DOCSLIB.ORG

Case 1:19-Cv-02424-TNM Document 36-3 Filed 12/21/20 Page 2 of 212

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Case 1:19-Cv-02424-TNM Document 36-3 Filed 12/21/20 Page 2 of 212 Case 1:19-cv-02424-TNM Document 36-3 Filed 12/21/20 Page 2 of 212 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES ICSID CASE NO. ARB/12/1 TETHYAN COPPER COMPANY PTY LIMITED Claimant -v- ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN Respondent RESPONDENT’S REJOINDER ON LIABILITY AND REPLY ON JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND COUNTERCLAIMS 25 August 2014 " " [original emphasis] (Page 60 of CE-83: CRU Presentation on the Copper Market, 27 January 2010) Case 1:19-cv-02424-TNM Document 36-3 Filed 12/21/20 Page 3 of 212 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................7 A. FACTS .......................................................................................................... 7 B. JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY ................................................... 10 C. STATE RESPONSIBILITY ........................................................................ 11 D. LIABILITY ................................................................................................. 12 E. DUTY OF REPARATION AND CAUSATION.......................................... 15 F. COUNTERCLAIMS ................................................................................... 16 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................... 18 A. THE MINERAL AGREEMENT NEGOTATIONS (REVISITED) .............. 18 (1) The Claimant sought to procure an automatic “right to mine” without the need to satisfy the requirements of the BMR, which was legally impossible .......................................................................................... 18 (2) The Claimant repeatedly evaded the Governments’ core demand for a smelter/refinery .................................................................................. 22 (3) The Governments continued to negotiate with the Claimant in 2010 and even 2011 ........................................................................................... 25 B. THE CLAIMANT’S FEASIBILITY STUDY WAS WOEFULLY INADEQUATE ................................................................................................... 27 (1) The Feasibility Study was late ............................................................ 28 (2) The Feasibility Study was incomplete................................................. 30 (3) The Feasibility Study failed to demonstrate a profitable project .......... 31 (4) The Feasibility Study failed to examine or cost the security risks of the slurry pipeline, or address the need for governmental approvals.......... 37 (5) The Feasibility Study failed to demonstrate a proven water source...... 42 (6) The Feasibility Study failed to provide, or even discuss, value addition .. ............................................................................................. 45 C. THE REJECTION OF THE MINING LEASE APPLICATION WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BMR AND UNSURPRISING............................... 47 (1) The Feasibility Study (and therefore the Mining Lease Application) was incomplete.......................................................................................... 49 (2) The Mining Lease Application was an attempt at a ‘land grab’ ........... 51 (3) The Mining Lease Application failed to provide ‘value addition’ ........ 53 (4) The proposals in the Mining Lease Application were not satisfactory, and the grant of the Mining Lease was not in the interests of Balochistan 56 (5) Feasibility Study failed to demonstrate that the mine could be profitably developed and operated....................................................................... 58 2 Case 1:19-cv-02424-TNM Document 36-3 Filed 12/21/20 Page 4 of 212 D. THERE WAS NO PLOT TO OUST THE CLAIMANT .............................. 59 (1) Balochistan’s Reko Diq Project was limited to refining....................... 60 (2) MCC’s expression of interest in mining Reko Diq was not entertained by the Respondent and, in any event, reveals MCC’s, not the Respondent’s, desire to oust the Claimant ........................................... 68 (3) The MMDD took over the BDA’s, not the Claimant’s, operations ...... 70 (4) The Cabinet Decision of December 2009 was not definitive and the door was left open to the Claimant mining Reko Diq .................................. 