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
Summary
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.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have