The Use and Misuse of the Corruption Defence in International Investment Arbitration

Tamar Meshel
{"title":"The Use and Misuse of the Corruption Defence in International Investment Arbitration","authors":"Tamar Meshel","doi":"10.54648/joia2013018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that while a mutually beneficial relationship can be cultivated between international investment arbitration and anti-corruption policies, the recent emergence of a state-invoked 'corruption defence' as a complete defence to liability for alleged breach of investment protection obligations may hamper the sustainability and effectiveness of such a relationship. In the context of a corrupt host state, for instance, and particularly a corrupt developing host state, the growing use of this defence may arguably frustrate the objectives of both foreign investment protection and anti-corruption policies. This was the case, for instance, in the 2006 investment arbitration World Duty Free Co. Ltd. v. Republic of Kenya, in which the arbitral tribunal accepted the corruption defence invoked by Kenya as a complete defence to the investor's claims of alleged breach of investment protection obligations. In so doing, the tribunal arguably disregarded the potentially detrimental effects such a decision may have on Kenya's ability to fight corruption and attract further foreign investment, both of which are of crucial importance to its future development. This article argues, therefore, that investment arbitration tribunals ought to proceed with caution when permitting a corrupt host state, and particularly a developing one, to rely on the corruption defence, and ought to devise alternative remedies to the complete rejection of the claims where investor corruption is established.","PeriodicalId":365224,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Investment (Topic)","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Investment (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2013018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

This article argues that while a mutually beneficial relationship can be cultivated between international investment arbitration and anti-corruption policies, the recent emergence of a state-invoked 'corruption defence' as a complete defence to liability for alleged breach of investment protection obligations may hamper the sustainability and effectiveness of such a relationship. In the context of a corrupt host state, for instance, and particularly a corrupt developing host state, the growing use of this defence may arguably frustrate the objectives of both foreign investment protection and anti-corruption policies. This was the case, for instance, in the 2006 investment arbitration World Duty Free Co. Ltd. v. Republic of Kenya, in which the arbitral tribunal accepted the corruption defence invoked by Kenya as a complete defence to the investor's claims of alleged breach of investment protection obligations. In so doing, the tribunal arguably disregarded the potentially detrimental effects such a decision may have on Kenya's ability to fight corruption and attract further foreign investment, both of which are of crucial importance to its future development. This article argues, therefore, that investment arbitration tribunals ought to proceed with caution when permitting a corrupt host state, and particularly a developing one, to rely on the corruption defence, and ought to devise alternative remedies to the complete rejection of the claims where investor corruption is established.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国际投资仲裁中腐败抗辩的运用与滥用
本文认为,虽然国际投资仲裁和反腐败政策之间可以培养互利关系,但最近出现的国家援引的“腐败辩护”作为对涉嫌违反投资保护义务的责任的完整辩护,可能会阻碍这种关系的可持续性和有效性。例如,在一个腐败的东道国,特别是一个腐败的发展中东道国的背景下,越来越多地使用这种辩护可能会阻碍外国投资保护和反腐败政策的目标。例如,2006年世界免税品有限公司诉肯尼亚共和国投资仲裁案就是这种情况,在该案中,仲裁庭接受了肯尼亚援引的腐败抗辩,作为对投资者声称违反投资保护义务的完整抗辩。在这样做的过程中,法庭可以说忽略了这样一个决定可能对肯尼亚打击腐败和吸引更多外国投资的能力产生的潜在有害影响,而这两项能力对肯尼亚未来的发展至关重要。因此,本文认为,投资仲裁法庭在允许腐败的东道国(特别是发展中国家)依靠腐败辩护时,应谨慎行事,并应设计替代补救措施,以完全拒绝投资者腐败的索赔。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Impact and Application of the UNCITRAL Rules in Domestic Jurisdictions An Analysis and Assessment of China's Investment in Ghana. The (Ir)relevance of Transnational Public Policy in Investment Treaty Arbitration Foreign Investment Screening Beyond the COVID-19 Challenge: Overcoming the Emergency Capacity to Borrow and Sovereign Debt
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1