DOCSLIB.ORG

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Washington, D.C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Washington, D.C INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES WASHINGTON, D.C. IN THE PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN IOANNIS KARDASSOPOULOS and RON FUCHS (Claimants) and THE REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA (Respondent) (ICSID Case Nos. ARB/05/18 and ARB/07/15) AWARD Arbitral Tribunal Mr. L. Yves Fortier, C.C., O.Q., Q.C., President Professor Francisco Orrego Vicuña Professor Vaughan Lowe, Q.C. Secretary of the Tribunal Ms. Aïssatou Diop Assistant to the Tribunal Ms. Alison G. FitzGerald Representing the Claimant Representing the Respondent Ms. Karyl Nairn Ms. Claudia T. Salomon Mr. Timothy G. Nelson Mr. Matthew Saunders Mr. David Herlihy Ms. Kate Knox Ms. Jennifer M. Cabrera Ms. Kiera Gans SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER AND FLOM Mr. Theodore C. Jonas (UK) LLP / SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER Mr. Nick Gvinadze AND FLOM LLP Mr. Avto Svanidze DLA PIPER UK LLP / DLA PIPER LLP (US) / DLA PIPER GVINADZE & PARTNERS LLP Date of dispatch to the parties: March 3, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I. PROCEDURE ................................................................................................... - 1 - A. Overview ............................................................................................................ - 1 - B. Registration of the Requests for Arbitration.................................................. - 3 - C. Constitution of the Tribunal and Commencement of the Proceeding ......... - 3 - D. The Jurisdictional Phase .................................................................................. - 4 - E. The Liability and Quantum Phase .................................................................. - 5 - 1. The Written Procedure ............................................................................ - 5 - a) Procedural Order No. 1 ............................................................... - 5 - b) Request for Adjournment of the Hearing.................................... - 6 - c) Procedural Order No. 2 ............................................................... - 7 - d) Procedural Order No. 3 ............................................................... - 7 - e) Procedural Order No. 4 ............................................................... - 8 - 2. The Oral Procedure ................................................................................ - 9 - 3. The Post-Hearing Procedure ................................................................ - 11 - F. The ECT and the BITs ................................................................................... - 11 - 1. The Arbitration Clauses ........................................................................ - 12 - 2. The Substantive Clauses ....................................................................... - 16 - G. The Parties’ Respective Prayers for Relief ................................................... - 18 - PART II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................... - 19 - A. Introduction ..................................................................................................... - 20 - B. The Joint Venture Agreement ....................................................................... - 23 - C. The Deed of Concession .................................................................................. - 30 - D. Work Performed by GTI................................................................................ - 35 - E. The Proposed Partnership between Tramex and Brown & Root .............. - 36 - F. AIOC and Negotiation of the PCOA ............................................................. - 46 - a Kardassopoulos / Fuchs v. Georgia G. The Creation of GIOC .................................................................................... - 52 - H. The Cancellation of GTI’s Rights .................................................................. - 54 - I. The Compensation Commission Process ...................................................... - 56 - PART III. SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS ...................................... - 70 - A. The Claimants’ Case ....................................................................................... - 70 - B. The Respondent’s Case................................................................................... - 70 - PART IV. ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED .................................................................... - 71 - PART V. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ........................................................................ - 72 - A. Preliminary Matters ....................................................................................... - 72 - 1. The Law Applicable to the Merits ......................................................... - 73 - 2. Burden of Proof..................................................................................... - 76 - B. Jurisdiction & Equitable Prescription .......................................................... - 78 - 1. Jurisdiction Ratione Temporis under the Georgia / Greece BIT .......... - 79 - a) The Respondent’s Position ....................................................... - 79 - b) The Claimants’ Position ............................................................ - 79 - c) The Tribunal’s Determination................................................... - 80 - 2. Jurisdiction Ratione Temporis under the Georgia / Israel BIT ............ - 81 - a) The Respondent’s Position ....................................................... - 81 - b) The Claimants’ Position ............................................................ - 81 - c) The Tribunal’s Determination................................................... - 82 - 3. Time-Bar for Equitable Prescription .................................................... - 82 - a) The Respondent’s Position ....................................................... - 82 - b) The Claimants’ Position ............................................................ - 83 - c) The Tribunal’s Determination................................................... - 84 - C. Liability ............................................................................................................ - 87 - b Kardassopoulos / Fuchs v. Georgia 1. Attribution of SakNavtobi and/or Transneft’s Acts/Omissions to Georgia . - 87 - a) The Claimants’ Position ............................................................ - 87 - b) The Respondent’s Position ....................................................... - 89 - c) The Tribunal’s Determination................................................... - 89 - 2. The Scope of GTI’s Rights .................................................................... - 93 - a) The Respondent’s Position ....................................................... - 93 - b) The Claimants’ Position ............................................................ - 99 - c) The Tribunal’s Determination................................................. - 103 - 3. Was Mr. Kardassopoulos’ Investment in GTI Expropriated? ............ - 114 - a) The Claimant’s Position .......................................................... - 114 - b) The Respondent’s Position ..................................................... - 118 - c) The Tribunal’s Determination................................................. - 124 - 4. Was Mr. Fuchs Treated Unfairly and Inequitably? ............................ - 133 - a) The Claimant’s Position .......................................................... - 133 - b) The Respondent’s Position ..................................................... - 135 - c) The Tribunal’s Determination................................................. - 139 - D. Causation ....................................................................................................... - 146 - 1. The Respondent’s Position .................................................................. - 146 - 2. The Claimants’ Position ..................................................................... - 148 - 3. The Tribunal’s Determination ............................................................ - 150 - E. Quantum ........................................................................................................ - 152 - 1. The Effect of the Stabilization Clauses on Damages .......................... - 152 - a) The Claimants’ Position .......................................................... - 152 - b) The Respondent’s Position ..................................................... - 153 - c) The Tribunal’s Determination................................................. - 154 - c Kardassopoulos / Fuchs v. Georgia 2. The Applicable Standard of Compensation for Expropriation ........... - 157 - a) The Claimant’s Position .......................................................... - 157 - b) The Respondent’s Position ..................................................... - 159 - c) The Tribunal’s Determination................................................. - 161 - 3. The Applicable Standard of Compensation for Fair and Equitable Treatment ............................................................................................ - 166 - a) The Claimant’s Position .......................................................... - 166 - b) The Respondent’s Position ..................................................... - 168 - c) The Tribunal’s Determination................................................. - 169 - 4. The Appropriate Methodology for Valuing the Claimants’ Claims .... - 171 - a) The Claimants’ Position .......................................................... - 171
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Who Owned Georgia Eng.Pdf
    By Paul Rimple This book is about the businessmen and the companies who own significant shares in broadcasting, telecommunications, advertisement, oil import and distribution, pharmaceutical, privatisation and mining sectors. Furthermore, It describes the relationship and connections between the businessmen and companies with the government. Included is the information about the connections of these businessmen and companies with the government. The book encompases the time period between 2003-2012. At the time of the writing of the book significant changes have taken place with regards to property rights in Georgia. As a result of 2012 Parliamentary elections the ruling party has lost the majority resulting in significant changes in the business ownership structure in Georgia. Those changes are included in the last chapter of this book. The project has been initiated by Transparency International Georgia. The author of the book is journalist Paul Rimple. He has been assisted by analyst Giorgi Chanturia from Transparency International Georgia. Online version of this book is available on this address: http://www.transparency.ge/ Published with the financial support of Open Society Georgia Foundation The views expressed in the report to not necessarily coincide with those of the Open Society Georgia Foundation, therefore the organisation is not responsible for the report’s content. WHO OWNED GEORGIA 2003-2012 By Paul Rimple 1 Contents INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • CRUDE OIL "WINDFALL PROFI'r" TAX ACT of 1980
