Abstract

This paper examines the consequences of the respondent's default in payment of the advance on costs in investment arbitration administered by the ICSID. First, it explores the consequences of the respondent's default pursuant to other arbitration rules also used in investment arbitration. Then it examines the possibilities for an arbitral tribunal in ICSID proceedings to award the claimant the substitute payment it made for the respondent in a decision or order prior to the final award. Finally, the paper discusses the possibility for the tribunal to take into account the respondent's default by apportioning costs in the final award.

Highlights

  • 69 Npr. autori Salivan i Ingl (Sullivan & Ingle), pri nabrajanju radnji koje spadaju u „procedural misconduct“ na str. 734, ne navode neplaćanje predujma za troškove spora

  • tužena Republika Niger takođe nije platila predujam za troškove

  • Li­ba­nan­co Hol­dings Co. Li­mi­ted v.Re­pu­blic of Tur­key

Read more

Summary

Introduction

69 Npr. autori Salivan i Ingl (Sullivan & Ingle), pri nabrajanju radnji koje spadaju u „procedural misconduct“ na str. 734, ne navode neplaćanje predujma za troškove spora.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call