MBA Thesis Accounting Finance Tourism Marketing Economics,Ecommerce Education Journalism and Mass CommunicatLaw sociology Engineering linguistic
当前位置: 代写英语论文网 > Thesis > Law >


 In short, having examined the argument and evidence, thedecision of this Tribunal needs establish the objective meaning ofArticle 8 in the overall context of the BIT. 总之,法庭决定的这些研究的论点和证据,都需要建立在客观意义上的总体背景下的BIT中的第8条条约下。
As indicated in thePreamble, as remarked by Claimant, the objective of the BITconsisted in increasing the flow of private investment between bothContracting Parties. In this context, the wording of Article 8(2), whichindicates that either party shall be entitled to submit any dispute “tothe competent court of the Contracting Party” may be consideredunnecessary as it seems that the right of an investor of eithercountry to turn to the courts of the host State had already existedboth in China and Peru. If the affected party would be interestedonly in establishing its rights under the laws of the host State, thewording of the treaty would seem to have been 根据东道国的法律,如果受影响的一方对此有兴趣的话,可以建立自己的权利,该条约的措辞可以应用在这个地方。unnecessary.Notwithstanding, the use of bilateral investment treaties has thrivedas, to a lesser or greater extent, they extend the rights and protections of investors, both in content and form, by theincorporation of protections of international law.
   The Tribunal concludes that to give meaning to all theelements of the article, it must be interpreted that the words“involving the amount of compensation for expropriation” includesnot only the mere determination of the amount but also any otherissues normally inherent to an expropriation, including whether theproperty was actually expropriated in accordance with the BITprovisions and requirements, as well as the determination of theamount of compensation due, if any.(119)In opinion of the Tribunal, acontrary conclusion would invalidate the provision related to ICSIDarbitration since according to the final sentence of Article 8(3),turning to the courts of the State accepting the investment wouldpreclude definitely the possibility choosing arbitration under theICSID Convention. Consequently, since the Claimant has filed aprima facie claim of expropriation, the Tribunal, pursuant to Articles25 and 41 of the ICSID Convention and Rule 41 of the ArbitrationRules, considers that it is competent to decide on the merits of theexpropriation claim filed by Claimant.
The most favoured nation clause of the BIT may not be usedto broaden the scope of the ICSID arbitration agreed under theTreaty .
The position of the Parties189. Claimant has argued that the jurisdiction of the ArbitralTribunal comes from two sources:(120)  on the one hand, Article 8 ofthe Peru-China BIT, which allows the Tribunal to decide on disputesrelated to expropriation of investments; and   on the other hand,Article 3(1) of the BIT, which states the principle that the investors ofthe Contracting Parties should be given fair and equitable treatmentunder the most favoured nation (“MFN”) clause contained in Article 3(2) thereof.

UK Thesis Base Contacts