1 / 11

Joint Symposium: International Investment and Alternative Dispute Resolution

Joint Symposium: International Investment and Alternative Dispute Resolution 29 March 2010, Lexington, United States of America. “Experiences of stakeholders in investment arbitration and dispute resolution - pitfalls and successes”: Thailand’s perspectives By Vilawan Mangklatanakul

cherrie
Télécharger la présentation

Joint Symposium: International Investment and Alternative Dispute Resolution

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Joint Symposium: International Investment and Alternative Dispute Resolution 29 March 2010, Lexington, United States of America “Experiences of stakeholders in investment arbitration and dispute resolution - pitfalls and successes”: Thailand’s perspectives By Vilawan Mangklatanakul (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Thailand)

  2. The experiences* The first and only investment arbitration case for Thailand so far: the Walter Bau case * Thailand signed the first, of 42 BITs, with Germany in 1961; the first arbitration only arose in 2007

  3. Two Aspects of our experiences:* Procedural: the process of dispute management * Substantive: the content of investment treaty

  4. Procedural aspect: the process of dispute management> Pre-dispute> During-dispute> Post-dispute

  5. Pre-dispute * Lack of experiences in investment arbitration, Thailand signed the first BIT with Germany in 1961; the first arbitration case only arose in 2007.* Lack of the Coordinating Agency when a dispute arises – relied upon the appointment of the Working Group only after the occurrence of dispute.* Lack of institutionalized dispute-filtering mechanism which could prevent a dispute escalating into formal investment arbitration.

  6. During-dispute * Lack of understanding about BIT on the part of the relevant agencies* Lack of coordination for collective actions + Lack of central-information sharing system which cause inevitable delay.* Lack of experienced lawyers in the field in the country* Language barrier – the need for translation which causes delay, costs and inaccuracy.

  7. Post-dispute* Lack of political willingness to accept an arbitral award in which state is a losing party* Accountable and answerable to the public and the media – which may sensitize the public opinion. * The impact of arbitral award on the investment climate and the country’s image.* Personal responsibility of officials in the case of loss

  8. Substantive issues: Content of treaty4 key points:- the meaning of ‘investment dispute’- ‘specifically approved in writing’ – C.A.P. (certificate of Approval for Protection) mechanism in Thailand’s bilateral investment regime- ‘Fair and equitable treatment’- ‘Indirect Expropriation’

  9. Vague terms in treaties  Over-expansive interpretation by tribunals [States (masters of treaties)  “Slaves”] Subject of treaties  their Objects  Absence of Home State when a dispute arises between its investor and Host State.

  10. Conclusion: suggestions1. Procedural concern: Establishment of the domestic mechanism- Dispute Prevention Policy- Intergovernmental Agency2. Substantive concern:- Greater clarity/precision of the provisions: current trend- Enhance/create the institutionalised State-to-State cooperation mechanism – Joint Committee (JC) Reengagement of Home State * A forum for negotiation on settlement* Issue binding notes of interpretations

  11. THANK YOU

More Related