THE ROLE OF THE STATE IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT ARBITRATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE ARMED CONFLICT
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
This article deals with the characteristics of using international investment arbitration as a mechanism for obtaining redress for damages caused during Russian aggression. Taking into account certain shortcomings of this legal remedy, the author highlights the State's role in leveling issues related to arbitration costs and protecting the rights of small and medium-sized enterprises. The article contains an analysis of the subrogation clause in the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on encouragement and mutual protection of investments of November 27, 1998, as well as an alleged procedure for its implementation. The existing practice of horizontal investment lawsuits is also disclosed as an alternative. The author cites the existing practice of interpreting the Agreement on the example of investment arbitrations in the so-called “Crimean cases,” demonstrating its relevance for subjects in the newly occupied territories. The article includes a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of international investment arbitration in the Ukrainian context and the author's recommendations on non-standard methods of obtaining compensation in the context of an international armed conflict.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
international investment arbitration, aggression, subrogation, horizontal lawsuits, compensation
2. Uhoda mizh Kabinetom Ministriv Ukrainy i Uriadom Rosiiskoi Federatsii pro zaokhochennia ta vzaiemnyi zakhyst investytsii vid 27 lystopada 1998 roku [Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on encouragement and mutual protection of investments of November 27, 1998]. Retrieved from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/643_101#Text [in Ukrainian].
3. Yurlov M. (2018). Zakhyst investytsii na okupovanykh terytoriiakh [Protection of investments in occupied territories.]. Yur-Gazeta, 21, 623–624. Retrieved from: https://yur-gazeta.com/publications/practice/mizhnarodne-pravo-investiciyi/zahist-investiciy-na-okupovanih-teritoriyah.html [in Ukrainian].
4. Factory at Chorzow (Merits), 1928, P.C.I.J. Series A, № 17, p. 21.
5. Klymchuk A. (2022). Mizhnarodnyi investytsiinyi arbitrazh yak odyn iz mekhanizmiv vidshkoduvannia zbytkiv [International investment arbitration as one of the compensation mechanisms]. Ukrainska pravda. Retrieved from: https://www.epravda.com.ua/columns/2022/07/22/689520/ [in Ukrainian].
6. Zakon Ukrainy «Pro investytsiinu diialnist» vid 18 veresnia 1991 roku [Law of Ukraine "On Investment Activity" of September 18, 1991]. Retrieved from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1560-12#Text [in Ukrainian].
7. Khrimli O. (2016). Derzhavni harantii yak sposib zakhystu prav investoriv [State guarantees as a way of protecting the rights of investors]. Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo, 2/2016. Retrieved from: http://pgp-journal.kiev.ua/archive/2016/02/12.pdf [in Ukrainian].
8. Zakon Ukrainy «Pro zabezpechennia masshtabnoi ekspansii eksportu tovariv (robit, posluh) ukrainskoho pokhodzhennia shliakhom strakhuvannia, harantuvannia ta zdeshevlennia kredytuvannia eksportu» vid 20 hrudnia 2016 roku [Law of Ukraine “On Ensuring the Large-Scale Expansion of the Export of Goods (Works, Services) of Ukrainian Origin through Insurance, Guaranteeing and Cheapening of Export Crediting” of December 20, 2016]. Retrieved from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1792-19#Text [in Ukrainian].
9. Gaukrodger D. (2016). State-to-State dispute settlement and the interpretation of investment treaties. OECD Working Papers on International Investment, 2016/03, OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlr71rq1j30-en
10. Verkhovnyi sud Frantsii zalyshyv u syli rishennia Mizhnarodnoho arbitrazhu pro stiahnennia $1,1 mlrd z RF na koryst Oshchadbanku za Krym. Interfax-Україна [The Court of cassation of France upheld the decision of the International Arbitration on the recovery of $1.1 billion from the Russian Federation in favor of Oschadbank for Crimea]. Interfax. Retrieved from: https://interfax.com.ua/news/general/876948.html [in Ukrainian].