ICSID website available at:
Investor state | The law/convention on which the dispute was based | Plaintiff |
---|---|---|
Holland | Bilateral Investment Agreement between Egypt and the Netherlands 1996 | Future Pipe International Pipe manufacturing company |
United State | Bilateral Investment Agreement between Egypt and the United States 1986 | LP Egypt Holdings I Fund III Egypt OMLP Egypt Holdings The field of construction and construction |
USA | Bilateral Investment Agreement between Egypt and the United States 1986, and the Egyptian Investment Law No. 8 of 1997 | Champion Holding Company and others Cotton processing and trade |
Qatar | Bilateral Investment Agreement between Egypt and Qatar 1999 | Al Jazeera |
Spain | Bilateral Investment Agreement between Egypt and Spain 1992 | Cementos La Union S.A Aridos Jativa |
Spain | Bilateral Investment Agreement between Egypt and Spain 1992 | Unión Fenosa Gas, S.A Spain's Union Fenosa Gas Company Natural gas liquefaction |
USA/Germany | The bilateral investment agreement between Egypt and the United States 1986, and the bilateral agreement between Egypt and Germany 2005 | Ampal-American Israel Corporation and others Mining/exporting natural gas |
France | Bilateral Investment Agreement between Egypt and France 1974 | Veolia Propreté company Water and Sanitation |
Source: ICSID website available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/cases/pages/casedetail
Political Methods of Dispute Settlement: https://guides.libraries.uc.edu/c.php?g=222418&p=1583660
Dr Walid Abdulrahim, Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, https://sites.google.com/site/walidabdulrahim/home/my-studies-in-english/14-peaceful-settlement-of-disputes
Abdualla Mohamed Hamza, p. 14 .
Abdualla Mohamed Hamza, p. 14.
Brenton D. Soderstrum, Litigation v. Arbitration: Pros and Cons , www.bestlawyers.com/Content/Downloads/Articles/4379_1.pdf
Settlement of International Trade and Investment Disputes Gonzalo Biggs, Lawyer: www.camsantiago.cl/…/45_Articulo%20Cepal%20version%20Ingles
review the text of the Convention on the United Nations website available at: www.un.org
number of African States have signed the UNCITRAL Rules: Uganda, Egypt, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Algeria […] Other States See UNCITRAL Guide, Basic Facts on the United Nations Commission on Trade Law, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ( 2013 ), Vienna, January, pp. 39-42.
General Assembly Resolution 2205 (XXI) of 17 December 1966, fifth and ninth preamble considerations.
For more details about the signatory countries, see the ICSID website available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org
Institutional vs. 'ad hoc' arbitration, OUT-LAW GUIDE, 12 Aug 2011: www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/institutional-vs-ad-hoc-arbitration
Respini Beretta Piccoli and Fornara, Institutional vs. ad hoc arbitration: when and why?, GASI/ACC CONFERENCE 19/10/2017:
Sundra Rajoo, Institutional and Ad hoc Arbitrations: Advantages and Disadvantages: http://sundrarajoo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Institutional-and-Ad-hoc-Arbitrations-Advantages-Disadvantages-by-Sundra-Rajoo.pdf
Law No. 65 of 1971 regarding the investment of Arab capital and free zones, The Official Newspaper, No. 39, 30/9/1971, p. 529.
Text of Law No. 230 of 1989 for Investment, Official Gazette No. 29, 20/7/1989, p. 54.
ICSID website available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/cases/Pages/casedetail.aspx?CaseNo=ARB/16/2
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES WASHINGTON, D.C. IN THE PROCEEDING BETWEEN: WAGUIH ELIE GEORGE SlAG AND CLORINDA VECCHI (CLAIMANTS) AND THE ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT (RESPONDENT)(ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15) AWARD Members p. 1.
(ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15) (DECISION ON JURISDICTION) p. 6.
(ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15) (DECISION ON JURISDICTION) pp. 15-20.
(ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15), (DECISION ON JURISDICTION) pp. 22-31.
(ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15) AWARD Members pp. 23-24.
(ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15) AWARD Members pp. 115-127.
(ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15) AWARD Members pp. 170-175).
Al-Qalloubi , S.M. ( 2005 ), Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration Seminar in Works and Contracting Contracts , Arab Organization for Administrative Development , Sharjah , p. 58 .
Boczek , B.A. ( 2005a ), International Law: A Dictionary 356: Dictionaries of International Law, No. 2 , Scarecrow Press .
