The Kompetenz-Kompetenz doctrine presumes that an international arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction to assess and decide its own jurisdiction. Legal systems adopt different approaches to the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle. National arbitration legislation varies regarding the versions of the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle adopted.[1] The principle involves two types of effects. The positive effect of Kompetenz-Kompetenz is that the arbitral […]
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards against State Assets: Sovereign Immunity in the United States
The main issue related to enforcement of an arbitral award against a State in the United States is the State’s sovereign immunity. Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), foreign sovereigns enjoy immunity from jurisdiction, a presumptive immunity from suit in U.S. federal and state courts, and immunity from execution, whereby their property is immune […]
William Kirtley and Marina Sim Comment on Taxes and Investment Arbitration
William Kirtley and Marina Sim were interviewed by LexisNexis to discuss the judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal in Vincent J. Ryan, Schooner Capital LLC, and Atlantic Investment Partners LLC v Republic of Poland, and the claimants’ set-aside application and its implications for investment treaty arbitration (ITA) practitioners. The dispute concerned States’ authority to […]
Intra-EU Arbitrations and the Enforcement of ICSID Awards in the United States: the Impact of Achmea
The ICSID Convention requires signatories to treat arbitral awards rendered according to the ICSID framework as if they were a final judgment of a court in that State.[1] To challenge an award, the claimant shall seek review within the ICSID arbitral regime, rather than before State courts.[2] To implement the Convention, the U.S. Congress in […]
Aceris Achieves American Clients’ Objectives in ICDR Arbitration
Aceris Law has again achieved the outcome sought by its clients, this time in an ICDR arbitration between European claimants and Aceris’ American clients. The ICDR arbitration, initiated by European claimants represented by a large corporate firm, were brought against Aceris’ clients and concerned claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation and unjust […]