본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Shareholder Claims for Reflective Loss in Investor-State Disputes and Reform Options

이재성
법무부 (Ministry of Justice)|2021.05|국제법무연구 (Journal of International Legal Affairs)|제2호|pp. 55-91|DOI 10.36514/itl.2021..2.002

0

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

UNCITRALinvestmentreflective lossinvestor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) reformshareholder claimsmultiple proceedingsconsolidation and coordinationdenial of benefit clauseswaiver requirements
주제분류법학

초록

Since 2017, UNCITRAL has been considering a number of reform options to improve the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) system. During the deliberations, multiple proceedings as well as shareholder claims for reflective loss were identified as concerns and areas where reform would be desirable. This article examines the situation where foreign shareholders of a local company raises claims against a State for reflective loss. It provides an overview of the issues relating to reflective loss claims by analysing relevant case law of ISDS tribunals and treaty-based measures taken by States to respond to reflect loss claims. The paper concludes by examining the wide array of reform solutions under consideration by Working Group III of UNCITRAL and suggests the possible way forward, including the development of model clauses and procedural tools as well as the preparation of guidance to tribunals faced with reflective loss claims. The paper emphasizes a balanced approach taking into account the fact that reflective loss claims provide an effective remedy for foreign shareholders and at the same time, pose a number of concerns to States as well as relevant stakeholders.

Abstract

Since 2017, UNCITRAL has been considering a number of reform options to improve the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) system. During the deliberations, multiple proceedings as well as shareholder claims for reflective loss were identified as concerns and areas where reform would be desirable. This article examines the situation where foreign shareholders of a local company raises claims against a State for reflective loss. It provides an overview of the issues relating to reflective loss claims by analysing relevant case law of ISDS tribunals and treaty-based measures taken by States to respond to reflect loss claims. The paper concludes by examining the wide array of reform solutions under consideration by Working Group III of UNCITRAL and suggests the possible way forward, including the development of model clauses and procedural tools as well as the preparation of guidance to tribunals faced with reflective loss claims. The paper emphasizes a balanced approach taking into account the fact that reflective loss claims provide an effective remedy for foreign shareholders and at the same time, pose a number of concerns to States as well as relevant stakeholders.

참고문헌 (56)

