. Hartmut Esslinger HonRDI Hartmut Esslinger war der erste Designer, der mensch-gerechtes High-Touch-Design in die Welt komplexer Hardware- und Softwaretechnologie brachte. 1969 gründete er als Student „esslinger design“ in seiner Heimat Deutschland und etablierte als Teil seiner Partnerschaft mit Steve Jobs 1982 „frog design“ in den U.S.A. – und dann zusammen mit seiner Partnerin und Ehefrau Patricia Roller auf alle fünf Kontinente. Hartmut ist Ehrendoktor der Parsons New School, New York und HonRDI (honorable Royal Designer for Industry) der Royal Society of Arts, London. Wichtige Kunden waren – und sind teilweise immer noch - Wega, Sony, Louis Vuitton (LHMH), KaVo Dental, hansgrohe, Apple, Microsoft, Hewlett Packard, NEC, Olympus, Samsung, Canon, General Electric, Lufthansa, Shimano, Yamaha, Honda, Toyota, Docomo, Motorola, Texas Instruments, Kodak , Polaroid, Disney und Disney Cruise Lines, Nike, Sky Networks, Unilever, Hilti, SAP… 2005 erwarb Flextronics die Mehrheit an frog design und 2008 kam KKR als Investor dazu. 2021 erwarb CAPGEMINI INVENT alle Aktien. Mt 35 Studios und mehr als 2500 kreativen Mitarbeitern und Mitarbeiterinnen weltweit ist frog die einflussreichste Design- Agentur. Seit 2018 Hartmut Mit-Gründer der „Esslinger Group“, einem Unternehmen für IoT-Produkte in Hong Kong, Shenzhen und Silicon Valley. Seit 1989 ist Hartmut auch als Design-Dozent tätig. Er ist Gründungsprofessor der Hochschule für Gestaltung in Karlsruhe in Deutschland, lehrte sechs Jahre lang an der Universität für Angewandte Kunst in Wien und ist seit 2011 Dozent an der SIVA-DeTao Design School in Shanghai. 1969 erhielt Hartmut den ersten Bundespreis Gute Form, und 2017 wurde ihm die erstmalige World Design Medal der WDO (World Design Organisation – zuvor ICSID) als einflussreichster Designer seit der Gründung der WDO im Jahr 1957 verliehen. Linktipps von Hartmut Esslinger A fine line: How Design Strategies Are Shaping the Future of Business https://www.amazon.com/Fine-Line-Strategies-Shaping-Business/dp/0470451025 Keep it Simple, Apple's early Design Years https://www.amazon.com/Keep-Simple-Early-Design- Years/dp/3897904071/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2OIHFSB84L8IW&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.34DPjY4j LPpBUgflh52ueqiibsNXEBUCp9rIQzvGrPaEm9iY0Pt4rjbCloNCHOtBRJyjUKpBxgJp4f4 QhhKAqAKq0TW4WLFIA3DIhDNVaV4.hAYQBnXqdDt_Tm5iKlJfwfAEuXYy3HnA3m- TdlTP3PQ&dib_tag=se&keywords=keep+it+simple+esslinger&qid=1716850586&s=boo ks&sprefix=keep+it+simple+esslinger%2Cstripbooks%2C163&sr=1-1 Design Forward,:Creative Strategies for Sustainable Change https://www.amazon.com/Design-Forward-Creative-Strategies- Sustainable/dp/3897903814/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3P16OINRWPS6I&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ukv 2uVrPLu9DfDwyPmbYnWTAXDqCHzkrfxQXQCljlag.7N0FwKeIwgvuFcOiu2pkMYgJOZ DN3X790NP7MjZd58c&dib_tag=se&keywords=design+forward+esslinger&qid=171685 0632&s=books&sprefix=design+forward+esslinger%2Cstripbooks%2C175&sr=1-1 Hartmut Esslinger Design Matters with Debbie Millman https://podcasts.apple.com › podcast CONVERSATION WITH HARTMUT ESSLINGER https://ndion.de/en/we-were-system-innovators-in-conversation-with-hartmut- esslinger/ Hartmut Esslinger - Advice For Designers https://vimeo.com/59679411 Lifetime Achievement Award https://www.euipo.europa.eu/en/designs/designeuropa-awards/awards-2018/hartmut- esslinger A bit of a Biography https://www.immigrantentrepreneurship.org/entries/hartmut-esslinger/
New York international arbitration partner J.P. Duffy discusses the Singapore International Arbitration Centre's (SIAC) current accomplishments and future plans for the Americas with SIAC's registrar, Kevin Nash, and SIAC's director and head of the Americas, Adriana Uson. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Hello and welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our International Arbitration Practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights, and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started. J.P.: Welcome back to the next episode of Arbitral Insights, in which we'll discuss the Singapore International Arbitration Center's America Initiative with Kevin Nash, who is SIAC's registrar, and Adriana Uson, who is the SIAC's director and head for the Americas. Let me begin by introducing myself. I'm J.P. Duffy. I'm an international arbitration partner based in New York that acts as both counsel and arbitrator in international arbitration seated around the the world under a variety of governing laws and arbitral rules. I'm qualified in New York, England and Wales, and the DIFC courts in Dubai, where I previously practiced. I routinely represent clients in arbitrations involving India, the GCC, and East Asia, and I also had the good fortune to be listed on the SIAC arbitrator roster. As I mentioned, with me today is, first, Kevin Nash. Kevin is a Canadian lawyer and the SIAC's Registrar. As Registrar, Kevin leads the 25-member SIAC Secretariat in the provision of case management services. Over the course of the past decade, Kevin has overseen the administration of thousands of international cases under all versions of the SIAC and UNCITRAL rules. Under the Singapore International Arbitration Act 1994, Kevin is also gazetted as an appointing authority, serves as the statutory taxation authority, and is empowered to authenticate and certify awards and arbitration agreements. And last but not least is Adriana Uson. Adriana Uson is the director and head of the Americas for the SIAC, where she leads and oversees SIAC's activities in North and Latin America. In 2020, Adriana established the SIAC's first office outside of Asia in New York. She has more than a decade of experience in dispute resolution and and has served as counsel on international arbitrations, as arbitrator, and as the institutional representative. Adriana first joined SIAC as counsel, during which time she administered hundreds of cases across a range of seats and governing laws. She was also involved in the drafting of the SIAC Rules 2016 draft, SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules 2017, and the SIAC Practice Note on Third-Party Funding. Prior to rejoining the SIAC, Adriana was a disputes lawyer at a global law firm where she advised and represented clients in international arbitrations conducted under the auspices of the SIAC, the ICC, ICSID, and the HKIAC. So as you can tell, we have a wealth of knowledge with us today, and we're really, really fortunate to have both Kevin and Adriana with us today. So with that, let's jump right in and hear from our guests. So let me just set the stage a bit by giving some of the SIAC background, and then we'll have Kevin and Adriana chime in on that a bit. So the SIAC is a not-for-profit arbitral administrator that was established in 1994 in Singapore with the objective of providing a neutral, efficient, and reliable dispute resolution institution in Asia. Kevin, can you give us a bit of background on what's gone on with the SIAC over the last 33 years, I guess. Kevin: Sure. Thanks, J.P. It's great to be here. Thank you to you and to Reed Smith. I'm actually a listener to this podcast, so it's really good to be here. Giving a bit of background, 33 years of operation, SIAC started as functionally a regional center, and you can really see a very compelling growth trajectory. The real proper administration of SIAC's cases started in 2007. You can then see sets of rules in 2010, 2013, 2016. And now we're in the draft public consultation for the seventh edition of the SIAC rules. Along the way, we went in the Queen Mary University of London White and Case Survey is the second most preferred arbitral institution in the world and the most preferred in Asia. And that's really what has helped bring SIAC to global prominence, that we have this expertise in Asia, but we also have parties from all around the world. J.P.: That's great. And it has been meteoric growth. It's been really impressive to watch. The SIAC didn't exist, as you say, when I first started practicing, and now it's almost default in Asia, if not the default for most parties. And let's talk about that growth outside of Asia a bit. So while the SIAC began in Singapore and has had a lot of acceptance in Asian markets, it is not simply an Asian administrator, as you say. It's really accepted around the globe. What's really been the Singapore secret to that, Kevin? Kevin: I suppose that's the million-dollar question, or when you look at some of SIAC's cases, is the $7 billion or $10 billion question, is what does Singapore and SIAC have been able to do to put itself at the forefront of international arbitration? When I look at the Singapore arbitration ecosystem, I see language from decisions like the rule of law is applied without fear or favor, and there is an unequivocal judicial philosophy of the facilitation and promotion of arbitration. So it's really the entire ecosystem in Singapore that has helped build up SIAC. One of the most important moments, and Adriana and I were quite involved in this, was in the SIAC rules 2016. Previously, it used to be a default Singapore seat of arbitration. So unless the parties otherwise agreed, if it was left silent, then it would default to a Singapore seat. But because of the popularity in the Americas, the then President Gary Bourne knew that for us to really grow as a global institution, that had to be left to the parties or to the tribunal to decide. So we've got the benefit of the Singapore ecosystem. So you have a very pro-arbitration bench. You have all of the hardware and software, modern legislation based on the UNCITRAL model law. And to a certain degree, it's based on where we are in the world. Singapore, much like New York, is an international center for finance. Singapore has that reputation of effectively being Switzerland in Southeast Asia. And maybe you just can almost encapsulate it by putting out a question that if you were a significant U.S. Entity, would you be comfortable being a moving claimant against a very prominent Singapore respondent? And I think that the answer is overwhelmingly yes. Parties