71 E. THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALREADY DETERMINED THAT THE CHEJVA AGREEMENTS ARE “ILLEGAL, VOID AND NON EST”................. 77 III. JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY............................................................ 81 A. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 81 B. THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE CLAIMANT’S CLAIMS IN THIS ARBITRATION............................................ 84 (1) The Claimant’s vague articulation of its “investment” belies the fact that its purported “assets” are contractual in nature .................................... 84 (2) The Claimant does not have an “investment” under the BIT................ 87 a) The Claimant has failed to demonstrate that it has an “asset” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(a)................................................ 88 b) Even if the Claimant has an “asset”, which is denied, such asset does not constitute an “investment” because it was not admitted “subject to [the] laws and investment policies” of Pakistan ............... 99 i. The Claimant does not satisfy the legality requirement in Article 1(1)(a) of the BIT .......................................... 99 ii. The Claimant’s misconceived attempt to narrow the scope of the legality requirement in Article 1(1)(a) of the BIT must fail.................................................................. 104 (3) The dispute submitted to this Tribunal concerning the rejection of the Mining Lease Application does not relate to an “investment”, as required by Article 13 of the BIT...................................................... 110 C. THE CLAIMANT’S CLAIMS ARE INADMISSIBLE.............................. 110 (1) The Claimant has already submitted all contractual issues to the ICC tribunal ........................................................................................... 110 (2) The Claimant’s claims are manifestly without legal merit because it is precluded from re-litigating the contractual issues which have already been determined by the Supreme Court of Pakistan........................... 111 D. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 113 IV. STATE RESPONSIBILITY AND ATTRIBUTION .......................................... 115 3 Case 1:19-cv-02424-TNM Document 36-3 Filed 12/21/20 Page 5 of 212 A. THE RESPONDENT ONLY BEARS RESPONSIBILITY IF THE CLAIMANT SHOWS THAT IT MADE AN “INVESTMENT”, WHICH WAS SUBJECTED TO A WRONGFUL ACT, ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE RESPONDENT, AND IN BREACH OF THE BIT ............................................ 115 B. THE RESPONDENT IS NOT A PARTY TO THE CHEJVA AGREEMENTS .................................................................................................................. 117 V. LIABILITY.......................................................................................................... 121 A. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 121 B. THE RESPONDENT DID NOT BREACH THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT OBLIGATION IN ARTICLE 3(2) OF THE BIT ....................... 121 (1) The Claimant is unable to show that its purported investment was the subject of any alleged wrongful conduct by the Respondent which was in breach of the fair and equitable treatment obligation ..................... 122 (2) The threshold for breach of the fair and equitable treatment obligation proposed by the Claimant is wrong; the threshold is in fact significantly higher ........................................................................................... 123 (3) The Claimant’s allegations are insufficient to substantiate a finding that the Respondent has breached the fair and equitable treatment obligation. ........................................................................................... 128 a) A legitimate expectation does not arise from the Governments’ so-called “assurances” invoked by the Claimant in this case ........... 128 i. The Respondent cannot be bound by expectations arising out of the CHEJVA agreements......................................... 129 ii. No representations were made that reduced “routine Government requirements” in the CHEJVA to mere administrative niceties............................................. 132 iii. No purported “assurance” could have legitimately been construed as trumping the BMR, as the Respondent made clear any attempt to do so would have been legally impossible ................................................... 138 b) In any event the impugned conduct of the Respondent did not breach the fair and equitable treatment obligation ........................... 144 i. There were legitimate reasons for the Licensing Authority to reject the Mining Lease Application........................ 144 ii. There was no plan on the part of the Respondent or Balochistan to “oust TCCA” from Reko Diq to implement Balochistan’s own project ....................................... 150 iii. The Claimant was not denied due process rights ................. 151 iv. The Respondent’s and Balochistan’s conduct in the Supreme Court proceedings and the Supreme Court’s Judgment 4