Boczek , B.A. ( 2005b ), International Law: A Dictionary 379: Dictionaries of International Law, No. 2 , Scarecrow Press .
El Hadad , H. ( 1996 ), The Contracts Concluded between the State and Foreign Individuals, Their Identity and the Applicable Law , Dar El Nahda Al Arabiya , Cairo , pp. 8 - 9 .
Hamza , A.M. ( 2017 ), “ Peaceful settlement of disputes, global journal of commerce and mangment prespective ”, Global Institute for Research and Education, (January-February, 2017) , p. 11 .
Kassem , T. ( 2015 ), “ The political character of Investor-State disputes ”, Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization , Vol. 42 , pp. 173 - 180 , available at: www.iiste.org , ISSN 2224-3240 (Paper) ISSN 2224-3259 .
Salacuse , J.W. ( 2007 ), “ Is there a better way? Alternative methods of treaty-based, investor-state dispute resolution ”, Fordham International Law Journal , Vol. 31 No. 1 , pp. 138 - 185 .
United Nations ( 1994 ), UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration , United Nations , New York, NY , pp. 2 - 6 .
United Nations ( 2011 ), General Assembly Resolution 65/22 of the Revised UNCITRAL Rules for 2010 , United Nations , New York, NY , pp. 2 - 7 .
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ( 2013 ), UNCITRAL Guide, Key Facts on the United Nations Commission on Trade Law , United Nations Commission on International Trade Law , Vienna , p. 1495 .
This work was funded by the “General Authority for Investment and Free Zones”.
Related articles, all feedback is valuable.
Please share your general feedback
Contact Customer Support
Make Your Note
The World Trade Organization’s (WTO) dispute settlement mechanism is going through a crisis . The body is struggling to appoint new members to its understaffed Appellate Body that hears appeals in trade.
Over 20 developing countries met in New Delhi on 13-14 May 2019 to discuss the ways to prevent the WTO’s dispute resolution system from collapsing due to the logjam in the appointments.
NOTE: The dispute panel (India and Japan) had found that India had acted “inconsistently” with some WTO agreements, and India had notified the Dispute Settlement Body of its decision to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations in December 2018.
2020 election deniers ordered to pay $1 million in pennsylvania voting machine dispute.
A Pennsylvania judge has determined that three 2020 election deniers must pay nearly $1 million in fees as the result of a years-long legal dispute with state officials over voting equipment used during the last presidential race, according to recent court filings.
Recommendations from the judge, who was appointed to serve as a special master overseeing the case, attach a dollar figure to sanctions previously imposed by the state’s Supreme Court against two Republican county commissioners and their attorney for allowing an outside firm to examine voting equipment after the 2020 election – despite a court order prohibiting them to do so, according to the new filings.
The case, which dates back to 2021, involves actions taken by two Fulton County, Pennsylvania, commissioners – Stuart Ulsh and Randy Bunch – who sought to have Dominion voting equipment examined by a third-party after the 2020 election. Many of former President Donald Trump’s allies falsely blamed Dominion’s software for his election defeat.
Thomas Carroll, an attorney who also served as a pro-Trump fake elector in 2020, was also sanctioned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for his conduct and – along with the county and the county commissioners – “shall be jointly and severally responsible” for paying nearly $1 million in fees to cover the Pennsylvania Secretary of State’s legal bills, according to the special master’s latest report.
The state Supreme Court will ultimately use the special master recommendations in awarding fees and costs resulting from the case.
Last week’s special master report marks one of the final chapters of the Fulton County voting equipment dispute – one of several legal battles over unauthorized access to election systems that emerged from the 2020 presidential race.
In Fulton County, multiple outside firms were ultimately given unauthorized access to voting systems after the 2020 election without authorization from the Board of Elections, according to previous court filings in the special master probe. The third county commissioner only learned that an outside firm had been allowed to inspect the election equipment until after it was done, court filings show.
None of the third party groups granted access to the voting systems in Fulton County were contracted by the county itself or had the proper accreditation to carry out such an inspection, according to court records.
In July 2021, upon learning of the unauthorized inspection, the secretary of state’s office argued that the inspection itself had compromised the integrity of the equipment by undermining chain of custody requirements and access limitations necessary to prevent tampering.