know that they're going to get a fair adjudication of their dispute when they come to Singapore, and certainly when they file a case at SIAC. When I look at that 25 member SIAC secretariat, I am quite moved by the fact that we only have one Singaporean lawyer. So the rest of the Singapore SIAC secretariat are all lawyers qualified in 13 jurisdictions around the world. So I think that gives parties the confidence. J.P.: Now, Kevin, where are some of those lawyers qualified in the secretariat? Kevin: You know, I would have to run through the jurisdictions, India, Indonesia, United States, UK, Vietnam, Ecuador, Georgia. I feel like I'm missing a few, Canada, Malaysia. So anywhere in the world where we have our top jurisdictions and particularly where we have those applicable laws at play, we really need to have a lawyer in the secretariat qualified in those jurisdictions. I can think of five years ago in Vietnam, a very fast-growing jurisdiction, because there's a lot of procedural nuances in that jurisdiction, surely we need to have a Vietnamese qualified lawyer. China, we have a fair amount of Chinese language arbitration, so we need to have Chinese qualified counsel. And certainly, we have so many cases involving Indian parties, so we have three Indian qualified lawyers in the secretariat as well. J.P.: Well, that certainly gives a good overview of the breadth that the SIAC covers. And I think just to reinforce that a bit, let's talk about some of the offices that the SIAC has outside of Singapore before we get to the one in New York. So, am I correct that in 2013, SIAC opened up its first overseas office in Mumbai and then Seoul? Is that right? Seoul, Korea? Kevin: That's right. J.P.: And then in 2016, SIAC opened up in Shanghai, correct? Kevin: Yep. J.P.: And then in 2017, SIAC opened up a second office in Gujarat in India, right? Kevin: Also correct, yeah. J.P.: Now, what was the impetus for opening all those offices? Kevin: Really, it's to have a presence on the ground. So one thing that we do very well at SIAC is have a lot of analytics looking at economic indicators. We're looking at both sides of the contract. So you're seeing where, for instance, Indian parties, where those inflows and outflows of economic activity is happening. And I think that it matters to users to have a presence on the ground. I can see with the incredible amount of interest that we have in the Americas with Adriana on the ground here. So whether it's being able to call and say that you're filing a notice, I'm starting to think that notwithstanding the fact that I'm the Registrar, that more American users are actually liaising with Adriana. In fact, we had a purely European dispute where they were calling Adriana to say, hey, we filed a notice. So I think that it's made a difference to have that on the ground presence. And we're looking at perhaps a few other offices that are going to be opened up in the reasonably near future. I think what's important for the Americas and one thing that I've talked about publicly quite a bit is potentially that move to setting up a case management office in New York. J.P.: Interesting. Well, let's talk about that New York office then. So now, Adriana, you opened up the New York, the SIAC New York office in December of 2020, correct? Adriana: Yeah, that's correct, J.P. J.P.: That's a challenging timing. How did you find that process? Adriana: Oh, that was really a very challenging time. I think that was the height of the pandemic, if I wasn't mistaken, back in 2020. And so what we did was really to leverage off technology, J.P. I think that's even the first time where we met was by Zoom. So what we've done is that we've used Zoom, we've used webinar to engage with our users. I remember that time I probably had a Zoom meeting every single day for over a year or even two years. And really, the challenge was creating that rapport and that relationship to deepen those relationships during that time. J.P.: Yeah, that was certainly a challenging time. And I do recall meeting for the first time by Zoom. Now, Adriana, does the New York office, I think Kevin just touched on this, but does Does the New York office administer cases as well? Adriana: Not at the moment, J.P., but we're looking into the possibility of administering cases from our New York office to provide real-time access for our users in America. So that's something to watch out for. J.P.: Good. Well, we'll keep a heads up for that one. Now, what then was the impetus for opening the New York office? What was its purpose when you decided to open it in December of 2020? Adriana: I think really, J.P., it's because of the growing number of American parties that we have been seeing in our docket. So every single year for the last 13 years, American parties actually ranked amongst our top five users. And there are certain years where you'll see that American parties would even rank number one amongst our foreign users ahead of China and India, which is saying a lot. And that is without us even having any significant engagements in the US. So it was us ripe for us to open an office during that time. It just so happened that it happened right smack at the height of the pandemic. But apart from that, our relationships with the Americans or the US is quite strong. As you know, our immediate past president, Gary Bourne, is an American. Our current president, Lucy Reed, is also a New Yorker. The number three or sometimes fourth most appointed arbitrator by nationality with SIAC are Americans as well. We have American counsel qualified at the secretariat, and we've been really engaging with a lot of U.S. law firms in SIAC. So I think with all of these, it just made sense for us to open an office in New York. J.P.: Yeah, I think it tends to give a lot of comfort to U.S. parties when they know they have a local contact that they can reach out to. And certainly that helps with with, you know, explaining to a US party, like, yeah, this is not this might be an international undertaking. But there's an office right here in New York. Here's Adriana, here's someone we can reach out to. Now with that, Adriana, what is your day to day look like in the New York office, if you don't mind sharing that with the audience? Adriana: Oh, I mean, I wouldn't even know myself out my day would would go but typically it would be speaking with our stakeholders. So be it, you know, at a law firm or roundtable session with some corporates or lecturing in some universities. Mostly I'm traveling. So SIAC, New York office really covers from Canada all the way to Chile, including Caribbean, Central America. So then you'll find me in different parts of America. And I think that that's how it looks like at the moment. J.P.: Yeah, I would imagine it's probably a pretty exciting and pretty action-packed day. Okay. Well, let me just transition a bit so that people in the audience can get a bit of a sense because we were talking about case administration and, you know, for instance, Kevin mentioned, you know, a purely European case in which people were reaching out to you. How many cases did SIAC administer in 2023? Kevin: Yeah thanks, J.P. I should also say, reaching back to the past question that much of Adriana's day involves me reaching out to her, asking about US arbitrators, a filing that's coming in. But moving to the question, how many cases SIAC administered? So we had 663 cases in 2023. Our previous high had been more than a thousand cases. And this is really significant when you you think that we were starting from the place of two cases filed in 1991 when we first opened our doors. Unsurprisingly, both of those would have been ad hoc conversion cases. And you have some of these cases that might just be a few thousand dollars, two cases, some of the big major projects and giga projects in the mini billions. From a case management standpoint, what is critical for us, the independent and neutral SIAC secretariat, is you treat every case the same. Every case gets the same amount of care and attention. And that's what we've really tried to focus on when we've moved from a regional institution to a global institution. The idea of this accessibility, where we're still treating every case like it is the most important case on the docket. Counsel can reach out to us, certainly not ex parte, but can certainly reach out to us on matters of procedure, the same with arbitrators. And that's been really important to our growth. At any one time, we have more than a thousand active cases. And now in most years, we're getting more than 500 cases a year, which from an international caseload standpoint, really puts us at the top of the chart for arbitral institutions. J.P.: Yeah, that's quite an impressive growth and impressive numbers. Now, are there particular industries that many of those cases come from, or are there particular industries that you see more cases come from? I'd just be interested to know. Kevin: J.P., it really runs the gamut and our only limitation really is arbitrability. So you could have cases arising out of contracts, treaties, investment contracts, and it's a lot of mirroring with these economic corridors. So there's certainly a lot of international trade. I can remember during the pandemic, it felt like I was becoming an expert in the sale and purchase of masks. We had lots of those cases. We get some of the big construction and engineering cases, corporate, JV, maritime and shipping. Singapore has the second largest container port in the world. So we really want to be able to administer any kind of case with any type of law applying and increasingly in different languages of the arbitration. J.P.: Well, that's interesting. It's unsurprising, I guess, that some of the caseload would follow economic trends. And it's also unsurprising that some of the cases would just follow what goes on in Singapore generally. Now, I think you mentioned earlier some of the top users for SIAC are China, India, the US. What countries were the top five users in 2023? Kevin: In 2023, we had lots of cases from mainland China, Hong Kong, Americas, India. What I found very compelling in those 2023 statistics is that