1 Abstract Host-State Counterclaims in Investment Arbitration: Holding Investors Accountable for Human Rights Violations International investment arbitration has been long criticized for its structural bias against host states in favour of the defence of the interests of investors. The one-way character of this dispute settlement mechanism has been, however, recently challenged in the light of numerous cases in which arbitrators were confronted with counterclaims of host states, requesting damages for investors' illegal conduct. To successfully assert counterclaims in arbitral proceedings, host states have to deal with a series of difficulties. The submission of a dispute to an arbitral tribunal first requires consent both on the part of an investor and a host state. Its scope is determined by the language of dispute settlement provisions in international investment agreements. While these instruments generally accept a wide range of investors' claims related to their investments, counterclaims of host states fall within the jurisdiction of tribunals only if the international investment agreements contain a dispute settlement clause with broad wording. The second condition which concerns the admissibility of host states' counterclaims is their close connection with the primary claims advanced by investors....

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:25:32Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Tese Olavo Pezzotti.pdf: 1221100 bytes, checksum: 9b893bec55a7f37d6dbd1b7a7ca769cf (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007-06-05 / The theme related with the attitudes or positionings that the defendant can adopt in the civil process, especially in the ordinary procedure, is quite vast and complex. Multiples are the possibilities introduced to the defendant, both to attack the procedural relationship or to refute the merit, direct or indirectly. The hypotheses that allow to the defendant exceptionally to present counterattack to the author s pretension, or to obtain for himself court protection of merit, demand requirements and present convergent characteristics and others that differentiate them. Among the cases before referred, this work approaches the denominated action duplex and counterclaim. In an perfunctory exam of these afirmations, it could be considered redundant to treat the action duplex and the counterclaim, since they would be synonymous or related institutes. In order to reach the desideratum of distinguishing the several species of defendant s counterattack and their implications related to the litigious object of the process, the dissertation was divided in four chapters. In the first chapter, it approaches the contradictory and the wide defense, the defendant s legitimacy and the eventual interference of the positionings by him adopted on the litigious object. In the second, it discourses on the several attitudes that the defendant can adopt in the civil process. In the third chapter, it examines the action duplex, both in the Civil Process Code and in the extravagant procedural legislation. In the fourth chapter, it approaches the counterclaim, comparing the convergence points and divergencies among the counterclaim species foreseen for using by the defendant. In the conclusions, it detaches the common points and divergencies between the action duplex and the other hypotheses that permit the defendant to formulate a request to obtain for him a life good, confronting them with the counterclaim, as well as the implication, application and its relationship with institutes like provisional remedy, default, reconvention and others / O tema relacionado com as atitudes ou posicionamentos que o réu pode adotar no processo civil, especialmente no que tange ao procedimento ordinário, se mostra bastante vasto e complexo. Múltiplas são as possibilidades que se apresentam ao réu, quer para atacar a relação processual, quer para impugnar o mérito, direta ou indiretamente. As hipóteses que permitem ao réu excepcionalmente apresentar contra-ataque à pretensão do autor, ou obter para si uma tutela jurisdicional de mérito, exigem requisitos e apresentam características convergentes e outras que as diferenciam. Entre os casos antes referidos, este trabalho aborda as denominadas ações dúplices e o pedido contraposto. Em um exame perfunctório da assertiva supra, poder-se-ia considerar redundante tratar de ações dúplices e do pedido contraposto, já que seriam institutos sinônimos ou correlatos. A fim de permitir alcançar o desiderato de distinguir as várias espécies de contraataque do réu e suas implicações quanto ao objeto litigioso do processo, a dissertação foi dividida em quatro capítulos. No primeiro capítulo, aborda o contraditório e a ampla defesa, a legitimidade do réu e a eventual interferência dos posicionamentos por ele adotados sobre o objeto litigioso. No segundo capítulo, discorre sobre as várias atitudes que o réu pode vir a adotar no processo civil. No terceiro capítulo, examina as ações dúplices, seja no Código de Processo Civil, seja na legislação processual extravagante. No quarto capítulo, aborda o pedido contraposto, cotejando os pontos de convergência e divergência entre as espécies de contra-ataque previstas para utilização pelo réu. Nas conclusões, destaca os pontos comuns e divergentes entre as ações dúplices e as demais hipóteses nas quais se permite ao réu formular pedido para obtenção de um bem da vida para si, confrontando-as com o pedido contraposto, bem como a implicação, aplicação e sua relação com institutos como da tutela antecipada, revelia, reconvenção e outros

La demande reconventionnelle est une conclusion du défendeur qui poursuit des avantages autres que le simple rejet de la prétention du demandeur. Elle peut être introduite dans toutes les juridictions, mais devant la Cour Internationale de Justice elle présente des caractéristiques particulières que notre recherche a souhaité mettre en lumière. Celles-ci apparaissent tant dans les éléments constitutifs de cette demande que dans ses conditions de recevabilité. En ce qui concerne les éléments de sa définition, il ressort de la jurisprudence de la Cour qu’elle est une demande autonome et indépendante, qu’elle est un moyen de défense, qu’elle est formée par le défendeur et qu’elle est une demande incidente. Toutefois, s’il ne fait aucun doute qu’elle constitue une demande autonome, il n’en demeure pas moins que la pertinence de son influence sur le sort de la demande de la partie adverse, l’identification de la partie habilitée à l’introduire en cas de saisine de la Cour par compromis, et sa distinction d’autres demandes réciproques, restent à déterminer. S’agissant des conditions de sa recevabilité, une distinction délicate doit être établie entre la « connexité » requise par l’article 80 du Règlement et la « jonction » de la demande à l’instance en cours. A ce titre une question centrale se pose, celle de savoir si le juge peut refuser une demande reconventionnelle pourtant connexe à l’objet du litige, et inversement, l’accepter quand la connexité fait défaut. Alors que la jurisprudence de la Cour paraît incertaine et la doctrine reste partagée, notre thèse avance des arguments pour une réponse favorable. / The counterclaim is the submission of respondent that pursuing objectives other than the mere dismissal of the claim of the applicant in the main proceedings. The counterclaim which the International Court of Justice may entertain by virtue of article 80 of the rules, although similar to those that can be introduced in other jurisdictions, has unique characteristics. This appears in both components of this claim and in its conditions of admissibility. Regarding its definition, if one should not doubt that it constitutes a legal claim, the fact remains that its influence on the fate of the claim of the other party, the identification of the party entitled to present such a claim when the case is brought before the Court by ad hoc compromise, and its distinction from other cross-claims, are to be determined. As regards the conditions of admissibility, after explaining that it must comes within the jurisdiction of the Court and maintain a direct connection with the subject-matter of the claim of the other party, this research emphasizes the distinction between its admissibility under rule 80 and its junction with the current proceeding. The goal is to demonstrate that an claim brought by the defendant may not be attached to the pending proceeding even though the conditions imposed by the rules are met.