The investment treaty arbitration decision finding that (i) the change of tax scheme after the investments and demands to hire a given level of nationals did not constitute a breach of the Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) obligations and that (ii) a breach of contract by the central bank constituted a breach of the ‘expanded’ FET obligations imported through the MFN clause.
Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Company and CJSC Vostokneftegaz Company v. Mongolia, UNCITRAL (Russia/Mongolia), Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, April 28, 2011
Authors：
Takashi Koyama
Magazine/Book：JCA Journal, Vol. 58, No. 12
Publisher：The Japan Commercial Arbitration Association (JCAA)
Practice：
International Arbitration
International Dispute Resolution
Asia/Emerging Countries Desk
Date of publication：
December, 2011
Other publications by Takashi Koyama
- 2015.04.01
- The Existence of a “Dispute” and the Prima Facie Test for a Tribunal to Have Jurisdiction
- 2014.05.01
- Document Production Procedure and the Scope of Privilege in Investment Treaty Arbitration
- 2011.08.01
- Dictionary of Contract Terms
- 2010.01.01
- Negotiations regarding Intellectual Property in Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), [1] - [9]
- 2007.05.01
- Commentary on FTA/EPA Negotiations
Other publications about International Dispute Resolution
- 2019.12.20
- International Legal Practice
- 2015.04.01
- The Existence of a “Dispute” and the Prima Facie Test for a Tribunal to Have Jurisdiction
Other publications about Asia/Emerging Countries Desk
- 2011.01.01
- Review of the ASEAN System