The state secretary issued a directive barring county boards of elections from providing access to third parties seeking to examine state-certified voting systems. The directive provided for the revocation of funding from counties whose machines had been decertified under the directive and stated that Pennsylvania would not reimburse any cost of replacement voting equipment that had to be withdrawn.
The commissioners and their lawyers then launched legal proceedings.
During the proceedings, the state secretary learned that Fulton County intended to allow another entity, Envoy Sage LLC, to inspect the equipment. The secretary sought and received a protective order from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court barring such an inspection. In January 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court entered the protective order.
Months after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court entered the protective order, the commissioners nonetheless allowed another party – Speckin Forensics – to inspect the voting equipment without the knowledge of the state, according to court papers. After the completion of that report, the county moved to sue Dominion, arguing that the machines were not fit for their intended use and purpose.
When Pennsylvania state officials brought the action to the attention of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the court issued sanctions. It ordered the county officials to pay attorney’s fees and referred their attorney, Thomas Carroll to Pennsylvania’s attorney disciplinary board. The court also ordered the Dominion voting equipment to be placed in the custody of a neutral agent.
Show all
'.concat(e,"
'.concat(i,"
Automatically renews at ').concat(n.labelSubtext,"/").concat(n.billingInterval," . Cancel anytime.
\n ').concat(t,'\n
This page will automatically redirect in 5 seconds...
').concat(o).concat(n,"
\n '+(null!=(o=r(e,"if").call(u,null!=n?r(n,"cta2PreText"):n,{name:"if",hash:{},fn:l.program(20,t,0),inverse:l.noop,data:t,loc:{start:{line:29,column:20},end:{line:29,column:61}}}))?o:"")+"\n"+(null!=(o=(r(e,"ifAll")||n&&r(n,"ifAll")||l.hooks.helperMissing).call(u,null!=n?r(n,"cta2Text"):n,null!=n?r(n,"cta2Link"):n,{name:"ifAll",hash:{},fn:l.program(22,t,0),inverse:l.noop,data:t,loc:{start:{line:30,column:20},end:{line:35,column:30}}}))?o:"")+"
\n \n '+i((u=null!=(u=p(e,"title")||(null!=n?p(n,"title"):n))?u:c,(0,_typeof2.default)(u)===s?u.call(r,{name:"title",hash:{},data:t,loc:{start:{line:20,column:73},end:{line:20,column:82}}}):u))+" \n "+i((u=null!=(u=p(e,"subtext")||(null!=n?p(n,"subtext"):n))?u:c,(0,_typeof2.default)(u)===s?u.call(r,{name:"subtext",hash:{},data:t,loc:{start:{line:21,column:24},end:{line:21,column:35}}}):u))+"\n \n
Earlier this month, Disney walked itself into a PR nightmare.
Jeffrey J. Piccolo named the entertainment giant in a wrongful-death lawsuit in February after his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, died at a restaurant in Disney Springs in Florida. Piccolo is representing Tangsuan's estate.
Tangsuan, a doctor from New York, experienced a "severe acute allergic reaction" in October 2023 after dining at Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant.
Court documents said that Tangsuan had severe dairy and nut allergies, so her family decided to dine at that restaurant because they believed it would have "proper safeguards." Piccolo and Tangsuan asked a restaurant employee on "numerous occasions" if the establishment served allergen-free options, which the employee confirmed.
Tangsuan was then transported to the hospital after collapsing in Planet Hollywood, according to the lawsuit. A medical examiner's investigation determined that her cause of death resulted from "anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system."
Piccolo requested in excess of $50,000 in damages from Disney and the restaurant's operator, Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc.
Disney's motion to compel arbitration might have been to avoid a jury trial, which could have attracted more media attention. But its response had the opposite effect.
In May, Disney argued that Piccolo could not make his case before a a jury because he accepted a Subscriber Agreement when registering for a Disney+ free trial in 2019 . Registering for an account includes agreeing to the Subscriber Agreement and Terms of Use , which include a "binding arbitration clause."
Arbitration is when parties involved in a dispute have a neutral third party resolve the matter instead of a court jury.
"The Terms of Use, which were provided with the Subscriber Agreement, include a binding arbitration clause. The first page of the Subscriber Agreement states, in all capital letters, that 'any dispute between You and Us, Except for Small Claims, is subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by individual binding arbitration,'" court documents said.
Related stories
Disney said Piccolo agreed to those terms again in September 2023 when he booked tickets to visit one of its theme parks.