    CRUDE OIL "WINDFALL PROFI'r" TAX ACT OF 1980 john S. Logan* I. INTRODUCTION This article provides an overview of the so-called "windfall profit" tax on crude oil and focuses primarily on the administrative problems and com- pliance planning opportunities which have come to light in the few months that the tax has been in effect. President Carter signed the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980' on April 3, 1980. The new "windfall profit" tax applies to first sales of domestic crude oil removed after February 29, 1980. As a result, producers have suffered an immediate reduction in crude oil receipts because first pur- chasers, who in many cases are refiners, have been required to withhold the tax from the purchase price. 'rhe statute does not provide an exemption for independent producers. Rather, independent producers are subject to a lower tax rate for certain categories of oil termed "independent producer crude oil." The "windfall profits" tax-which is not based on profits, but is an excise tax on a portion of domestic crude oil revenues2-is tied to the removal of existing price controls on domestic crude oil. The tax will obtain for the federal government a substantial portion of the additional crude oil revenues resulting from the lifting of price controls and the rising world market price for crude oil. In general, the tax is levied on the mislabeled "windfall profit" -the difference between the first sale price of a barrel of oil and a statu- torily-defined adjusted base price considerably below prevailing market levels, with an additional adjustment for certain state severance taxes on the "windfall profit" element.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Program 20 III
    [COMMITTEE PRINT] SUMMARY OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S ENERGY PROPOSALS AND SUMMARY OF ENERGY LEGISLATION IN THE 94TH CONGRESS Prepared for the COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY THE STAFF OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION MAT 3, 1977 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1977 JCS 16-77 — CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Administration proposals relating to energy 3 Tax proposals 3 I. Conservation A. Transportation 1. Fuel inefficiency tax and rebate 3 2. Stand-by gasoline tax and rebate 4: 3. Motorboat and general aviation fuel -2 5 4. Removal of excise tax on buses 5 B. Buildings and equipment 5 1. Residential conservation 5 2. Business energy tax credit 6 II. Oil and Natural Gas 7 A. Crude oil 7 1. Oil taxes 7 2. Oil rebates 7 3. Oil pricing 8 B. Industrial use of ail and natural gas 9 1. Natural gas and petroleum users tax 9 2. Coal conservation credit 9 3. Natural gas pricing 9 III. Energy Development Tax Incentives 10 A. Geothermal tax incentive . 10 B. Minimum tax of intangible drilling costs relating to oil and gas wells. 10 Major nontax legislative proposals 11 I. Conservation 11 A. Transportation 11 B. Buildings and equipment . 11 C. Appliances 11 D. Cogeneration of electricity and process steam 11 E. Utility rate reform 12 II. Coal and nuclear power 12 A. Coal conservation regulatory policy 12 B. Nuclear power 12 Proposals for administrative action 13 mi; — IV Page Summary of energy legislation in the 94th Congress 15 I. H.R. 6860 Energy Conservation and Conversion Act 15 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic and Energy Proposals (2)” of the Ron Nessen Papers at the Gerald R
    The original documents are located in Box 8, folder “Economic and Energy Proposals (2)” of the Ron Nessen Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Ron Nessen donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box 8 of The Ron Nessen Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library 14 FISCAL EFFECT Q. Some critics say that on balance the proposed economic program will have a negative fiscal impact. What do you say? A. The net fiscal impact of the proposed energy taxes, the return of the energy revenues to the economy, and the temporary tax cut would be positive during 1975. These measures taken together would result in a $5,.• 7 billion stimulus in the third quarter, and would continue to be positive throughout 1975. .. ' 15 FINANCIAL MARKETS Q. Can the large Federal budget deficits in the next 18 months be financed through borrowing by the Treasury without straining financial markets and raising interest rates? A. We believe that the deficits can be financed without undue strain because private credit demands typically decline sharply during a recession and remain low until recovery is well under way.
