Abstract
This chapter discusses jurisdictional award in Abaclat and Others v. Argentine Republic and the role of investment treaty arbitration in resolving sovereign debt disputes. It considers how resolution of sovereign debt disputes in International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitration differs, if at all, from resolution of those disputes in New York/English courts. It describes that the barriers to a claim by an investor for non-payment by a State issuer of international bonds in ICSID arbitration are higher than in the English courts. Nevertheless, five factors may entice a holder of defaulted sovereign debt into ICSID arbitration. The chapter focuses on issues of sovereign debt instruments that are tradable and for which price quotations are readily available in the international capital markets, for example sovereign bond issues. It describes the circumstances of a sovereign debt claim brought by a bondholder before a New York/English court. Keywords: Abaclat ; Argentine Republic; English court; ICSID; investment treaty arbitration
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