Piccolo's lawyers responded to Disney earlier this month by calling the argument "fatally flawed" and "preposterous." Consumers thought so, too.
The surprising legal argument also captured the media's attention, causing the story to go viral.
One X user called the Disney+ argument "very dystopian," while others encouraged people to cancel their subscriptions in retaliation. One such X post was liked 93,000 times, while another gained 96,000 likes. Media outlets like The Associated Press published articles describing Disney's argument as a cautionary tale for consumers who click "agree" without reading the fine print.
A Disney spokesperson soon attempted to quell the masses with a statement distancing the company from Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant.
"We are deeply saddened by the family's loss and understand their grief. Given that this restaurant is neither owned nor operated by Disney, we are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff's attorney's attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant," the statement said.
David Triana, director of media relations at Axia Public Relations, a top national PR agency, told Business Insider that the Disney+ argument, in tandem with the arbitration request, was a misstep on the company's part.
"I'm honestly surprised that this was even entertained by Disney," Triana said. "We're not talking about losing a little money on a park ticket or sharing a password for your Disney+ account. Somebody died."
Triana said that although Disney might have been thinking from a legal perspective, it lost sight of the human perspective.
"You have to be very empathetic and cautious in a situation like this. Not only toward the people in the situation but also people who plan on going to Disney and will sign the same terms," he said.
Triana said Disney's argument could cause would-be park guests to rethink their decision.
"It might give people pause if they're coming to the parks for the first time or if they are planning on signing up for Disney+," he said. "They'll say, 'Okay, I've signed this. Does that now put me at a disadvantage?'"
Disney's first statement didn't curb the criticism from consumers online. So, less than a week later, Disney said in another statement that it would prioritize "humanity" and reverse course, waiving its right to arbitration .
"At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations. With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss," Josh D'Amaro, chairman of Disney Experiences, said. "As such, we've decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court."
Natela Shenon, a business law attorney in California, told BI that Disney could have changed its legal strategy for two reasons.
Shenon pointed out that Disney neither owns nor operates Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant, so its legal team might be banking on that detail.
Another reason could be that Disney hoped to avoid a jury trial, where sympathy for a multibillion-dollar corporation could be scarce. Shenon said it's not uncommon for large companies to suggest arbitration rather than a jury trial.
"Look at it from Disney's perspective. Let's say that you're on a jury and this case comes up in front of you," Shenon said. "You're like, 'Okay, but this is Disney. They have all this money. Who cares?''
Shenon added, "A layperson might glaze over something like this and say, 'Oh, Disney is a big company. They're not being fair to the small guys.'"
Shenon told BI that arbitration is similar to litigation.
"People still get their day in court, so to speak. It moves faster, and it's more efficient," Shenon said.
When asked if Disney's argument could hold up in a courtroom, Shenon said it depended.
"I think that an argument as far as Disney+ goes would probably be very far-fetched," she said. "Buying tickets through the website would hold water."
Legal proceedings for the lawsuit are still ongoing, but Triana said Disney has the opportunity to mend its public image now through transparency.
"Disney, in my opinion, would need to show in good faith that they've learned from the situation by either removing the arbitration clause or modifying the arbitration clause," he said.
A representative for Disney said it has no additional comments at this time.
Abrams environmental law clinic—significant achievements for 2023-24, protecting our great lakes, rivers, and shorelines.
The Abrams Clinic represents Friends of the Chicago River and the Sierra Club in their efforts to hold Trump Tower in downtown Chicago accountable for withdrawing water illegally from the Chicago River. To cool the building, Trump Tower draws water at high volumes, similar to industrial factories or power plants, but Trump Tower operated for more than a decade without ever conducting the legally required studies to determine the impact of those operations on aquatic life or without installing sufficient equipment to protect aquatic life consistent with federal regulations. After the Clinic sent a notice of intent to sue Trump Tower, the State of Illinois filed its own case in the summer of 2018, and the Clinic moved successfully to intervene in that case. In 2023-24, motions practice and discovery continued. Working with co-counsel at Northwestern University’s Pritzker Law School’s Environmental Advocacy Center, the Clinic moved to amend its complaint to include Trump Tower’s systematic underreporting each month of the volume of water that it intakes from and discharges to the Chicago River. The Clinic and co-counsel addressed Trump Tower’s motion to dismiss some of our clients’ claims, and we filed a motion for summary judgment on our claim that Trump Tower has committed a public nuisance. We also worked closely with our expert, Dr. Peter Henderson, on a supplemental disclosure and on defending an additional deposition of him. In summer 2024, the Clinic is defending its motion for summary judgment and challenging Trump Tower’s own motion for summary judgment. The Clinic is also preparing for trial, which could take place as early as fall 2024.
