The so called "Denial of Benefits" clause (DOB) gives the respondent state an opportunity to exclude third parties to the investment protection treaties from enjoying the benefits of the treaty without assuming reciprocal obligations. No less than seventy-three investor-state disputes have been brought to arbitration under the ECT since its entry into force back in 1998. The DOB clause in ECT, Art. 17 has never been successfully invoked. States have tried to exercise their right in at least ten cases without success. This paper poses two research questions. First, what are the distinguishing features of Art. 17 of the ECT that make it function differently from other DOB clauses? Second, given the arbitral decisions, can the Art. 17 of the ECT be effectively invoked by respondent states? The paper is divided into five chapters. The first chapter introduces the topic of DOB clauses and the purpose of this paper. The second chapter is theoretical and addresses the topic of DOB clauses in general and further outlines their past, present and future. The third chapter focuses specifically on the Art. 17 of the ECT it examines the ECT arbitral awards and decisions that touched upon the clause. Chapter four aims to show the procedural issues of DOB clauses from the perspective of respondent states, it...
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:nusl.cz/oai:invenio.nusl.cz:344482 |
| Date | January 2015 |
| Creators | Kunstýř, Jan |
| Contributors | Balaš, Vladimír, Beránek, Milan |
| Source Sets | Czech ETDs |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess |
Page generated in 0.0012 seconds