Investor-state Dispute Settlement. 1. Any dispute between an investor of one Party and the other Party in connection with an investment in the territory of the other Party shall, as far as possible, be settled amicably through negotiations between the parties to the dispute. 2. If the dispute cannot be settled through negotiations within 6 months from the date on which the disputing investor requested for the consultation or negotiation in writing, and if the disputing investor has not submitted the dispute for resolution to the competent court (16) or any other binding dispute settlement mechanism (17) of the Party receiving the investment, it may be submitted to one of the following international conciliation or arbitration fora by the choice of the investor (18): (a) conciliation or arbitration in accordance with the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), under the Convention on the Settlement of Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, done at Washington on March 18th, 1965; (b) conciliation or arbitration under the Additional Facility Rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes so long as the ICSID Convention is not in force between the Parties; (c) arbitration under the arbitration Rules of the United Nations Comission on International Trade Law; and (d) if agreed with the disputing Party, any arbitration in accordance with other arbitration rules. For more clarity, the election of one dispute settlement fora shall be definitive and exclusive. 3. An arbitral tribunal established under paragraph 2 shall decide the issues in dispute in accordance with this Agreement and applicable rules of international law. 4. The disputing investor who intends to submit the dispute to conciliation or arbitration pursuant to paragraph 2 shall give to the disputing Party written notice of its intent to do so at least 90 days before the claim is submitted. The notice of intent shall specify: (a) the name and address of the disputing investor; (b) the specific measures of the disputing Party at issue and a brief summary of the factual and legal basis of the investment dispute sufficient to present the problem clearly, including the obligations under this Chapter alleged to have been breached; (c) the waiver of the disputing investor from the right to initiate any proceedings before any of the other dispute settlement for referred to in paragraph 2 in relation to the matter under dispute; (d) conciliation or arbitration set forth in par...
Investor-state Dispute Settlement. 1. Any dispute between an investor of one Party and the other Party in connection with an investment in the territory of the other Party shall, as far as possible, be settled amicably through negotiations between the parties to the dispute.
Investor-state Dispute Settlement. Article 10.14
Investor-state Dispute Settlement. 1. This Article shall apply to disputes between a Party and an investor of the other Party concerning an alleged breach of an obligation of the former under this Chapter which causes loss or damage to the investor or its investment.
Investor-state Dispute Settlement. The competent authorities of the Parties shall hold consultations with a view to determining whether Article 7.11 (Transfers) has been breached or whether the taxation measure in question has an effect equivalent to expropriation. Any tribunal that may be established in accordance with Article 7.19 (nvestor-State Dispute Settlement) shall accept as binding the decision of the competent authorities under this paragraph.
Investor-state Dispute Settlement. Article 1115:. Consultation and Negotiation In the event of a dispute concerning an investment, the claimant and the respondent shall initially seek to resolve the dispute through consultation and negotiation, which may include the use of non-binding third-party.
Investor-state Dispute Settlement. One of the major grounds for concern around the TPPA is that foreign investors could sue the New Zealand government for compensation in secretive international tribunals over new laws or policies which they claim would significantly hurt their investments. This would mean that foreign banks, insurance companies and money traders from the other 10 countries — especially the US — could challenge new financial regulations introduced to defend the New Zealand economy from speculation. No Effective Exceptions The past experience of some TPPA countries makes them very nervous about restrictions on capital controls and they have proposed limited exceptions and emergency powers allowing their use. The United States opposes these exceptions, even in a balance of payments emergency. Despite deregulation, New Zealand still has some legal capacity to protect ourselves in a financial crisis, and we should not trade this away. Our government is elected by New Zealanders to look after our interests, and it should not have to answer to transnational corporations for introducing measures designed to protect and grow our economy. “Does the TPPA sound like something New Zealand should be a part of?” Act now! • Email the Prime Minister9 • Sign the petition10 • Spread the news11 Links:
Investor-state Dispute Settlement. 1. This Article shall apply to investment disputes between a Party and an investor of the other Party concerning an alleged breach of Article 7.4, Article 7.5, Article 7.6, Article 7.7, Article 7.9, Article 7.11 and Article 7.12 which causes loss or damage by reason of, or arising out of, that breach to:
Investor-state Dispute Settlement. 1215:. Consultation and Negotiation
Investor-state Dispute Settlement