our fifth most frequent user was Emirati parties. And often we had Emirati parties on both sides of the contract. And it's really a hallmark of the flexibility of international arbitration. So you may have UAE parties on both sides. They may choose an onshore or offshore seat in the UAE. They may choose a Singapore seat. And then the rest of the top 10 and those users that are starting to really matter is really a balance between common law jurisdictions and civil law jurisdictions. And if you follow SIAC and if you chart SIAC, what we really try to do is give effect to both the common law tradition and the civil law tradition. What we have been seeing increasingly with US parties and in large part to the work of Adriana is some of those real chunky disputes are coming from the Americas. When you're looking at the highest summon dispute, the mean summon dispute, the median summon dispute, we are getting some of those very significant cases from the Americas. J.P.: Well, that's really interesting. And before we move on to the Americas, I just want to hit on a couple of points. And I guess my first question is, are you seeing trends in where cases are coming from in countries? Like, for instance, you just mentioned the top five user being Emirati. Would that have been the case a few years ago as well, or is that a newer development? Kevin: We've seen some signs of interest from Emirati parties and in MENA generally, but it is because of the amount of work. And it's almost like you can look at some of the fastest growing economies and some of those most dynamic economies, and then you will start to see SIAC's caseload increase. And as I mentioned earlier, what's important for us is to be able to market both sides of the contract and have the users have confidence on both sides of the contract. So a classic case involving the Americas might be a party from the U.S. And an Indian party, a party from the U.S. And an ASEAN party, and a party from the U.S. and a Chinese party. What place are both of those parties going to choose increasingly at Singapore and SIAC? J.P.: Yeah, that's great to hear and unsurprising, I guess. Now, are those transactions ones that would be, for instance, just global transactions, or are they ones that might have some sort of geographic center in Asia? Kevin: One of my favorite disputes that we've had recently was a functionally domestic US dispute where there were parallel court proceedings in the Pacific Northwest. I was looking for an Asian nexus. I have still yet to find it. So most of these, I mean, I mean, obviously, arbitration is the preferred method to resolve cross-border disputes, but in the UAE, in the Americas, a lot of times in India, these are domestic disputes where they're choosing Singapore and SIAC. And J.P., you might remember that it took some time for the Indian Supreme Court to give clarification on whether two Indian parties could choose a foreign seat. That clarification has now arrived. But even before that, because of the power of Singapore as a seat and the trust and confidence into the SIAC, Indian parties were still using SIAC for functionally domestic disputes. J.P.: Yeah, it's interesting because that has been the case for many, many years before the Indian Supreme Court clarified that, as you say, almost akin to the way that some Brazilian parties use other institutions as well as the SIAC for purely Brazilian domestic disputes. It's a vote of confidence in arbitration generally, I think, as well as the institution. Well, let's shift gears a bit and talk some more in a little more detail about the Americas. And Adriana, what, obviously, by opening an office here in New York, SIAC is targeting, you know, the US and New York in particular. But what other markets is SIAC targeting with its New York office? Adriana: J.P., there's really a lot of ground to cover in terms of targets. And as a starting point, SIAC's choice to open our America's office in New York was important. And it was very consequential and sent a message about our future direction. As all of us who live in the city would be aware, New York is the epicenter of so many things. So international arbitration and legal services, banking and finance, international trade, retailing, media and advertising, and so many others. But our users come from all over the US and across various sectors. Let's see if I can recall all of them. So over the past five years, we have seen parties from California, Connecticut, Delaware. Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, I think New Jersey, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio. We've seen some from Texas, Virginia, and Washington, to name a few. We have been busy see deepening these relationships and engaging with the local arbitration communities, establishing partnerships such as with the Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center. But our New York office really covers the whole Americas from, like I said, from Canada to Chile. Latin America is especially exciting for us because of its increasing trade with Asia. Right now, we have cases coming from Belize, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador. We also have cases from Mexico, Panama, and Uruguay, and we are eager to further expand our reach in the Americas. In fact, one of the first few things we did, J.P., when we opened the Americas office was to enter into partnerships with local centers such as the Lima Chamber of Commerce, the Santiago Arbitration and Mediation Center, and the Quito Chamber of Commerce, to name a few. And we have been very active in the region since. J.P.: That's really impressive. That's really impressive. And, you know, people, you know, think of the Americas and they, they sometimes think of a few large, a few large jurisdictions, but you're mentioning really a number of countries in the Americas that are seeing capital flows between, between their countries in Asia. Now, what are some of the, what are some of the largest, Latin American markets that you're seeing activity in at the moment, other than the ones, you know, I think you just mentioned a few, but are there others that you're seeing in particular as ones that are producing a lot of disputes? Adriana: I would say there has been an uptick in our Mexican and Brazilian caseloads. Kevin, you've seen a lot of these cases coming in. I think there are queries coming in from Ecuador as well. That's an area that we're quite interested. In fact, we did hire an Ecuadorian counsel in our secretariat because of that. J.P.: Impressive. How about jurisdictions like Argentina and Peru? Adriana: Yeah, actually, Argentina and Peru, one of our main targets, especially Peru, I think in Peru, they've now mandated arbitration as part of their law for public contracts. There's a lot of arbitration going on in Peru. And just before actually this podcast, I was on a webinar for the Peruvian Institute. So we are very active in Peru as well. J.P.: That's great. I would assume Colombia is an important market as well. well? Adriana: Yes, absolutely. Colombia, Panama, because of the Asian trade, that's also a very important market for us. J.P.: Interesting. And are you seeing disputes come out of issues involving the canal in Panama? Kevin: We actually have J.P. And I should say, because Adriana has been in this role for, is it three years? Adriana: Yeah. Kevin: In or around. There is that sort of timeline when SIAC clauses go into contracts and when you get the eventual dispute. And we have very strong indicators for many of those jurisdictions that you named that some significant entities are starting to use SIAC as their preferred dispute resolution choice. And that's one of the challenges of marketing an institution because you actually don't want parties to go to dispute. You hope that that they don't have to go to an arbitration, but that they have confidence to use SIAC arbitration clauses. So we're just as happy when we know if it's an entity from Panama, Peru, Argentina, as the case may be, that they're starting to use SIAC clauses. And whether or not that goes to a dispute, hopefully it doesn't. Maybe they're able to settle on their disputes or because of the confidence in SIAC as an institution, the parties tend to keep to their bargains because they know if they go to arbitration, it's likely going to be very fast and very cost effective for the counterparty. J.P.: Yeah, well, that is certainly the case. I think we all always hope when we're drafting arbitration clauses that they never get invoked. But, you know, it's certainly my experience, at least, that, you know, 15 to 20% of those will end up at a certain point in time in arbitration. And so it's good to see that SIAC clauses are being written. And I know certainly clients that we have are extremely interested in that. And not simply when there's any sort of, you know, Asian nexus. It can be just about anything at this point. Well, that raises a really good question, which is, what would you say, Adriana and Kevin, have been the biggest accomplishments that SIAC has had in the Americas since opening? I mean, it's been a really challenging time, but you've obviously put SIAC on the map even more so in the Americas. So what would you see as the biggest accomplishment in the last, I guess, three or four years? Kevin: J.P., I might just start and then I'll pass it over to Adriana. So the joke that I always make internally about Adriana setting up the New York office is that she effectively came here with a paperclip and ended up bartering her way into having a very well-running office. So certainly that was a challenge for Adriana coming all the way from Singapore and being able to set up this vibrant office that is doing some really interesting things. Effectively just with a paperclip and bordering her way and navigating New York City to get this office up and running. But I'll pass it over to Adriana. Adriana: Thanks, Kevin. I guess aside from what Kevin just said, I would say getting new users from new jurisdictions would be one of our biggest accomplishments, J.P. Since opening the New York office in December 2020, we have gained new users from