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FES Dialogue N° 27
    Dialogueon OCCASIONAL PAPERS Globalization GENEVA N° 27 / November 2006 Mahnaz Malik Time for a Change Germany’s Bilateral Investment Treaty Programme and Development Policy Dialogue on Globalization Dialogue on Globalization contributes to the international debate on globalization – through conferences, workshops and publications – as part of the international work of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES). Dialogue on Globalization is based on the premise that globalization can be shaped into a direction that promotes peace, democracy and social justice. Dialogue on Globalization addresses “movers and shakers” both in developing countries and in the industrialized parts of the world, i.e. politicians, trade unionists, government offi cials, businesspeople, and journalists as well as representatives from NGOs, international organizations, and academia. Dialogue on Globalization is co-ordinated by the head offi ce of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Berlin and by the FES offi ces in New York and Geneva. The programme intensively draws on the international network of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung – a German non-profi t institution committed to the principles of social democracy – with offi ces, programmes and partners in more than 100 countries. This Occasional Paper is published by the Geneva offi ce of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. November 2006 Table of Contents: 1. Preface 3 2. Executive Summary 4 3. Background 5 4. Scope of review 7 5. Overview of the German BIT Programme 8 6. Critical problems with the German Model Treaty from a development perspective 10 A defective mould: Selected key provisions of the German BIT programme that restrict policy space for development compared with the IISD Model 12 6.1 Preamble & objectives 13 6.2 Scope and defi nition of investments 15 6.3 Right to establish investments 20 6.4 Protection of investments 20 6.5 Dispute resolution 32 6.6 Duration and termination 35 7.
    [Show full text]
  • The UK's Foreign Policy Towards Afghanistan and Pakistan
    1 House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee The UK’s Foreign Policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan Written Evidence This is a volume of submissions, relevant to the inquiry ‘The UK’s Foreign Policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan’, which have been reported to the House. Only those submissions written specifically for the Committee have been included. 2 List of written evidence 1 Foreign and Commonwealth Office 3 2 The Henry Jackson Society 73 3 Christian Aid 84 4 Oxfam GB 88 5 British and Irish Agencies Afghanistan Group (BAAG) 100 6 James Fergusson, author and journalist 109 7 Matt Waldman, independent Afghanistan analyst 114 8 Gerard Russell MBE, Research Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy 124 9 Dr Sajjan M. Gohel, International Security Director, Asia-Pacific Foundation 130 10 Professor Sultan Barakat & Mr Steven A. Zyck, Post-war Reconstruction & Development Unit, University of York 175 11 Professor Philip M. Taylor, University of Leeds 183 12 Andrew Watt 187 13 Chris Coverdale, Campaign to Make Wars History 194 14 BBC World Service 205 15 Professor Shaun Gregory 213 16 Roman Solodchenko 217 17 Correspondence between the Chair and the Prime Minister 221 18 Supplementary written evidence from Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles KCMG LVO 222 3 Written Evidence from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office SUMMARY Why Afghanistan and Pakistan Matter to UK Interests 1. Afghanistan and Pakistan are this Government’s top priorities in Foreign Affairs. Violent extremism in both countries poses a threat to UK interests and to regional stability and claims the lives of thousands of civilians and security personnel.
