Originally from: Between East and West: Essays in Honour of Ulf Franke - Hardcover
Between East and West: Essays in Honour of Ulf Franke - Electronic
Preview Page
I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
With its established tradition in transnational dispute resolution, the
Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) aims to play a significant role in
international investment arbitration. To this end, the SCC has been
successful in offering itself as an alternative venue alongside ICSID in
Washington and other dispute resolution centres. Indeed, the SCC is
named in the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) as one of three alternatives for
settling investment disputes. In fact, Stockholm saw the first ECT dispute
to be resolved (Nykomb v. Latvia1 2003). Others were to follow; Petrobart v.
The Kyrgyz Republic2 2005 and Amato v. Ukraine3 2008, with other ECT
claims currently pending.
Bilateral investment treaties (BITs) have come into existence with a
pace that could only have been dreamt of 20 years earlier. As a
consequence, investment treaty arbitration has become a matter of vital
international concern since it permits foreign investors to sue host
governments for damages allegedly caused to their investment. With huge
sums of money at stake on one side, and national sovereignty on the other,
investment treaty arbitration has become an important aspect of the
international political economy.
The aim of this article is to provide a modest overview of the
relatively recent principle/standard of legitimate expectation (LE) in
investment protection disputes, as well as to elaborate upon the kinds of
expectations that are legally relevant in this evolving area.