places like Argentina with the first ever case from that jurisdiction filed just last year and Colombia, which we spoke about. What's interesting about the case involving Colombia is that the counterparty is from Switzerland, showing the potential for cases in the Americas with no Asian nexus. We're also seeing a rising trend in cases from Panama. I think we've touched on that earlier. And more and more of our clauses are also making their way into contracts across Latin America. Just yesterday, we received an email from a firm in Guayaquil and Quito informing forming us, they've included SIAC clauses across a suite of contracts. A Spanish law firm with Latin American clients recently also indicated they're trying SIAC, including us in contracts for the first time. Peru, like. I mentioned earlier, a Peruvian law firm also told us that they're currently handling a contract with an SIAC clause for the first time. So this could be SIAC's first Peruvian case if the clause is activated. There was also a prominent U.S. entertainment company that requested information on SIAC as it considers switching from U.S. arbitral centers to SIAC. And speaking on the U.S., we've seen a rise in filings since the launch of our New York office. Another notable trend is that But while SIAC is often chosen when Asian parties are involved in, you know, repeating what Kevin just said, we're now handling cases between American parties or between Americans and Europeans without any Singapore-Asian connection. And I think this trend really highlights SIAC's growing international reach and reputation. J.P.: Well, that is certainly impressive meteoric growth. And, you know, it's an old, it's a trite old song lyric, but the song lyric that if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere really is true. And you certainly have. Let me ask then just a concluding question for you, Adriana. And obviously, Kevin, you should feel free to jump in as well. But where would you like to see the New York SIAC office in, say, five years? What would you think that looks like? Adriana: I think in the next five years, we see SIAC becoming a major player in the arbitration landscape across the Americas. We're focused on establishing a strong presence and building solid relationships with businesses, legal professionals, and arbitration practitioners throughout North and South America. J.P.: Good. Kevin, anything you want to add there? Kevin: Maybe just that it almost goes to the mandate of an institution, is what is an institution really there for? And I think that we believe that we are there to promote the advantages of international arbitration and to really be a contributor. And that's what we've tried to be with the America's Office in New York, is to be a part of the international arbitration community. And one thing that I would say about where we want to be in five years or 10 years is from a case management standpoint, we just want to keep getting better and better. Arbitration is not like it was 10 years ago or 20 years ago. You have to be fast, thoughtful, precise. The case management matters. And that's what we focus on. And we're going to continue to listen to our users and try to be updating ourselves for 2024 beyond. J.P.: Well, those are all good goals to have. And I think we'll keep our ear to the ground for future developments on things like case management and new rules. And I think I'll exercise my prerogative to reserve my right to call you guys back to discuss those things in the near future, because I think there's been such incredible growth and so many incredible developments, and I'm sure there'll be more to discuss again in the near future. But with that, I think we should conclude our discussion. And I want to thank you both. I want to thank our guests, Kevin Nash and Adriana Uson from the SIAC for offering their invaluable insights. And I want to thank you, the listeners, for tuning in. You should feel free to reach out to Reed Smith about today's podcast with any questions you might have. I'll take the initiative and speak for both Adriana and Kevin and say you should feel free to reach out to them as well about any questions you might have. We look forward to having you tune in for future episodes in the series. So thank you again to Adriana and Kevin, and we look forward to having you back. Adriana: Thank you, J.P. Kevin: Thank you. Outro: Arbitral Insights is a Reed Smith production. Our producer is Ali McCardell. For more information about Reed Smith's global international arbitration practice, email arbitralinsights@reedsmith.com. To learn about the Reed Smith Arbitration Pricing Calculator, a first-of-its-kind mobile app that forecasts the costs of arbitration around the world, search Arbitration Pricing Calculator on reedsmith.com or download for free through the Apple and Google Play app stores. You can find our podcast on Spotify, Apple, Google Play, Stitcher, reedsmith.com, and our social media accounts at Reed Smith LLP on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. Disclaimer: This podcast is provided for educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice and is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship, nor is it intended to suggest or establish standards of care applicable to particular lawyers in any given situation. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any views, opinions, or comments made by any external guest speaker are not to be attributed to Reed Smith LLP or its individual lawyers. All rights reserved.
Prof. Dr. hc. Hartmut Esslinger HonRDI Hartmut Esslinger war der erste Designer, der mensch-gerechtes High-Touch-Design in die Welt komplexer Hardware- und Softwaretechnologie brachte. 1969 gründete er als Student „esslinger design“ in seiner Heimat Deutschland und etablierte als Teil seiner Partnerschaft mit Steve Jobs 1982 „frog design“ in den U.S.A. – und dann zusammen mit seiner Partnerin und Ehefrau Patricia Roller auf alle fünf Kontinente. Hartmut ist Ehrendoktor der Parsons New School, New York und HonRDI (honorable Royal Designer for Industry) der Royal Society of Arts, London. Wichtige Kunden waren – und sind teilweise immer noch - Wega, Sony, Louis Vuitton (LHMH), KaVo Dental, hansgrohe, Apple, Microsoft, Hewlett Packard, NEC, Olympus, Samsung, Canon, General Electric, Lufthansa, Shimano, Yamaha, Honda, Toyota, Docomo, Motorola, Texas Instruments, Kodak , Polaroid, Disney und Disney Cruise Lines, Nike, Sky Networks, Unilever, Hilti, SAP… 2005 erwarb Flextronics die Mehrheit an frog design und 2008 kam KKR als Investor dazu. 2021 erwarb CAPGEMINI INVENT alle Aktien. Mt 35 Studios und mehr als 2500 kreativen Mitarbeitern und Mitarbeiterinnen weltweit ist frog die einflussreichste Design- Agentur. Seit 2018 Hartmut Mit-Gründer der „Esslinger Group“, einem Unternehmen für IoT-Produkte in Hong Kong, Shenzhen und Silicon Valley. Seit 1989 ist Hartmut auch als Design-Dozent tätig. Er ist Gründungsprofessor der Hochschule für Gestaltung in Karlsruhe in Deutschland, lehrte sechs Jahre lang an der Universität für Angewandte Kunst in Wien und ist seit 2011 Dozent an der SIVA-DeTao Design School in Shanghai. 1969 erhielt Hartmut den ersten Bundespreis Gute Form, und 2017 wurde ihm die erstmalige World Design Medal der WDO (World Design Organisation – zuvor ICSID) als einflussreichster Designer seit der Gründung der WDO im Jahr 1957 verliehen. Linktipps von Hartmut Esslinger A fine line: How Design Strategies Are Shaping the Future of Business https://www.amazon.com/Fine-Line-Strategies-Shaping-Business/dp/0470451025 Keep it Simple, Apple's early Design Years https://www.amazon.com/Keep-Simple-Early-Design- Years/dp/3897904071/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2OIHFSB84L8IW&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.34DPjY4j LPpBUgflh52ueqiibsNXEBUCp9rIQzvGrPaEm9iY0Pt4rjbCloNCHOtBRJyjUKpBxgJp4f4 QhhKAqAKq0TW4WLFIA3DIhDNVaV4.hAYQBnXqdDt_Tm5iKlJfwfAEuXYy3HnA3m- TdlTP3PQ&dib_tag=se&keywords=keep+it+simple+esslinger&qid=1716850586&s=boo ks&sprefix=keep+it+simple+esslinger%2Cstripbooks%2C163&sr=1-1 Design Forward,:Creative Strategies for Sustainable Change https://www.amazon.com/Design-Forward-Creative-Strategies- Sustainable/dp/3897903814/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3P16OINRWPS6I&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ukv 2uVrPLu9DfDwyPmbYnWTAXDqCHzkrfxQXQCljlag.7N0FwKeIwgvuFcOiu2pkMYgJOZ DN3X790NP7MjZd58c&dib_tag=se&keywords=design+forward+esslinger&qid=171685 0632&s=books&sprefix=design+forward+esslinger%2Cstripbooks%2C175&sr=1-1 Hartmut Esslinger Design Matters with Debbie Millman https://podcasts.apple.com › podcast CONVERSATION WITH HARTMUT ESSLINGER https://ndion.de/en/we-were-system-innovators-in-conversation-with-hartmut- esslinger/ Hartmut Esslinger - Advice For Designers https://vimeo.com/59679411 Lifetime Achievement Award https://www.euipo.europa.eu/en/designs/designeuropa-awards/awards-2018/hartmut- esslinger A bit of a Biography https://www.immigrantentrepreneurship.org/entries/hartmut-esslinger/
How do alternative investments fit into a retirement portfolio? What are some things I should consider before adding this kind of investment to my portfolio? Specifically, we are going to discuss: The two main type of alternative investments The three most common types of private investments How these fit into a retirement portfolio The risks involved Who's a good candidate to utilize private investments Lastly, I will finish up with some action items to help address some potential shortfalls in your current plan. WANT EVEN MORE RETIRMENT PLANNING TIPS? Join thousands of other Canadians and subscribe to the Retiring Canada Newsletter As a thank you, you'll receive a copy of our latest Retirement Guide AND MORE! *** EPISODE RESOURCES:
In this week's episode, Meg is joined by Thomas Kendra, Arbitration Partner from Hogan Lovells, to discuss market trends in litigation and arbitration in Europe and Africa, how Asian investments in Africa are affecting disputes across the continent, the Nigeria arbitration case in the London courts in October and the ICSID and UNCITRAL code of conduct affecting arbitrators.