  1. Bottini, Gabriel, "Admissibility of Shareholder Claims under Investment Treaties" (2020), Cambridge University Press
  2. Christian and Tania Ghossein, Starting a Foreign Investment across Sectors, "De la Medina Soto", World Bank, ~, pp.World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6707 (2013)
  3. Dolzer, Rudolf, "Principles of International Investment Law" (2012), Oxford University Press
  4. Jurisdiction in Investment Treaty Arbitration, "Gaillard, Emmanuel", IAI, ~, pp.IAI Series No. 8 (2018)
  5. Investment Treaties as Corporate Law: Shareholder Claims and Issues of Consistency, "Gaukrodger, David", OECD Publishing, ~, pp.OECD Working Papers on International Investment, 2013 (2013), 03
  6. Investment Treaties and Shareholder Claims for Reflective Loss: Insights from Advanced Systems of Corporate Law, "Gaukrodger, David", OECD Publishing, ~, pp.OECD Working Papers on International Investment, 2014 (2014), 02
  7. McLachlan, Campbell, "Lauren Shore, Matthew Weiniger, International Investment Arbitration – Substantive Principles" (2017), Oxford University Press
  8. The Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment: Do Statutory Restrictions Matter?, "Mistura, Fernando", OECD Publishing, ~, pp.OECD Working Papers on International Investment, 2019 (2019), 01
  9. Wehland, Hanno, "The Coordination of Multiple Proceedings in Investment Treaty Arbitration, Oxford International Arbitration Series" (2013), Oxford University Press
  10. Zarra, Giovanni, "Parallel Proceedings in Investment Arbitration" (2016), Eleven International Publishing and Giappichelli
  11. Kathleen Claussen, Jaemin Lee, and Giovanni Zarra, “Reforming Shareholder Claims in ISDS, "Arato, Julian", Academic Forum on ISDS, ~, pp.Academic Forum on ISDS Concept Paper, 2019 (2019), 9
  12. Bedrosyan, Alexander, "The Asymmetrical Fork-in-the-Road Clause in the USMCA: Helpful and Unique", Kluwer Arbitration Blog, ~ (2019)
  13. Chaisse, Julien, "Shareholder Protection Reloaded: Redesigning the Matrix of Shareholder Claims for Reflective Loss", Stan. J. Int’l L, 52, pp.51~ (2016)
  14. Gaillard, Emmanuel, "Abuse of Process in International Arbitration", ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, 32(1) (2017)
  15. Gastrell, Lindsay, "Procedural Requirements of ‘Denial-of-Benefits’ Clauses in Investment Treaties: A Review of Arbitral Decisions", ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, 30(1) (2015)
  16. Reinisch, August, "The Use and Limits of Res Judicata and Lis Pendens as Procedural Tools to Avoid Conflicting Dispute Settlement Outcomes", L Practice Intl Courts Tribunals, 3 (2004)
  17. Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders, "International Court of Justice", ~ (2007)
  18. International Law Commission, "2006 Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection", ~
  19. "Notes by the UNCITRAL Secretariat - Concurrent proceedings in investment arbitration (A", CN.9, CN.9, pp.881)
  20. "Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventy-second Session, Supplement No. 17 (A", 72, ~
  21. "Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-first Session, Supplement No. 10 (A", 61, ~
  22. Report of Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the work of its thirty-sixth session, , ~ (2018)
  23. Report of Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the work of thirty-eighth session, , ~ (2019)
  24. Report of Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the work of its thirty-ninth session, , ~ (2020)
  25. World Investment Report – Reforming International Investment Governance, "UNCTAD", United Nations Publication, ~ (2015)
  26. "Submission by the Corporate Counsel International Arbitration Group (CCIAG) to the thirty-ninth session of UNCITRAL Working Group III", ~ (2020)
  27. OECD, "Summary of the Roundtable discussion on Freedom of Investment 18", ~ (2013)
  28. OECD, "Summary of the Roundtable discussion on Freedom of Investment 19", ~ (2013)
  29. "UNCTAD Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator"[URL]
  30. "Ampal-American Israel Corp. v. Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB", 12, ~
  31. "Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)", 12, ~
  32. "Bilcon of Delaware et al v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2009-04", ~ (2009)
  33. "Blusun S.A., Jean-Pierre Lecorcier and Michael Stein v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB", 14, ~
  34. "Canfor Corporation, Tembec et al., and Terminal Forest Products Ltd. v. United States, UNCITRAL Rules", ~ (1976)
  35. "Case Concerning Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), ICJ", ~
  36. "Case Concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), ICJ", ~
  37. "Case concerning Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy), ICJ", ~
  38. "Eskosol S.p.A. in Liquidazione v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB", 15, ~
  39. "European American Bank Investment Bank AG (Austria) v. Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2010-17", ~ (2010)
  40. "Gami Investments Inc. v. Mexico, UNCITRAL Rules", ~ (1976)
  41. "Grynberg et al. v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB", 10, ~
  42. "H&H Enterprises Investments v. Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB", 09, ~
  43. "Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB", 07, ~
  44. "Lanco International Inc. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB", 97, ~
  45. "Lotus Holding Anonim Şirketi v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB", 17, ~
  46. "M.C.I. Power Group v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB", 03, ~
  47. "Meditrust Healthcare Inc. v. Shoppers Drug Mart, Court of Appeal for Ontario", ~ (2002)
  48. "Orascom TMT Investments v. Algeria, ICSID Case No. ARB", 12, ~
  49. "Phoenix Action, Ltd v The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No ARB", 06, ~
  50. "Pope & Talbot v. Canada, UNCITRAL Rules", ~ (1976)
  51. "Renée Rose Levy and Gremcitel SA v Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No ARB", 11, ~
  52. "Ronald S. Lauder v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL Rules", ~ (1976)
  53. "RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB", 05, ~
  54. "ST-AD GmbH v. Republic of Bulgaria, PCA Case No. 2011-06", ~ (2011)
  55. "Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)", 98, ~
  56. "Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States (Number 2), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)", 00, ~

관련 논문AI추천

Possibility of Counterclaims in Investment Treaty Arbitration이서연동북아법연구소 · 동북아법연구2015 · 제8권 제3호The Incomplete Depoliticization of Investment Disputes: Enforcing ICSID Awards김보연아시아태평양법연구소 · Journal of Korean Law2025 · 제24권 제2호ICC's Competitiveness in Investment Treaty ArbitrationAhmet Cemil Yıldırım한국중재학회 · 중재연구2025 · 제35권 제3호ISD Illiteracy? - Lessons from U.S. Lawsuits for Recognition and Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards최영란법학연구원 · 법학논고2013 · 제44호Recent Developments in the EU Investment Policy : Towards an Investment World Court?Belen Olmos Giupponi한국중재학회 · 중재연구2016 · 제26권 제3호Responding to Public Concerns over Investor State Dispute Settlement Clauses In APEC Free Trade AgreementsLaura S. Henry아시아태평양법연구소 · Journal of Korean Law2013 · 제12권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (4건)

탄소국경조정 도입의 WTO 합치성 쟁점 : GATT 제2조, 제3조, 제20조김호철pp. 3-54해외건설공사에 대한 하도급법의 적용가능성 및 FIDIC 표준계약조건의 하도급법 위반가능성황성현pp. 92-136코로나19 백신 관련 EU와 미국의 수출통제위민복pp. 137-173국제중재에서의 증거 배제 사유 : 영업상/기술적 기밀성과 정치적 민감성/국가기밀성의 비교를 중심으로임아영pp. 174-191
원문 보기