    [Show full text]
  • Venezuela's Oil and Gas Tax Regime 委内瑞拉石油及天然气的税收制度
    Venezuela’s Oil and Gas Tax Regime 委内瑞拉石油及天然气的税收制度 Despite possessing the world’s largest proven oil reserves, Venezuela ranks eighth among oil exporters. This has led the government of Venezuela to call for additional investment to increase both output (estimates suggest that 300 billion barrels can be extracted from the Orinoco Oil Belt) and the quality of oil through upgrading technology. The special tax regime described in this article is seen by the government of Venezuela as a mechanism to attract foreign investment to boost production, modernize gas and oil infrastructure and cover the country’s needs in connection with engineering, construction, procurement and engineering-related services. 尽管拥有世界上已探明的最大石油储藏，委内瑞拉的石油出口在全球仅排名第八。为增加产量（估计表明奥里诺科 石油带 300 十亿桶则可将提取出来）并且通过技术升级提高石油的质量，该国政府最近正加强提高投资。在这篇文 章中描述的特殊税务制度是由委内瑞拉政府作为一个以吸引外国投资、提高产量、气体和石油基础设施的现代化并 且覆盖国家需要的工程、施工、采购以及和工程有关的服务的机制。 Under Venezuela’s Hydrocarbons Law, all activities relating to the exploration of hydrocarbon reservoirs, the extraction, collection and initial transportation and storage of the same are exclusively reserved for the government of Venezuela. However, private entities may undertake such activities through joint venture companies (empresas mixtas, or MCs) controlled by the government through an equity stake exceeding 50%. MCs that carry out oil and gas related activities in Venezuela are subject to a royalty (regalía) levied at a 30% rate on the volume of extracted hydrocarbons, which must be paid in kind or in cash, at the option of the Venezuelan government. The Venezuelan government is entitled to reduce the 30% rate to 20% for mature reservoirs and extra-heavy crude oil originating from the Orinoco Belt. Venezuelan law caps the price for calculating the royalty at USD 70 per barrel.
    [Show full text]
  • The Windfall Profit Tax-Poor Tax Policy? Poor Energy Policy?
    University of Miami Law Review Volume 34 Number 5 Article 3 9-1-1980 The Windfall Profit ax-PT oor Tax Policy? Poor Energy Policy? Nancy E. Shurtz Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Recommended Citation Nancy E. Shurtz, The Windfall Profit ax-PT oor Tax Policy? Poor Energy Policy?, 34 U. Miami L. Rev. 1115 (1980) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol34/iss5/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Windfall Profit Tax-Poor Tax Policy? Poor Energy Policy? NANCY E. SHURTZ* The author discusses the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980, explaining the Act's component parts and its in- terrelationshipwith federal energy regulations. Analyzing the Act in relation to its purposes, the author concludes that the Act, although severely deficient in many areas, is a positive step toward achieving the nation's energy objectives. I. INTRODUCTION ...................................... ................... 1115 II. TAX COMPUTATION ..................................................... 1117 A . Categories of Oil ................................................... 1119 B . T he T ax R ate .................................................... 1126 C . T axp ayer .......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Political Forum: 10 Questions on Georgia's Political Development
    1 The Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development Political Forum: 10 Questions on Georgia’s Political Development Tbilisi 2007 2 General editing Ghia Nodia English translation Kakhaber Dvalidze Language editing John Horan © CIPDD, November 2007. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or oth- erwise, without the prior permission in writing from the proprietor. CIPDD welcomes the utilization and dissemination of the material included in this publication. This book was published with the financial support of the regional Think Tank Fund, part of Open Society Institute Budapest. The opinions it con- tains are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the position of the OSI. ISBN 978-99928-37-08-5 1 M. Aleksidze St., Tbilisi 0193 Georgia Tel: 334081; Fax: 334163 www.cipdd.org 3 Contents Foreword ................................................................................................ 5 Archil Abashidze .................................................................................. 8 David Aprasidze .................................................................................21 David Darchiashvili............................................................................ 33 Levan Gigineishvili ............................................................................ 50 Kakha Katsitadze ...............................................................................67