Suzie Savage and Patrick Beale discuss key developments in the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) landscape in 2022 and look ahead to 2023. The duo's third horizon-scanning instalment covers the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), including various EU states' intention to leave and what this means for the future of the ECT; the review of the 1996 English Arbitration Act; the availability of USC section 1782 in aid of ICSID arbitrations; the African Continental Free Trade Agreement; the progress of UNCITRAL Working Group III on ISDS reform; and whether the pandemic led to an uptick in ISDS claims.
Gaela and Nicole share Tea with Meg Kinnear, Vice President of the World Bank Group and Secretary-General of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). We hear a bit about Meg's origin story, look back on 13 years at ICSID, and get a taste for what is in store for Meg in the future. We also get answers to burning questions about the new ICSID Rule Amendments, what Meg might do if she had a magic wand, the diversity imperative, and having a sidebar with Elizabeth Warren. To learn more about or join the D.C. Bar International Law Community, CLICK HERE. Please note, the positions and opinions expressed by the speakers are strictly their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers, nor those of the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors or co-sponsoring Communities and organizations.
Paris-based Guillaume Aréou welcomes Aïssatou Diop (legal counsel, ICSID) and Professor Arnaud de Nanteuil (Université Paris-Est Créteil) to discuss the main changes to the ICSID Rules, which came into force in July 2022. Aïssatou Diop presents ICSID's perspective, while Professor de Nanteuil shares his expertise as an academic and legal practitioner. The trio analyze the implementation of the ICSID Mediation Rules, the extension of the ICSID Additional Facility Rules and the issue of third party funding under the ICSID mechanism. This episode is in French.
ICSID Secretariat Team Leader and Legal Counsel Paul Jean Le Cannu joins Paris-based international arbitration partner Clément Fouchard to discuss investment arbitration in Africa . The discussion covers African participation in ICSID proceedings, the impact of the 2022 ICSID rule amendments for Africa, discernable trends in recent intra-African BITs and the AfCFTA.
Suzie Savage and Patrick Beale share their views on this year's key investment treaty developments, building on a December 2021 episode in which they anticipated what to expect in the investor-state dispute settlement space in 2022. This discussion covers ICSID rule amendments, green efforts, and Energy Charter Treaty modernisation, through to UNCITRAL Working Group III updates, the theme of ‘Africanisation,' and Section 1782 developments.
In this episode, Amy talks with Carmine Pascuzzo, from GST LLP, about UNCITRAL's Working Group 3, which is focused on investor-state arbitration. From 2019 the Working Group has received proposals for reforms to ADR procedures, and now the WG is focusing its effort on composing a draft set of rules for conduct of adjudicators (maintaining a clear synergy with similar discussions taking place within ICSID) aimed at protecting adjudicators from conflicts of interest. Link: https://gstllp.com/people/carmine-pascuzzo/
Ja vad för någonting kan möjligen tänkas komma upp i ljuset av verkligheten i det här sammanhanget... Man kan säga att det finns svenska bolag som har liknande avtal med väldigt många stater, så blir det förlust oavsett hur det blir... "Normalt tar liknande fall många år, säger Rikard Allvin, expert på handelsfrågor och författare till boken Frihandelns fångar till Flamman. Allvin är kritisk mot Sveriges hållning när det gäller investeringsskyddsavtal, och menar att Sverige är ett av de få länder som inkluderar skiljedomstol med Kina i sina avtal." – Det är inte så många länder som har med det med Kina. Problemet är att den här typen avtal begränsar statens möjlighet att förändra samhället i en annan politisk riktning. De cementerar en massa marknadsliberala principer. Det blir problematiskt i ljuset av klimatkrisen och klyftorna i samhället. Börje är ju för alltid fast i brygga och Ericsson fick ju närmast bli sökande av syndernas - läpparna - förlåtelse, vilket Stockholmsbyråkratin totalt överraskande nog inte alls var intresserat av och nu skall detta ges en optik - en bild som människor själva kan sätta ord på, bilden skall bli talande - den skall bli självklar. " Stämningen, som den 21 januari registrerats hos International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ICSID, uppmärksammades först av tankesmedjan Katalys som sedan tidningen ETC och SVT rapporterat om. Bakgrunden är att Post- och Telestyrelsen (PTS) med bistånd från bland annat Säpo hösten 2020 beslöt att utestänga Huawei från den svenska auktionen av nya generationen telekomnät, 5g. Orsaken var säkerhetsskäl eftersom det inte kan uteslutas att Huawei har kopplingar till den kinesiska staten. Huawei stämde då PTS men har förlorat i två rättsliga instanser. Nu går alltså Huawei vidare med sina tidigare hot om att stämma den svenska staten, eftersom bolaget anser att Sverige bryter mot det investeringsskyddsavtal landet har med Kina, avtal som regleras av ICSID. Huawei anser att de 5,2 miljarder kronorna är deras initiala förluster för 2021-2025 kopplat till beslutet, men att det bara är en bråkdel av de totala förluster som kommer drabba den kinesiska telekomjätten. Det slutgiltiga skadeståndskravet kan alltså komma att bli långt större än 5,2 miljarder kronor. ”Antagligen kan det vara närmare 30 miljarder, till och med 40 miljarder. De ska försöka kvantifiera det här senare, men det är en hejdlös massa pengar”, säger Rikard Allvin, expert på handelsfrågor, i en intervju med SVT. Men utgången av rättsprocessen vågar han inte spekulera i. ”Det är jättesvårt att bedöma. Det finns ingen rättspraxis i det här heller”, säger han till SVT. Redan för ett år sedan avslöjade Di att Huawei, i brev till flera svenska ministrar, hotade om att ta frågan till skiljedomstol, och att det handlar om åtminstone 5 miljarder kronor i tappade intäkter för den kinesiska telekomjätten som även bannlysts i flera andra västländer, framför allt USA. " #CarlNorberg #DeFria #RealNews De Fria är en folkrörelse som jobbar för demokrati genom en upplyst och medveten befolkning! Stöd oss: SWISH: 070 - 621 19 92 (mottagare Sofia S) PATREON: https://patreon.com/defria_se HEMSIDA: https://defria.se FACEBOOK: https://facebook.com/defria.se
Disputes Digest Research Note (September 17 to September 24) Follow us on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/40833847/admin/ Check out or new website: TalesOfTheTribunal.com For Feedback, comments or submissions contact TalesOfTheTribunal@Gmail.com News: Manifest Disregard of the Law - CIMSA v. GCC, Here DIFC-LCIA Abolished, Here. Western Bagel v. Superior Court. Here. Malawi joins the New York Convention, Here Angola joins ICSID, Here Opportunities: Singapore Posting, Here King & Wood Posting, Here Dentons Posting, Here Arnold & Porter, Here e. Jus Mundi Posting, Here Events: Young ICCA Event, Here ICC YAF Event, Here Withers Worldwide Event, Here ArbInBrief Launch, Here None of the views shared today or any episode of Disputes Digest is presented as legal advice nor advice of any kind. No compensation was provided to any organization or party for their inclusion on the show nor do any of the statements made represent any particular organization, legal position or view point. All interviewees or organizations included appear on an arms-length basis and their appearance should not be construed as any bias or preferred affiliation with the host or host's employer. All rights reserved.