Since 2016, the Abrams Clinic has worked with the Chicago chapter of the Surfrider Foundation to protect water quality along the Lake Michigan shoreline in northwest Indiana, where its members surf. In April 2017, the U. S. Steel plant in Portage, Indiana, spilled approximately 300 pounds of hexavalent chromium into Lake Michigan. In January 2018, the Abrams Clinic filed a suit on behalf of Surfrider against U. S. Steel, alleging multiple violations of U. S. Steel’s discharge permits; the City of Chicago filed suit shortly after. When the US government and the State of Indiana filed their own, separate case, the Clinic filed extensive comments on the proposed consent decree. In August 2021, the court entered a revised consent decree which included provisions advocated for by Surfrider and the City of Chicago, namely a water sampling project that alerts beachgoers as to Lake Michigan’s water quality conditions, better notifications in case of future spills, and improvements to U. S. Steel’s operations and maintenance plans. In the 2023-24 academic year, the Clinic successfully litigated its claims for attorneys’ fees as a substantially prevailing party. Significantly, the court’s order adopted the “Fitzpatrick matrix,” used by the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia to determine appropriate hourly rates for civil litigants, endorsed Chicago legal market rates as the appropriate rates for complex environmental litigation in Northwest Indiana, and allowed for partially reconstructed time records. The Clinic’s work, which has received significant media attention, helped to spawn other litigation to address pollution by other industrial facilities in Northwest Indiana and other enforcement against U. S. Steel by the State of Indiana.
In Winter Quarter 2024, Clinic students worked closely with Dr. John Ikerd, an agricultural economist and emeritus professor at the University of Missouri, to file an amicus brief in Food & Water Watch v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . In that case pending before the Ninth Circuit, Food & Water Watch argues that US EPA is illegally allowing Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, more commonly known as factory farms, to pollute waterways significantly more than is allowable under the Clean Water Act. In the brief for Dr. Ikerd and co-amici Austin Frerick, Crawford Stewardship Project, Family Farm Defenders, Farm Aid, Missouri Rural Crisis Center, National Family Farm Coalition, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, and Western Organization of Resource Councils, we argued that EPA’s refusal to regulate CAFOs effectively is an unwarranted application of “agricultural exceptionalism” to industrial agriculture and that EPA effectively distorts the animal production market by allowing CAFOs to externalize their pollution costs and diminishing the ability of family farms to compete. Attorneys for the litigants will argue the case in September 2024.
Energy justice.
The Abrams Clinic supported grassroots organizations advocating for energy justice in low-income communities and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities in Michigan. With the Clinic’s representation, these organizations intervened in cases before the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC), which regulates investor-owned utilities. Students conducted discovery, drafted written testimony, cross-examined utility executives, participated in settlement discussions, and filed briefs for these projects. The Clinic’s representation has elevated the concerns of these community organizations and forced both the utilities and regulators to consider issues of equity to an unprecedented degree. This year, on behalf of Soulardarity (Highland Park, MI), We Want Green, Too (Detroit, MI), and Urban Core Collective (Grand Rapids, MI), Clinic students engaged in eight contested cases before the MPSC against DTE Electric, DTE Gas, and Consumers Energy, as well as provided support for our clients’ advocacy in other non-contested MPSC proceedings.
The Clinic started this past fall with wins in three cases. First, the Clinic’s clients settled with DTE Electric in its Integrated Resource Plan case. The settlement included an agreement to close the second dirtiest coal power plant in Michigan three years early, $30 million from DTE’s shareholders to assist low-income customers in paying their bills, and $8 million from DTE’s shareholders toward a community fund that assists low-income customers with installing energy efficiency improvements, renewable energy, and battery technology. Second, in DTE Electric’s 2023 request for a rate hike (a “rate case”), the Commission required DTE Electric to develop a more robust environmental justice analysis and rejected the Company’s second attempt to waive consumer protections through a proposed electric utility prepayment program with a questionable history of success during its pilot run. The final Commission order and the administrative law judge’s proposal for final decision cited the Clinic’s testimony and briefs. Third, in Consumers Electric’s 2023 rate case, the Commission rejected the Company’s request for a higher ratepayer-funded return on its investments and required the Company to create a process that will enable intervenors to obtain accurate GIS data. The Clinic intends to use this data to map the disparate impact of infrastructure investment in low-income and BIPOC communities.