    [Show full text]
  • Investor-State Arbitration in International Tax Dispute Resolution
    Domestic Tax Policies and IIAs Issues and Options Julien Chaisse Session 2. Modernizing IIAs: best practices and challenges in the Asia-Pacific region In a nutshell Yes Can tax disputes be shifted Facts: trend in investor-state to investor-state arbitration arbitration? Why? No systematic tax exception in investment treaties Does the ongoing international tax reform Prospects and policy lessons: increase the risk of tax an “old new-issue” triggering more tax disputes in the context of investment treaties? Tax disputes under IIAs are not accidents Since 1999, at least 32 tax- Foreign investors considered Typology of the tax disputes related cases have been using investment treaties to shows the diversity of tax brought to international complain against a number of measures reviewed by ISA. investment arbitration countries and tax measures. CASE NAME TREATY AWARD DATE ARBITRATION RULES Feldman v. Mexico NAFTA December 16, 2002 ICSID AF Goetz v. Burundi Belgium– Luxemburg–Burundi BIT January 29, 1999 ICSID Enron Corporation & Ponderosa Assets LP v. The Argentine Republic Argentine-USA BIT May 22, 2007 ICSID Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Ecuador USA–Ecuador BIT July 1, 2004 UNCITRAL Archer Daniels Midland Co. & Tate Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc. v. United Mexican NAFTA November 21,2007 ICSID AF States El Paso Energy International Company v. Argentina Argentina–USA BIT October 31, 2011 ICSID Duke Energy v. Ecuador USA–Ecuador BIT August 18, 2008 ICSID Hulley v. Russia ECT July 18, 2014 UNCITRAL RosInvestCo v. Russia UK–USSR BIT December 22, 2010 SCC Yukos Universal v. Russia ECT July 18, 2014 UNCITRAL Mobil v.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Asian Survey Managing Ethnic Diversity in Georgia
    Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2009 Managing ethnic diversity in Georgia: one step forward, two steps back Wheatley, Jonathan DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02634930903034880 Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-98582 Journal Article Originally published at: Wheatley, Jonathan (2009). Managing ethnic diversity in Georgia: one step forward, two steps back. Central Asian Survey, 28(2):119-134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02634930903034880 This article was downloaded by: [Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz] On: 04 July 2014, At: 03:03 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Central Asian Survey Publication details, including instructions for aut hors and subscription information: http:/ / www.tandfonline.com/ loi/ ccas20 Managing ethnic diversity in Georgia: one step forward, two steps back Jonathan Wheatley a a Centre for Democracy Aarau, University of Zurich , Switzerland Published online: 09 Jul 2009. To cite this article: Jonathan Wheatley (2009) Managing ethnic diversity in Georgia: one step forward, two steps back, Central Asian Survey, 28:2, 119-134, DOI: 10.1080/ 02634930903034880 To link to this article: http:/ / dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/ 02634930903034880 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content.
    [Show full text]
  • EXTENSIONS of REMARKS May 14, 1974 Ser, Ms
    14648 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS May 14, 1974 sER, Ms. ABzuG, Mr. BROWN of Cali· Mr.ROYBAL: Mr. HOSMER, Mr. CRONIN, Mr. WON fornia, Mr. RANGEL, and Mr. COR• H.R. 14785. A bill to provide a. comprehen­ PAT, Mr. DE LUGO, Mr. BAUMAN, Mrs. MAN): sive, coordinated approach to the problems MINK and Mr. OWENS) : H.R. 14779. A bill amending the U.S. Hous­ of juvenile delinquency, and for other pur­ H.R. 14792. A bill to amend the Wild and ing Act of 1987; to the Committee on Bank­ poses; to the Committee on Education and Scenic Rivers Act (82 Stat. 906), and for ing and Currency. Labor. other purposes; to the Committee on Interior By Mr. MORGAN (by request): By Mr. SANDMAN: and Insular Affairs. H.R. 14780. A bill to authorize appropria­ H.R. 14786. A bill to amend the Mineral By Mr. TIERNAN (for himself and Mr. tions for fiscal year 1975 for carrying out the Lands Leasing Act to provide for a more effi­ REUSS): provisions of the Board for International cient and equitable method for the explora­ H.R. 14798. A bill to establish an independ­ Broadcasting Act of 1978; to the Committee tion for and development of oil shale ent commission to administer the internal on Foreign Affairs. resources on Federal lands, and for other pur­ revenue laws; to the Committee on Ways By Mr. NEDZI: poses; to the Committee on Interior and In­ and Means. H.R. 14781. A bill to authorize the Secre­ sular Affairs. By Mr. YOUNG of South Carolina: tary of Agriculture to make grants to cities By Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Rose Revolution: the Challenges and Peculiarities of Democratization