This month we were very fortunate to be joined by Robin Broad and John Cavanagh. Robin is a professor at the School of International Service at American University and John is a senior advisor and the former director of the Institute for Policy Studies. They joined us to talk about their recent released book The Water Defenders: How Ordinary People Saved a Country From Corporate Greed from Beacon Press. In this conversation we jump into the dangerous world of environmental activists trying to defend their communities and health against the incursions of international extractive corporations. We talk about how the fate of communities and lands can be impacted by decisions made in the shadowy and extremely pro-business ICSID courtroom. Robin and John spent a decade working closely with these water defenders in Northern El Salvador in their fight and victory against a global mining corporation. Links: Mining Watch Canada - https://miningwatch.ca/ The Institute for Policy Studies - https://ips-dc.org/ If you want to learn more, please check out Robin and John's book The Water Defenders: How Ordinary People Saved a Country From Corporate Greed. There were also some great recordings from their book launch events available online, for example this one in collaboration with Mining Watch Canada or this one from the American University SIS Office of Research. Robin will also be joining the October 2021 EXALT conference as a plenary speaker. Registration and attendance via Zoom are 100% free of charge! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/exalt-initiative/message
Today we bring you as a public service, excerpts of two interviews recently aired on GBN. The first with Claudette Joseph, our PRO, as she explains the nature of the claim brought against Grenada by the Kawana Bay developers, before the International tribunal, ICSID, and the potential impact of a ruling against Grenada. The second interview is with Ms. Daisey Hazzard, PRO of the PWU. Among other things, it brings into sharp focus, the need for all workers to rally with the unions in their struggle for the 4% due to them and and to end contract work being used as a weapon against the young people of this country.
Today, as a public service, we bring you excerpts of an interview aired on WPG10, of the lawyer representing the Kawana Bay developers before ICSID, done by journalist, Callistra Farrier. Our host then gives a commentary on the issue. We also bring you portions of the presentations from last Wednesday's meeting at Telescope. Finally, we bring you Father's Day greetings from our Party Leader and other members of the party.
On the 30th April, a petition was filed by Abu Zubaydah, a Guantanamo Bay internee, against the US, Afghanistan, UK, Poland, Lithuania and Morrocco before the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. The petition pleads that Abu Zubaydah be released, after 19 years of detention without charge or trial. Human Rights Watch have recently released a report examining the reality of aPARtheid in Palestinian areas where Israeli authorities exercise control. The report investigates whether the threshold of the criteria of apartheid which is a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute is met in the case of Israel and Palestine. The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes and the UN Commission on International Trade Law have published a second version of their Draft Code of Conduct for Adjudicators in International Investment Disputes. This updated version provides guidelines related to impartiality, integrity, and fairness during proceedings. Comments on the drafts are welcomed by ICSID and UNCITRAL. The Cambridge International Law Journal is calling for submissions for Volume 10 Issue 2 on the theme: National Sovereignty and International Cooperation: The Challenges of Navigating Global Crisees'. Articles for Volume 10 Issue 2 must be submitted before 14 May 2021. Submission criteria can be found on the CILJ website.
Meg Kinnear, secretary general of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), discusses her background, the importance of mentors and female arbitrators, and updates to the ICSID/UNCITRAL draft code of conduct. London-based counsel Suzie Savage is our host. For more information, please visit Reed Smith's International Arbitration page.
In this Podcast we revisit the issue of International Arbitration focusing on how to train to become an arbitrator. My guests are renowned experts in the field. George Lambrou is a Solicitor Advocate (England & Wales). George has extensive English High Court experience as well as international arbitration experience with the ICC, LCIA, LMAA and ICSID where he regularly sits as arbitrator. In his free time George acts as Co Director of Training for the European Branch of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. George is fluent in Russian and Greek. George’s LinkedIn Profile here. Dr. Anna Plevri. Anna is an Attorney at law, member of the Bar Association of Thessaloniki (Greece) (2004 ongoing) and member of the Cyprus Bar Association (2015 ongoing).She is a certified Mediator on Civil, Commercial, Family, Workplace Disputes and ODR, a certified Mediator’s Trainer (Adr-Odr International) and an Arbitrator (Adr-Odr International, MCIArb, WMO). She is also Assistant Professor at the Department of Law University of Nicosia lecturing Private Law and ADR. Anna’s CV here. Agis Georgiades, is a Barrister of Lincoln’s Inn, an Accredited Mediator and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. He is also Adjunct Faculty at the School of Law of the University of Nicosia. Agis is the first Cypriot Member of the London Court of International Arbitration. He practices law at the Cypriot law firm Christos Georgiades & Associates LLC.
Winter has come to the UK, but the Arbitration Station is full of hot takes. Saadia and Joel speak to University of Richmond law professor Chiara Giorgetti [TIME 07:13], who was heavily involved in the drafting of the Draft Code of Conduct for Adjudicators in Investor-State Dispute Settlement, issued by ICSID and UNCITRAL (which we first talked about on S04E15). The Draft Code has now received comments from states and other stakeholders and it's on the table at UNCITRAL this week so the timing is great. Saadia then discusses FDI screening and its intersection with investment disputes [TIME 42:37], before the two law firm employees have a Happy Fun Time talking about filings and what happens to your life during those [TIME 01:07:32].
Investor-State Mediation is one of the newest and most interesting frontiers in international dispute resolution. In this podcast, James South (Managing Director, CEDR) and Frauke Nitschke (Senior Legal Counsel, ICSID) look at the framework for the development of Investor-State Mediation as well as four key factors integral to it becoming widely adopted: Buy-in of stakeholders, users, lawyers, government officials and institutions Key structural and process reforms Development of a credible cadre of mediators Awareness-raising
In our third podcast on Investor-State Mediation, James South (Managing Director, CEDR) interviews Meg Kinnear (Secretary-General, ICSID) about the continuing progress mediation is making in the field of Investor-State Dispute Resolution. James and Meg Discuss: The drafting of the ISCID Convention, Why now is the right time to reconsider our approach to Investor-State Dispute Resolution, The future direction of mediation in this field and how to bring it into the mainstream
When foreign investors sue governments for losses due to policy changes in so-called arbitration courts, countries - and taxpayers - can end up paying billions. The system was set up to protect foreign investors - but critics say that it mainly helps companies dodge national laws, and has become a lucrative and highly intransparent business harming citizens.