In the winter, the Clinic filed public comments regarding DTE Electric and Consumers Energy’s “distribution grid plans” (DGP) as well as supported interventions in two additional cases: Consumers Energy’s voluntary green pricing (VGP) case and the Clinic’s first case against the gas utility DTE Gas. Beginning with the DGP comments, the Clinic first addressed Consumers’s 2023 Electric Distribution Infrastructure Investment Plan (EDIIP), which detailed current distribution system health and the utility’s approximately $7 billion capital project planning ($2 billion of which went unaccounted for in the EDIIP) over 2023–2028. The Clinic then commented on DTE Electric’s 2023 DGP, which outlined the utility’s opaque project prioritization and planned more than $9 billion in capital investments and associated maintenance over 2024–2028. The comments targeted four areas of deficiencies in both the EDIIP and DGP: (1) inadequate consideration of distributed energy resources (DERs) as providing grid reliability, resiliency, and energy transition benefits; (2) flawed environmental justice analysis, particularly with respect to the collection of performance metrics and the narrow implementation of the Michigan Environmental Justice Screen Tool; (3) inequitable investment patterns across census tracts, with emphasis on DTE Electric’s skewed prioritization for retaining its old circuits rather than upgrading those circuits; and (4) failing to engage with community feedback.
For the VGP case against Consumers, the Clinic supported the filing of both an initial brief and reply brief requesting that the Commission reject the Company’s flawed proposal for a “community solar” program. In a prior case, the Clinic advocated for the development of a community solar program that would provide low-income, BIPOC communities with access to clean energy. As a result of our efforts, the Commission approved a settlement agreement requiring the Company “to evaluate and provide a strawman recommendation on community solar in its Voluntary Green Pricing Program.” However, the Company’s subsequent proposal in its VGP case violated the Commission’s order because it (1) was not consistent with the applicable law, MCL 460.1061; (2) was not a true community solar program; (3) lacked essential details; (4) failed to compensate subscribers sufficiently; (5) included overpriced and inflexible subscriptions; (6) excessively limited capacity; and (7) failed to provide a clear pathway for certain participants to transition into other VGP programs. For these reasons, the Clinic argued that the Commission should reject the Company’s proposal.
In DTE Gas’s current rate case, the Clinic worked with four witnesses to develop testimony that would rebut DTE Gas’s request for a rate hike on its customers. The testimony advocated for a pathway to a just energy transition that avoids dumping the costs of stranded gas assets on the low-income and BIPOC communities that are likely to be the last to electrify. Instead, the testimony proposed that the gas and electric utilities undertake integrated planning that would prioritize electric infrastructure over gas infrastructure investment to ensure that DTE Gas does not over-invest in gas infrastructure that will be rendered obsolete in the coming decades. The Clinic also worked with one expert witness to develop an analysis of DTE Gas’s unaffordable bills and inequitable shutoff, deposit, and collections practices. Lastly, the Clinic offered testimony on behalf of and from community members who would be directly impacted by the Company’s rate hike and lack of affordable and quality service. Clinic students have spent the summer drafting an approximately one-hundred-page brief making these arguments formally. We expect the Commission’s decision this fall.
Finally, both DTE Electric and Consumers Energy have filed additional requests for rate increases after the conclusion of their respective rate cases filed in 2023. On behalf of our Clients, the Clinic has intervened in these cases, and clinic students have already reviewed thousands of pages of documents and started to develop arguments and strategies to protect low-income and BIPOC communities from the utility’s ceaseless efforts to increase the cost of energy.
The Abrams Environmental Law Clinic worked with a leading international nonprofit dedicated to using the law to protect the environment to research corporate climate greenwashing, focusing on consumer protection, green financing, and securities liability. Clinic students spent the year examining an innovative state law, drafted a fifty-page guide to the statute and relevant cases, and examined how the law would apply to a variety of potential cases. Students then presented their findings in a case study and oral presentation to members of ClientEarth, including the organization’s North American head and members of its European team. The project helped identify the strengths and weaknesses of potential new strategies for increasing corporate accountability in the fight against climate change.
