• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.161-178
• /
• 2009

This article focuses on the enforceability of arbitration agreements m the dispute of standby letter of credit, especially with the case analysis of the leading case from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. In Nova Hut a.s. v. Kaiser Group International Inc. case, while the underlying contract contained an arbitration clause, a guarantee to assure contractor's performance did not contain an arbitration clause. Nova Hut drew on the standby for the Contractor's failure to deliver contractual obligations. Against the Kaiser's action under US Bankruptcy law, Nova Hut moved to stay the proceedings pending arbitration, to compel arbitration, and to dismiss the complaint. The US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied Nova Hut's motions. On appeal, Kaiser argued that it was not subject to arbitration since it was not a party to the contract. It also argued that Nova Hut had waived its right to arbitration by filing a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding and commencing legal actions in other countries. The appeals court noted that in order to avoid arbitration on those grounds prejudice must be shown. It indicated that because there was no long delay in requesting arbitration and no discovery conducted m the course of litigation, the Kaiser could not demonstrate actual prejudice on the part of Owner. In light of public policy favoring arbitration, the nature of the claims in the parties' agreements, Kaiser's conduct in embracing the agreements, and their expectation of benefit, the appeals court ruled that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied in requiring the Parent to arbitrate.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.33-52
• /
• 2014

Although climate change is a global scale question, some concerns have been raised that principles of investment arbitration may not adequately address the domestic implementation of climate change measures. A recent ICSID investment arbitration of Vattenfall v. Germany with regard to the investor's alleged damages from the phase-out of nuclear plants is a salient climate change case. The 2005 Kyoto Protocol was made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and it provides a number of flexible mechanisms such as Joint Implementation (JI) and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol allows dispute settlement through investor-state arbitration. Any initiation of stricter emission standards can violate the prohibition on expropriations in investment agreements, regardless of the measures created to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The effect-based expropriation doctrine can charge changes to existing emission standards as interference with the use of property that goes against the legitimate expectation of a foreign investor. In regulatory chill, threat of investor claims against the host state may preclude the strengthening of climate change measures. Stabilization clauses also have a freezing effect on the hosting state's regulation and a new law applicable to the investment. In the fair and equitable standard, basic expectations of investors when entering into earlier carbon-intensive operations can be affected by a regulation seeking to change into a low-carbon approach. As seen in the Methanex tribunal, a non-discriminatory and public purpose of environmental protection measures should be considered as non-expropriation in the arbitral tribunal unless its decision would intentionally impede a foreign investor's investment.