Over the past several years, Investor State Dispute Settlement has been a point of hot-debate in many nations around the world. Transparency, expropriation of public funds and other topics have been some of the main issues underpinning that debate. The International Centre for Settlement of Investor Disputes (“ICSID”) of the World Bank has been on the front lines of that debate. This week’s guest, Meg Kinnear, is the Secretary-General of ICSID and is a prominent figure in the field of Investor-State Disputes. On this week’s episode she discusses the current state of the ICSID and reflects on her own career that brought her to leading such a dynamic and revered organization. Enjoy the show! TIME STAMPS: Intro Notes: :37Interview Starts: 2:18Personal Interest Info: 41:00Closing Show Notes: 55:16 BOOK REFERENCES:Catch & Release – Ronan Farrow MUSIC REFERENCESMo-TownJoni Mitchell CONTACT: TalesOfTheTribunal@Gmail.com
Welcome to Finance and Fury, the Say What Wednesday edition. This week’s question comes from Francesca. “I have really liked your podcast on the pandemic bonds, I had read about these bonds maybe a month ago in The Economist. My question after listening to the podcast on pandemic bonds was, who controls the world bank? Well I know...the member countries, but how could they screw it up so well? Thanks for keeping us update on it. And keep up with your great work Thanks!” In this episode – look at the world bank, what they do, who controls it, who funds it and at the core – why does it have problems What is the world bank – The World Bank Group is a family of five international organizations that make leveraged loans to developing countries. It is the largest and most well-known development bank in the world and is an observer at the United Nations Development Group. The bank is headquartered in Washington, D.C. in the United States – what makes up the group – the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), established in 1945, which provides debt financing on the basis of sovereign guarantees; the International Finance Corporation (IFC), established in 1956, which provides various forms of financing without sovereign guarantees, primarily to the private sector; the International Development Association (IDA), established in 1960, which provides concessional financing (interest-free loans or grants), usually with sovereign guarantees; the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), established in 1965, which works with governments to reduce investment risk; the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), established in 1988, which provides insurance against certain types of risk, including political risk, primarily to the private sector. Not a bank in the ordinary sense, the World Bank Group is a unique partnership, made up by 189 member countries – has two goals: ending extreme poverty by 2030 and promoting shared prosperity by lifting the bottom 40% in every country. The IMF and the World Bank were both created at an international conference convened in Bretton Woods - 1944. Who controls the World bank - The 189 member countries are technically shareholders – but each country is represented by a Board of Governors – they are the policymakers at the World Bank. Generally, the governors are member countries' ministers of finance or ministers of development. They meet once a year at the Annual Meetings of the Boards of Governors of the World Bank Group and the IMF – sets the agenda for the year – But The governors delegate specific duties to 25 Executive Directors – they make up the board of directors at the world bank - who work on-site at the Bank - five largest shareholders appoint an executive director, while other member countries are represented by elected executive directors - normally meet at least twice a week to oversee the Bank's business, including approval of loans and guarantees, new policies, the administrative budget, country assistance strategies and borrowing and financial decisions. office is usually held by the country's minister of finance, governor of its central bank, or a senior official of similar rank The United States and the World Banks relationship - The US Secretary of the Treasury sits on the World Bank’s Board of Governors, the World Bank’s highest governing body – the US gets to choose who is president as well- The World Bank is treated as an “exempt issuer” under the US securities laws since 1949 in recognition of its status as an international organization in which the U.S. is the largest shareholder (with about 17%). The United States’ membership in the World Bank was authorized by a federal statute known as the Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S.C. 286 et seq.). The other countries on the list – Japan (8%), China (5%), Germany (4.3%) – UK and France tied for 5th (4%) – make up about 42% of voting rights But – some of the countries have higher voting rights with other of the agencies – USA has around 23% voting rights its private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Statement: The World Bank looks forward to continuing to provide support to US investors so that they may consider supranationals when looking for safe investments – i.e. an organization is an international group in which the power and influence of member states transcend national boundaries or interests to share in decision making Who funds the world bank has - three main income streams - The first derives from their lending operations, charging mainly the borrowing countries; and the second from their income on investments in financial markets. Additionally, the International Development Association (IDA) receives contributions from members Have replenishments every three years – Aus donated $345m (USD) - $526m Aus – Denominations are in SDRs though in a lot of cases – in total raised $23.5bn USD But they make most of their money through their investments or assets – like most banks these are loans But what plagues the world bank – and in a way controls it – lack of transparency and corruption – The curse of any unaccountable massive organisation with hundreds of billions of dollars at its finder tips What they do – at the core they provide Financial Products and Services – but the private sector does well out of this – remember the 5 agencies - One provides loans to governments for projects deemed appropriate by the bank, one gives the money raised from member countries to give to other countries – both of these can be spent to hire the private sector, the other provides loans to the private sector, one works with governments to reduce the risk to the private sector and the other provides insurances against political risks – again mainly to the private sector In their own words - These loans support a wide array of investments in such areas as infrastructure, financial and private sector development, agriculture, and environmental and natural resource management. These loans are also made – In USD – or in SDRs - Make austerity requirements to the receiving countries if they are concessional loans – Practices even been criticised by their former Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz - that the so-called free market reform policies in practice are often harmful to economic development if implemented badly, too quickly ("shock therapy"), in the wrong sequence, or in very weak, uncompetitive economies loan agreements can also force procurements of goods and services at uncompetitive, non free-market, prices. Again – their aim is to help “the vulnerable in the poorest countries.” But these very institutions are culpable of accelerating the spread of poverty There was a frenzy of deregulation and poorly planned privatization in third world countries – at the same time the World Bank cut away both oversight of the private sector and social safety nets for the poor beginning in the 1980s – most of the progress towards their goals is reported back to them from the very private companies that are implementing projects Even by 1998 – World Bank (and IMF) were presiding over a spectacular financial collapse in East Asia, Russia and Brazil – 2001 - Argentina went bust and half of its people were suddenly poor Defenders of the World Bank contend that no country is forced to borrow its money – but the people don’t borrow the money – the politicians do – and in already corrupt places – some of the money is bound to go missing Academics in the West decide what is best for developing countries -but when you listen to them the World Bank isn’t helping enrich their lives – but those that they are in bed with – topic the practices and how a lot of these projects don’t help as they are promoted is a topic that takes a lot to unravel – do another episode down the road on it - but there is no shortage of reports of corruption and nepotism in their practices - One organisation - Government Accountability Project (GAP) produced a 10-page investigative report focusing on corruption at the World Bank focuses on extensive internal problems at the bank including how “kickbacks, payoffs, bribery, embezzlement, and collusive bidding plague bank-funded projects around the world.” The estimates are that more than 20% of the loans distributed by the World Bank, or $4 billion annually, are associated with corrupt practices Another paper – by three economists with previous ties to the bank (Anderssen, Johannesen, and Rijkers) found that “aid disbursements to highly aid-dependent countries coincide with sharp increases in bank deposits in offshore financial centers -associated with local officials steal a significant part of development aid funds and hide that money in their personal offshore accounts The paper studies a sample of the 22 most aid-dependent countries, with average disbursements from the World Bank exceeding 2 percent of GDP: Findings - In quarters when a country receives aid equivalent to 1 percent of GDP, its deposits in havens increase by 3.4% relative to a country receiving no aid, but its deposits held in non-haven financial centers remain constant. The implied average leakage is around 7.5%:This means that for every $100 of development aid, $7.50 apparently becomes corruption profits, hidden in offshore financial centers. Ironically - The data the three authors use for their study all comes from the BIS and from the World Bank. The development aid that fuels corruption is actually money disbursed by two major World Bank institutions: the International Development Association and the Bank of Reconstruction and Development – other examples - One $600 million bank program was alleged to be corrupt as early as 1995, but it took two years for the bank to look into the issue at all, and another four years for the bank to officially open an investigation. The bank found indications of widespread theft involved with the program – got rid of a scapegoat and went back to business as usual In 2019, the Congressional-Executive Commission on China questioned the World Bank about a loan in Xinjiang, China that was used to buy high-end security gear. There are a lot of good people working there – and im sure that they are frustrated by the lack of leadership – but the culture is the problem that makes matters worse - Staffers have traditionally been professionally rewarded for ensuring that projects go through as planned, but not for reporting corrupt practices – and when whistleblowers report corruption they are often punished for doing so They were not allowed to inform affected governments or the press, except under the most stringent constraints. If they do, they risk deportation back to their home countries. It was a wistleblower who flipped the lid on one of the Bank’s biggest black mark in history. This resulted in the resignation of president Paul Wolfowitz in 2007 - who exposed his “cronyism, favouritism, incompetence and improper political dealings” This had part to do with paying his girlfriend a large salary scandal – but also showed revelations of coordinated support he received from the Bank’s general counsel more recently Jim Yong Kim suspiciously resigned last year – reason was to join a private-sector infrastructure investment fund The bank adopted a “whistle-blower protection policy” last year – but it hasn’t been taken up on as it can be a trap for staff members – removes confidentiality and the investigative reports remain within the organisation and be hidden Where does each stand in relation to these systemic problems with corruption and who controls them - World Bank themselves are without any real external oversight - impenetrable by the legislatures of their member governments – they are massive bureaucracies, coupled with immunities from national and international laws – Neither Bank nor Fund officials can be subpoenaed by national legislatures, nor can they be obliged to testify in court. No government can demand internal documents from them. While each has some disclosure policies, these often remain unimplemented because the organizations cannot be sued. This is the stunning contradiction of the G-20 action: the signatories declared, “the era of bank secrecy is over,” but then dumped a trillion dollars of public money into the most secretive financial institutions in the world so they essentially control themselves – and those who are chosen to be on the board – if anyone is pulling the strings behind this – who knows – no way to request any of that information – even for governments Given that government are giving away hundreds of billions of dollars without any accounting for it – the results are not surprising – but if an institution is going to collect public money and the profit off it – it should be accountable to the public I don’t think it is incompetence that is the problem – but corrupt unaccountable practices that are – that is how they can screw up their prime objectives so well Thank you for listening to today's episode. If you want to get in contact you can do so here: http://financeandfury.com.au/contact/ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3329392 https://ida.worldbank.org/about/contributor-countries
We're all in greater London but of course we're still not in the same room. Video recording will have to do, as we discuss the recent Draft Code of Conduct for Adjudicators in Investor-State Dispute Settlement, issued by ICSID and UNCITRAL [TIME 13:22], as well as the law governing the arbitration agreement, based on a recent judgment from the Court of Appeal in London [TIME 39:58]. Happy Fun Time gives the episode its name - who wants to be an arbitrator (and how do you become one)? [TIME 01:01:33]
The episode's substantive segment is the ICSID Roster, and appointments in ICSID cases generally (inspired by a recent blog post about the nationality of arbitrators designated by states) - what is the ICSID Roster, how does one get on it and how does ICSID use it [TIME 12:18]? Then, Happy Fun Time is about law firm pitching/competing for business [TIME 41:57].Yes, we're working on a new intro to reflect the arrival of the amazing Saadia Bhatty!