    [Show full text]
  • Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability
    Case 1:19-cv-02424-TNM Document 1-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 635 of 1447 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES WASHINGTON, D.C. In the arbitration proceeding between TETHYAN COPPER COMPANY PTY LIMITED Claimant and ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN Respondent ICSID Case No. ARB/12/1 DECISION ON JURISDICTION AND LIABILITY Members of the Tribunal Rt. Hon. Lord Leonard Hoffmann Dr. Stanimir A. Alexandrov Professor Dr. Klaus Sachs, President Secretary of the Tribunal Mrs. Mercedes Cordido-Freytes de Kurowski Date of dispatch to the Parties: 10 November 2017 Case 1:19-cv-02424-TNM Document 1-1 Filed 08/09/19 Page 636 of 1447 Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability ICSID Case No. ARB/12/1 Representation of the Parties Claimant Respondent Mr. Donald Francis Donovan Mr. Ahmad Irfan Aslam Mr. Mark W. Friedman Mr. Mian Shaoor Ahmad Mr. Dietmar W. Prager Mr. Abdul Rafay Siddiqui Ms. Natalie L. Reid Office of the Attorney General for Mr. Carl Riehl Pakistan Ms. Rushmi Bhaskaran Supreme Court Building Ms. Berglind Halldorsdottir Birkland Constitution Ave. Debevoise & Plimpton LLP Islamabad 919 Third Avenue Pakistan New York, NY 10022 U.S.A. Mr. Ignacio L. Torterola GST LLP and 1875 I Street NW 5th floor 20006 - Washington D.C. Ms. Elizabeth Nielsen U.S.A. Debevoise & Plimpton LLP 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. and Washington, D.C. 20004 Mr. Quinn Smith and Mr. Diego B. Gosis GST LLP Lord Goldsmith QC 175 SW 7th Street #2110 Mr. Patrick Taylor Miami, FL33130 Debevoise & Plimpton LLP U.S.A. Tower 42 Old Broad Street and London EC2N 1HQ United Kingdom Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • “Full Protection and Security” to Foreign Investments Under International Investment Law
    THE OBLIGATION OF HOST STATES TO ACCORD THE STANDARD OF “FULL PROTECTION AND SECURITY” TO FOREIGN INVESTMENTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW A thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Onyema Awa ONYEANI Department of Law Brunel University London January 2018 Declaration This is to attest that this work I have tendered for examination for the PhD Law Degree to Brunel University London is entirely my work except in the places where I have obviously marked that it is the work of some other people. I also affirm that any citation or rephrase from published or unpublished work of others have been acknowledged. The copyright of this piece of work remains with the author. Citation from it is allowed on the condition that full acknowledgement is made. I declare that this work’s permission does not, in anywhere, as far as I know, transgress any third parties’ rights. Acknowledgement First and foremost, this thesis is dedicated to God Almighty. Special thanks to Him for granting me special favour to embark on this journey and made it possible for me to accomplish it. Whatever God starts He is able to accomplish. Moreover, it is not him that wills, nor runs, but of God that shows mercy. (Romans 9:16). I thank you God for your faithfulness towards me. Jehovah, receive all the Glory in the Name of Jesus, Amen. Special thanks to my first Principal Supervisor Dr. Tony Cole for laying out the foundation believing me. You always encouraged me and told me that I can do it. Even when I was downcast you lifted me up with your words of wisdom.
    [Show full text]
  • School-Library-Catalogue-2021.Pdf
    Contacts This catalogue lists educational books which have been published, reprinted, or imported and made available at reduced, rupee prices by Oxford University Press (OUP), Pakistan. Orders can be placed with a local bookseller. However, in case of any difficulty in obtaining your requirements, do not hesitate to get in touch with us. KaracHi QUetta faisaLabad Head Office/disTributiOn cenTre: booksHOP: Office/booksHOP: no. 38, sector 15, no. 2-11/6a, near Mannan chowk, Palm breeze Tower, near Jamiya Masjid, Korangi industrial area, M. a. Jinnah road, Quetta. Kohinoor city, faisalabad. Karachi-74900, Pakistan. Tel.: 2839044. Tel.: 8736112-15. fax: 92-41-2620126. UAN: 111 693673 (111 OXfORD). email: [email protected] email: [email protected] Tel.: 35071580-86. contact: contact: fax: 92-21-35055071-72. imran Latif adnan nasir email: [email protected] Multan disTribUTiOn cenTre: 21-P, Malik Plaza, Main Kotwali road, raheela fahim baqai, Office/booksHOP: Marketingd irector Outside aminpur bazar, faisalabad. 31-b, Gulgasht colony, Tel.: 2620124-28. fax: 92-41-2620126. salma adil, Opposite Gole bagh, sales director, south near national bank of Pakistan, Multan. email: [email protected] imran Zahoor, Tel.: 6511971. fax: 92-61-6511972. contact: Manager customer services email: [email protected] Muhammad Wasim contacts: BooksHOP: Muhammad naeem ayubi isLaMabad LG-11, Ground floor, Park Towers, regional sales Manager Office/booksHOP: shahrah e firdousi, clifton, Karachi. disTribUTiOn cenTre: 7, shalimar Plaza, Jinnah avenue, Tel.: 35376796-99. 32-b, Gulgasht colony, 99 West, blue area, islamabad-44000. contact: Tel.: (Office): 2347264-65. Opposite Gole bagh, roshan Zameer Tel.: (bookshop): 8317022-23.