The Abrams Clinic continues to represent East Chicago, Indiana, residents who live or lived on or adjacent to the USS Lead Superfund site. This year, the Clinic worked closely with the East Chicago/Calumet Coalition Community Advisory Group (CAG) to advance the CAG’s advocacy beyond the Superfund site and the adjacent Dupont RCRA site. Through multiple forms of advocacy, the clinics challenged the poor performance and permit modification and renewal attempts of Tradebe Treatment and Recycling, LLC (Tradebe), a hazardous waste storage and recycling facility in the community. Clinic students sent letters to US EPA and Indiana Department of Environmental Management officials about how IDEM has failed to assess meaningful penalties against Tradebe for repeated violations of the law and how IDEM has allowed Tradebe to continue to threaten public and worker health and safety by not improving its operations. Students also drafted substantial comments for the CAG on the US EPA’s Lead and Copper Rule improvements, the Suppliers’ Park proposed cleanup, and Sims Metal’s proposed air permit revisions. The Clinic has also continued working with the CAG, environmental experts, and regulators since US EPA awarded $200,000 to the CAG for community air monitoring. The Clinic and its clients also joined comments drafted by other environmental organizations about poor operations and loose regulatory oversight of several industrial facilities in the area.
The Abrams Clinic represented the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC) in litigation regarding the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) failure to list the Kirtland’s snake as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The Kirtland’s snake is a small, secretive, non-venomous snake historically located across the Midwest and the Ohio River Valley. Development and climate change have undermined large portions of the snake’s habitat, and populations are declining. Accordingly, the Clinic sued the Service in the US District Court for the District of Columbia last summer over the Service’s denial of CBD’s request to have the Kirtland’s snake protected. This spring, the Clinic was able to reach a settlement with the Service that requires the Service to reconsider its listing decision for the Kirtland’s snake and to pay attorney fees.
The Clinic also represented CBD in preparation for litigation regarding the Service’s failure to list another species as threatened or endangered. Threats from land development and climate change have devastated this species as well, and the species has already been extirpated from two of the sixteen US states in its range. As such, the Clinic worked this winter and spring to prepare a notice of intent (NOI) to sue the Service. The Team poured over hundreds of FOIA documents and dug into the Service’s supporting documentation to create strong arguments against the Service in the imminent litigation. The Clinic will send the NOI and file a complaint in the next few months.
Twenty-four law school students from the classes of 2024 and 2025 participated in the Clinic, performing complex legal research, reviewing documents obtained through discovery, drafting legal research memos and briefs, conferring with clients, conducting cross-examination, participating in settlement conferences, and arguing motions. Students secured nine clerkships, five were heading to private practice after graduation, and two are pursuing public interest work. Sam Heppell joined the Clinic from civil rights private practice, bringing the Clinic to its full complement of three attorneys.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
WTO Dispute Settlement: One-Page Case Summaries. "One-Page Case Summaries" provides a succinct summary of all disputes brought to the WTO. It covers the findings of the dispute panel report for each case and the subsequent Appellate Body report in cases where WTO members appealed the original ruling. E-ISSN: 25193201.
Body for dispute settlement and the legitimacy of the WTO, at a time of increasing unilateralism by some WTO members and a fragile world economy plagued by the unforeseen COVID-19 pandemic. This issue of Trade Hot Topics examines the current state of WTO dispute settlement with a focus on repercussions for Commonwealth countries.
1 Professor of International Economic Law and Director of Studies, World Trade Institute ... the WTO estimated that the 2020 decline in global trade was 'unlikely' to reach the worst-case '32 per cent' scenario projected in April 2020. ... dispute settlement system is a further leap forward in the process of progressive ...
The Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is often seen as one of the major achievements of the multilateral trading system. Many believe that the WTO DSM has introduced greater "legalism" and provides a more "rules-oriented" system relative to the "power-oriented" one of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
The task of adjudicating disputes is delegated to the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), a special assembly of the WTO's General Council, which includes all WTO members. The DSB appoints the seven members of the WTO's Appellate Body. The multi-stage process of dispute settlement begins with a request for informal consultations between the parties.
updated throughout, the sixth edition includes all the latest case law, as well as new sections on investment arbitration and regional trade disputes. It is an essential resource for advanced undergraduate and postgraduate courses on international dispute settlement. J. G. Merrills has taught international law all over the world for more than ...