Episode 4 is about one of the most important on-going developments in international arbitration, it focuses on the rules amendment of the Convention on the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Larry Shore and I talk about some of the proposals in the ICSID Rules Amendment, particularly those that I found to be relevant for the African context. Larry shares from his wealth of experience from representing clients before ICSID tribunals. Guest: Laurence Shore, Partner in the International Arbitration department, BonelliErede Music: Ellias Fullmore; Editing: Leyou Tameru; Host: Leyou Tameru
Philippe Sands QC is Professor of Law at University College London and a practising barrister at Matrix Chambers. Here he talks about his friend Ahmet Altan and his book: I Will Never See the World Again, written from inside a maximum security prison in Turkey. Philippe appears before many international courts and tribunals, including the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, and sits as an arbitrator at ICSID, the PCA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Philippe is the author of Lawless World (2005) and Torture Team (2008) and several academic books on international law, and has contributed to the New York Review of Books, Vanity Fair, the Financial Times and The Guardian. East West Street: On the Origins of Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide (Alfred Knopf/Weidenfeld & Nicolson) won the 2016 Baillie Gifford (formerly Samuel Johnson) Prize, the 2017 British Book Awards Non-Fiction Book of the Year, and the 2018 Prix Montaigne. The book is accompanied by a prizewinning BBC Storyville film, My Nazi Legacy: What Our Fathers Did. He is currently writing the sequel, which is the subject of his hit BBC podcast, The Ratline. Philippe is President of English PEN, and a vice president of the Hay Literary Festival. Recorded live at the EartH in London's Hackney on 19th March 2019. 5x15 brings together outstanding individuals to tell of their lives, passions and inspirations. Learn more about 5x15 events: www.5x15stories.com Twitter: www.twitter.com/5x15stories Facebook: www.facebook.com/5x15stories Instagram: www.instagram.com/5x15stories
Lecture summary: The problem confronting the users of international law, whether academic or professional, is very often not whether a rule of customary law has come into existence (as has recently been handled with such success by the ILC), but rather, granted that a rule of customary law on a given subject does exist, how to establish what its specific content is, for the purpose of then applying it to a particular situation. This applies not only to reasoned judicial decision but should also inform the processes of legal advice and decision-making based upon it. Ultimately what this may amount to is the assessment and weighing of the opinions of others. Rule of law considerations dictate that this can’t be a matter of subjective preference but must be based on known principles, i.e. to determine which opinions carry authority. The talk will investigate some of the issues involved, in the light, particularly, of Article 38 of the ICJ Statute. Sir Franklin (Frank) Berman joined HM Diplomatic Service in 1965 and was the Legal Adviser to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office from 1991-99. For the past 17 years he has been in practice in Essex Court Chambers specializing in international arbitration and advisory work in international law. He is Visiting Professor of International Law at Oxford and the University of Cape Town, and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the British Institute of International & Comparative Law. His career in international law and diplomacy has spanned a wide and varied field, including settlement of disputes; the law of treaties; State responsibility; diplomatic and State immunity; maritime delimitation; the law of the Continental shelf; outer space and nuclear energy; the law of international organisations; the UN Security Council; the laws of war and neutrality; international criminal tribunals; and numerous other areas. He is a Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, a former Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice, and was the Legal Member of the Court of Arbitration between Pakistan and India under the Indus Waters Treaty. He has sat on numerous ICSID arbitral and annulment proceedings. He is the general editor of the Oxford International Law Library.
Joel is in Copenhagen and Brian is in Amsterdam so the initial segment is recorded remotely, in a way that brings back memories from the early days of DIY audio. Thankfully, most of the episode was recorded in Sydney, where we first talk to ICSID Secretary-General Meg Kinnear about ISDS reform and ICSID's role in it [TIME 9:27]. Next, Ben Hayward discusses conflict of laws in international commercial arbitration (he has a great book out - watch this space for discount code if you're interested in it) [TIME 35:12]. Finally, Hugh Carlson discusses AI and cybersecurity and how they interact with arbitration [TIME TIME 59:27]. No Happy Fun Time this week - it will be back next week, in the final episode from Sydney (we think).
We use a recent ICSID decision in which the language was decided by coin toss as a reason to talk about the procedural language in arbitration more generally. Furthermore, we discuss how certain human rights issues interact with international arbitration and for Happy Fun Time, we clarify a thing or two on how to curate your online habits as an arbitration lawyer.
Dr Gleider Hernandez, Reader in Public International Law, University of Durham, October 2016 Dr Gleider I Hernández is Reader in Public International Law at Durham Law School and Deputy Director of the Durham Global Policy Institute. Originally from Canada, Gleider took a D.Phil from Wadham College, Oxford, an LL.M degree from Leiden, and BCL & LL.B degrees from McGill. His DPhil, The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Function, was published by the OUP in 2014, and was shortlisted for the Peter Birks Prize. His second book, International Law, will be published in 2017, also by the OUP. Gleider is currently an AHRC Research Leadership Fellow on a project entitled 'Constructing Authority in International Law'. Besides his academic position at Durham, Gleider serves as Junior Faculty with the Harvard Institute for Global Law and Policy and is a Visiting Senior Fellow at the TMC Asser Institute in The Hague. He has previously has been Visiting Fellow at McGill and Amsterdam universities. In terms of practice and consultancy work, Gleider currently serves as Expert on the group of experts drafting the NATO/CCDCOE Tallinn Manual on Cyber Operations in International Law, and has just completed a mandate as Special Assistant to an ICSID investment tribunal. He also served from 2008-2010 as Associate Legal Officer to Judges Peter Tomka and Bruno Simma at the International Court of Justice. He is also a Member of the Legal Action Committee of GLANLaw.org, a non-governmental organisation dedicated to challenging injustice through innovative legal strategy. Finally, nearly a decade ago, he served as the Convenor of the Public International Law Discussion Group of the Oxford Law Faculty, to which he returns with fond memories. Abstract: This paper attempts to understand the authority asserted by certain norm-applying institutions (‘law-applying authorities’ or officials) as part of their practice of responding to situations of indeterminacy in the law. Indeterminacy is explored as but a temporary gap, one which can be resolved through mechanisms of determinability within the legal system. The authority of norm-applying institutions is purportedly defended as necessary for the existence of law and the legal system, but is in fact rooted in social practices that legitimate the exercise of authority through recognition. Such a claim to authority is specifically with respect to content-independent authority, to the extent that it relies on the identity of the law-applying actor, rather than on the substance of the reasoning invoked. There is a circularity in identifying law-applying authorities through reference to the rules of the legal system, yet presuming their existence as a necessary condition for the existence of the legal system. Instead, the answer is partly also to be found in the existence of common discourse rules between various international actors, who together constitute an epistemic community and whose canons, forms of discourse and methods serve to define the practice of international law. It is through this combination of social recognition and adherence to socially-constructed canons and discourse rules that authority in law-application, law-creation and development privilege, over all other priorities, the coherence and authority of the system as a whole.
The Lauterpacht Centre for International Law (LCIL), University of Cambridge hosts a regular Friday lunchtime lecture series on key areas of International Law. Previous subjects have included UN peacekeeping operations, the advisory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the crime of aggression, whaling, children and military tribunals, and theories and practices for proving individual responsibility criminal responsibility for genocide and crimes against humanity. This lecture entitled 'Challenges to Arbitrators' was delivered on Friday, 30 January 2015 by Professor Stefan Kröll, Bucerius Law School, Hamburg. For more information about the series, please see the LCIL website at www.lcil.cam.ac.uk
Podcast zur drohenden ICSID Klage von Vattenfall gegen die Bundesrepublik. Der Atomausstieg soll kommen, ein zweites Mal. Nach Fukushima kann auch die CDU und FDP nicht mehr an ihrer Atompolitik festhalten und muss alle Kraftwerke abschalten lassen. Vattenfall möchte dies verhindern, oder eine Entschädigung erhalten. Nun steht eine klage vor dem ICSID an. Peter Fuchs von PowerShift bewertet diese Entscheidung.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