    [Show full text]
  • China's Outward Foreign Direct Investment and International
    Journal of International Economic Law, 2015, 18, 893–934 doi: 10.1093/jiel/jgv045 Advance Access Publication Date: 20 November 2015 Article China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment and International Investment Law Karl P. Sauvant and Michael D. Nolan* Downloaded from ABSTRACT As China’s outward foreign direct investment (FDI) has grown, its approach to inter- national investment agreements (IIAs) has changed. China is now one of the world’s most important outward investors, with Chinese FDI facing widespread criticism. The http://jiel.oxfordjournals.org/ challenge for China is to adapt to this new configuration of interests stemming from these developments, both in terms of its national policies and the contents of its IIAs. In so doing, it is likely to influence, perhaps significantly, the further evolution of inter- national investment law. This article deals briefly with the salient features of China’s outward FDI and the policies that support it (Section A); the perception and reception of China’s outward FDI in key host countries (Section B); and the changing nature of the country’s approach to international investment treaties (Section C). The article concludes (Section D) with a brief review and outlook. at Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on February 18, 2016 I. SALIENT FEATURES OF CHINA’S OUTWARD FDI AND POLICY ISSUES RELATED TO THEM A. The rise of China’s outward FDI China has become a major player in the world FDI market. The country’s outward FDI flows grew from US$7 billion in 20011 to US$101 billion in * Karl P. Sauvant ([email protected]) is Resident Senior Fellow, Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (CCSI), a joint center of Columbia Law School and The Earth Institute at Columbia University, and an Adjunct Professor at Columbia Law School; he was the Founding Executive Director of the predecessor of CCSI, the Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment, and Director of UNCTAD’s Investment Division.
    [Show full text]
  • The Importance of Bits for Foreign Direct Investment and Political Risk Insurance: Revisiting the Evidence
    From the SelectedWorks of Lauge N. Skovgaard Poulsen January 2010 The mpI ortance of BITs for Foreign Direct Investment and Political Risk Insurance: Revisiting the Evidence Contact Start Your Own Notify Me Author SelectedWorks of New Work Available at: http://works.bepress.com/lauge_poulsen/4 The Importance of BITs for Foreign Direct Investment and Political Risk Insurance: Revisiting the Evidence Lauge N. Skovgaard Poulsen Yearbook on International Investment Law and Policy 2009/2010 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 539-574 ABSTRACT Bilateral investment treaties (BITs) are typically presented as vital risk-mitigating instruments providing foreign investors with “credible commitments” that their assets will not be expropriated, discriminated against, or otherwise maltreated post- establishment. Accordingly, developing countries wanting to attract foreign investment should become more attractive destinations for multinationals when signing the treaties. A great number of studies and surveys indicate, however, that the vast majority of multinationals do not appear to take BITs into account when determining where - and how much - to invest abroad. Apart from reviewing such evidence, this chapter will discuss the feedback from a series of interviews. Firstly, BIT-negotiators from capital exporting states report that investors very rarely inquire about BITs, and when they do it is typically when disputes have arisen and not when they plan their investments. Secondly – and remarkably – the treaties have very little impact on political risk insurance (PRI) providers’ coverage and pricing policies. This is the case for both private companies as well as (almost) all public PRI programs, including the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). The chapter will conclude by offering some reflections on why the standard narrative of BITs as credible commitments should perhaps be reconsidered.