The WTO Dispute Settlement System: An Analysis of India's Experience ...
We would like to show you a description here but the site won't allow us.
"The book is written in an engaging style. All the contributors have presented their views in a clear and lucid manner. … the book is an important contribution to the study of legal and political aspects of WTO dispute settlement mechanism and must be read by all scholars of WTO law." (Sheela Rai, Indian Journal of International Law, Vol. 56 (2), 2016)
Journal of International Dispute Settlement | 14 | 4 | November 2023. Skip to Main Content. Advertisement. Journals. Books. Search Menu; ... Eco Oro v Colombia as a case study. Güneş Ünüvar Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Volume 14, Issue 4, December 2023, Pages 517-533, https://doi ...
A key component of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). This body, as with the WTO itself, has only been in operation since January of 1995. The WTO, although relatively new, has made significant strides in improving the international trading system and resolving trade disputes.
The purpose of the handbook is to contribute to the peaceful settlement of disputes between States and to help to increase compliance with interna-tional law by providing States parties to a dispute, particularly those States which do not have the benefit of long-established and experienced legal departments, with the information they might ...
The dispute settlement mechanism being one of the main endeavours of the WTO whereby it aids in settling disputes and reducing trade related tensions among the participant nations which could be ...
The continued success of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is critical to the U.S. business community. The global rules-based trading system the WTO embodies has benefited countries around the world — but none more than the United States. And that holds for its dispute settlement system as well. While the WTO was created in 1995, it built on ...
For two days in late May 2012, Apple CEO Tim Cook and Samsung CEO Gee-Sung Choi met with a judge in the U.S. District Court of Northern California in an attempt to reach a settlement in a high-profile U.S. patent case, a sobering example of negotiation in business.
WTO, in the form of Dispute Settlement Undertaking (DSU), provides an instrument for the settling of trade disputes between the parties. The dispute generally arises when any member country violates any provision of WTO agreement which other member countries think unreasonable. This dispute settlement process is the outcome of the Uruguay round ...
In China's view, the Arbitral Tribunal did not have jurisdiction in the case because China's acceptance of dispute settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) - the basis put forward by the Philippines - was limited and excluded sea boundary delimitations and the determination of historic titles. Since then, China ...
The total ISDS case count had reached over 1,100 by the end of 2020. To date, 124 countries and one economic grouping are known to have been respondents to one or more ISDS claims. The new ISDS cases in 2020 were initiated against 43 countries. Peru and Croatia were the most frequent respondents, with six and four known cases respectively.
InvestmentRelated Dispute Settlement: Towards an inclusive multilateral approach 1 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION In October 2014, IISD convened a meeting of academic, government, civil society and international organization experts in Montreux, Switzerland to discuss a simple question: If investment-related dispute settlement mechanisms at the
This case involves an investment dispute between (Claimants), Waguih Elie George Siag and Clorinda Vecchi, and) Respondent), the Arab Republic of Egypt ("Egypt") [17], they filed with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes a Request for Arbitration directed against Egypt On 26 May 2005 [18].
Bilateral Groupings & Agreements. The World Trade Organization's (WTO) dispute settlement mechanism is going through a crisis. The body is struggling to appoint new members to its understaffed Appellate Body that hears appeals in trade. Over 20 developing countries met in New Delhi on 13-14 May 2019 to discuss the ways to prevent the WTO's ...
An examination of the various issues that factor into the decision of whether, when, and how to settle litigation proceedings to reach the optimal outcome of a case for a client given the client ...
Martin Winterkorn, the former CEO of Volkswagen Group, is facing trial on Tuesday over allegations of fraud and market manipulation related to the "dieselgate" scandal. The case, which has been in ...
A Pennsylvania judge has determined that three 2020 election deniers must pay nearly $1 million in fees as the result of a years-long legal dispute with state officials over voting equipment used ...
The first page of the Subscriber Agreement states, in all capital letters, that 'any dispute between You and Us, Except for Small Claims, is subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved ...
"The broader impact of this particular case and settlement is limited," Mayrack said. ... MoneyGram began to deposit money subject to the dispute in an escrow account. Approximately $89 million ...
Students then presented their findings in a case study and oral presentation to members of ClientEarth, including the organization's North American head and members of its European team. ... First, the Clinic's clients settled with DTE Electric in its Integrated Resource Plan case. The settlement included an agreement to close the second ...