    Georgian Rose Revolution: The Challenges and Peculiarities of Democratization in Post-Soviet Countries A thesis presented to the faculty of the Center for International Studies of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Anna Gabritchidze November 2011 © 2011 Anna Gabritchidze. All Rights Reserved. 2 This thesis titled Georgian Rose Revolution: the Challenges and Peculiarities of Democratization in Post-Soviet Countries by ANNA GABRITCHIDZE has been approved for the Center for International Studies by Dauda AbuBakar Professor of Political Science Jie Li Li Director, International Development Studies Drew McDaniel Interim Director, Center for International Studies 3 Abstract GABRITCHIDZE, ANNA, M.A., November 2011, International Development Studies Georgian Rose Revolution: the Challenges and Peculiarities of Democratization in Post- Soviet Countries (73 pp.) Director of Thesis: Dauda AbuBakar This thesis will describe and analyze the challenges and peculiarities of democratization in post-Soviet countries with Georgia as the main focus. It will cover the investigation of phenomena of so-called “fourth wave” democracies with their transition regime styles. In the end of the 1990s Samuel Huntington asked if we can expect a new wave of democratization in the 21st century and what factors would define it. The dramatic wave of political changes which gripped republics of the former Soviet Union during this short period led to “Rose Revolution” in Georgia in November 2003, the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine in November 2004 and the “Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan” in March 2005. The Georgian case study could be an evident demonstration of this political and social change with the challenges common to all post-Soviet countries as well as with its uniqueness.
    [Show full text]
  • Can the Mdgs Provide a Pathway to Social Justice? the Challenge of Intersecting Inequalities Naila Kabeer Institute of Development Studies Contents
    Can the MDGs provide a pathway to social justice? The challenge of intersecting inequalities Naila Kabeer Institute of Development Studies Contents Acknowledgements 2 List of abbreviations 2 List of figures, tables and boxes 3 Foreword 5 Executive summary 6 1 Introduction: the fundamental values of the Millennium Declaration 11 2 Intersecting inequalities and social exclusion 13 2.1 Relevance to the MDG agenda 13 2.2 The regional history and geography of social exclusion 14 3 Intersecting inequalities and the MDGs: the regional picture 16 3.1 Progress on the MDGs in Latin America 17 3.2 Social exclusion and the MDGs in Latin America 17 3.3 Progress on the MDGs in Asia 21 3.4 Social exclusion and the MDGs in Asia 23 3.5 Progress on the MDGs in sub-Saharan Africa 26 3.6 Social exclusion and the MDGs in sub-Saharan Africa 26 4 The intersecting dynamics of inequality: why social exclusion persists 30 4.1 The cultural dynamics of exclusion 30 4.2 The economic dynamics of exclusion: asset inequalities 32 4.3 The economic dynamics of exclusion: disadvantageous livelihoods 33 4.4 The dynamics of exclusion in service provision: access and quality 35 4.5 The political dynamics of exclusion 38 5 The MDGs as a pathway to social justice: equalising life chances 39 5.1 Responsive states, active citizens: towards a new social contract 39 5.2 Strengthening information policies to tackle exclusion 42 5.3 Macroeconomic policies and redistributive growth 43 5.4 Progressive fiscal policies 44 5.5 Legal policies and affirmative action 45 5.6 Land reform 47 5.7 Promoting livelihoods, decent work and access to credit 48 5.8 Investing in infrastructure and area development 50 5.9 Extending basic services to all groups 51 5.10 Inclusive social protection 54 6 Conclusion: key concerns and principles 57 Further information 60 Endnotes 61 Can the MDGs provide a pathway to social justice? 1 Copyright © 2010 List of abbreviations by the United Nations Development Programme 1 UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017, USA ADB Asian Development Bank DHS Demographic and Health Survey All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]