    [Show full text]
  • “THE ICSID CLUB”: LIST of MEMBERS and NON-MEMBERS out of the Total of 192 Member States of the United Nations, 36 Were Not S
    BIICL INVESTMENT TREATY FORUM (BOLIVIA AND ICSID DENUNCIATION 20 June 2007 “THE ICSID CLUB”: LIST OF MEMBERS AND NON-MEMBERS Mahnaz Malik1 Associate, IISD Out of the total of 192 member states of the United Nations, 36 were not signatories to the ICSID Convention (18.5%). The states that have not signed the ICSID Convention include India, Qatar, Brazil, South Africa, Iran and Poland. A detailed table below identifies states as members and non-members of ICSID. The table is prepared using data from the ICSID website, www.worldbank.org/icsid. Total UNO Member States Total ICSID Signatories Total Non ICSID States Signatories States 192 156 36 Sr Nos. ICSID SIGNATORIES NON-ICSID SIGNATORIES 1 Afghanistan Andorra 2 Albania Angola 3 Algeria Antigua and Barbuda 4 Argentina Bhutan 5 Armenia Brazil 6 Australia Cape Verde 7 Austria Cuba 8 Azerbaïjan Djibouti 9 Bahamas Dominica 10 Bahrain Equatorial Guinea 11 Bangladesh Eritrea 12 Barbados India 13 Belarus Iran 14 Belgium Iraq 15 Belize Kiribati 16 Benin Korea Democratic 17 Bolivia Lao 18 Bosnia and Herzegovina Libyan Arab 19 Botswana Liechtenstein 20 Brunei Darussalam Maldives 21 Bulgaria Marshall Island 1 Mahnaz Malik is an international lawyer qualified to practice law as an Attorney at Law in New York (USA), a Solicitor in England & Wales (presently non-practising) and an Advocate in Pakistan. She holds a LLB and MA in Law from Cambridge University (UK). Email: [email protected] 22 Burkina Faso Mexico 23 Burundi Monaco 24 Cambodia Montenegro 25 Cameroon Myanmar 26 Canada Nauru 27 Central African Republic Palau 28 Chad Poland 29 Chile Qatar 30 China San Marino 31 Colombia South Africa 32 Comoros Suriname 33 Congo Tajikistan 34 Congo, Democratic Rep.
    [Show full text]
  • School-Library-Catalogue-2019.Pdf
    Contacts This catalogue lists educational books which have been published, reprinted, or imported and made available at reduced, rupee prices by Oxford University Press (OUP), Pakistan. Orders can be placed with a local bookseller. However, in case of any difficulty in obtaining your requirements, do not hesitate to get in touch with us. KARACHI LAHORE SAHIWAL HEAD OFFICE/DISTRIBUTION CENTRE: OFFICE/BOOKSHOP: BOOKSHOP/DISTRIBUTION CENTRE: No. 38, Sector 15, 17-L, Mini Market, Gulberg II, Lahore. Ground Floor, Oxxo Plaza, Korangi Industrial Area, Tel.: (Office): 35778682. Super Market, Church Road, Sahiwal. Karachi-74900, Pakistan. Tel.: (Bookshop): 35778602. Tel.: 4222415. UAN: 111 693673 (111 OXFORD). Fax: 92-42-35778680. Email: [email protected] Tel.: 35071580-86. Email: [email protected] Contact: Fax: 92-21-35055071-72. Contact: Muhammad Zubair Email: [email protected] Fayyaz Raja, Sales Director, North IslAMABAD Raheela Fahim Baqai, Marketing Director DISTRIBUTION CENTRE: OFFICE/BOOKSHOP: 37 KM Multan Road, Near Izhar Steel, 7, Shalimar Plaza, Jinnah Avenue, Salma Adil, Mouza Manga, Lahore. 99 West, Blue Area, Islamabad-44000. Sales Director, South Cell.: 0333 0131655 Tel.: (Office): 2347264-65. Imran Zahoor, Email: [email protected] Tel.: (Bookshop): 8317022-23. Manager Customer Services Contact: Fax: 92-51-2347266. Atif Shakoor Email: [email protected] BOOKSHOP: Contact: First Floor, Dolmen Mall, Clifton. RAHIMYAR KHAN Fayyaz Raja, Tel.: 35291545-47. Sales Director, North Contact: BOOKSHOP/DISTRIBUTION CENTRE: Roshan Zameer No. 35/36, Trust Colony, Jamia DISTRIBUTION CENTRE: No. 324 and 325, Street No. 4, I-9/3 BOOKSHOP: Al Farooq Road, Rahimyar Khan. Tel.: 5874213-14.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 MAHNAZ MALIK Barrister and Arbitrator 20 Essex Street London
    MAHNAZ MALIK Barrister and Arbitrator 20 Essex Street London WC2R 3AL +44 (0)207 842 1200 [email protected] _________________________________________________________________ Introduction Mahnaz Malik is a Barrister and Arbitrator at Twenty Essex who specialises in representing Governments and corporations in investment and commercial disputes. Mahnaz has over 20 years of experience in advising Governments, corporations and international organisations on complex cross-border disputes. She has acted as counsel on behalf of both investors and states in several investment and commercial disputes including ICC, ICSID, LCIA and PCA administered arbitrations. Sector specialisms include mining, energy, steel and infrastructure projects. She is particularly adept with disputes relating to joint venture partners, shareholders, institutional lenders and state entities. She also has excellent knowledge of Commonwealth legal systems and managing the relationship between local court proceedings and international arbitration. Mahnaz’s appointment as an arbitrator in EuroGas Inc. and Belmont Resources Inc. v. Republic of Slovakia makes her one of the youngest ever appointed to an ICSID Annulment Committee since records began and the youngest woman. She is presently serving as an Annulment Committee member in Almasryia for Operating & Maintaining Touristic Construction Co. L.L.C. v State of Kuwait (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/2). She serves on the ICSID Panel of Arbitrators and was on the editorial board of the ICSID Review. Mahnaz publishes, teaches and speaks extensively. Her writings are frequently cited in academic journals, arbitration awards, examination papers and appear on syllabi. Her professional awards include the prestigious Financial Times Legal Innovator of the Year Award 2007 and the Law Society of England’s national award for the Trainee Solicitor of the Year 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • Mahnaz Malik
    Mahnaz Malik CALL: 2002 (NEW YORK); 2012 (ENGLAND AND WALES) ✉ [email protected] ☎ +44 (0)20 7842 1200 Languages: Urdu (fluent); Punjabi (fluent); Hindi (oral conversational) Overview Publications Mahnaz is a barrister and arbitrator at Twenty Essex who specialises in representing governments and corporations in Below are examples and a full list is commercial and investment arbitration. available upon request: She has extensive expertise in advising governments, corporations International Law Protections for Foreign and international organisations on international disputes. Mahnaz Investment in Pakistan [Overseas has acted as counsel on behalf of both investors and states in Investors Chamber of Commerce and several investment and commercial disputes including ICC, ICSID, Industry 2019]. LCIA and PCA administered arbitrations. Expropriation Regime under the Energy Charter Treaty [Energy Charter Mahnaz’s appointment as an arbitrator in EuroGas Inc and Belmont Secretariat 2012] (co-author). Resources Inc v Republic of Slovakia makes her one of the youngest ever appointed to an ICSID Annulment Committee since records ‘IISD Model International Agreement on began, and the youngest woman. She serves on the ICSID Panel of Investment for Sustainable Development: Arbitrators and was on the editorial board of the ICSID Review. Background and Progress’ in Sustainable Development in International Investment She is routinely sought for her expertise in a range of common law Law’ [Kluwer 2010]. systems across Asia and Africa. Mahnaz is particular
    [Show full text]