An Indian company goes treaty shopping…

Amidst reports of yet another investment treaty arbitration against India over the cancellation of 2G licenses by the Indian supreme court (ToI, IE), the ICSID has registered an arbitration that may well represent the first time an Indian TNC has gone treaty shopping.

According to its website, on 27 September 2013, the ICSID registered an arbitration proceeding initiated by Spentex Netherlands, B.V., against the Republic of Uzbekistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/26). A quick Google search reveals that the Claimant in this case, Spentex Netherlands, B.V., is actually a subsidiary of Spentex Industries Ltd., a textile company registered and incorporated in New Delhi and managed by Indian nationals. The 2012-13 Annual Report of Spentex Industries Ltd. provides some insight on the relationship between the Indian parent and the Dutch and Uzbek subsidiaries. Note 42 of the Financial Statement states that:

The Company [Spentex Industries Ltd.] has an investment of Rs. 56,10,11,339 [approx. USD 89,83,362] and Rs. 93,23,779 [USD 1,49,301] in its subsidiary Spentex Netherlands B. V. (SNBV) and its step down subsidiary Spentex Tashkent Toytepa LLC (STTL) respectively. Further it has Rs. 7,00,12,404 as export receivable from STTL and advances of Rs. 9,50,70,902 in SNBV as on March 31, 2013.

The ICSID website does not yet give any further details about the arbitration, except that its subject matter relates to the “Textile Industry.” Spentex India’s statements provide some insight on the details of the dispute. Spentex India describes its version of the developments in Uzbekistan in a press release (apparently) dated 31 May 2012:

An Indian investor SIl (Spentex) through its project company STTL invested and commenced its business in Uzbekistan in right earnest and made investment vide Investment Agreement dated 26th September 2006 entered between the Government of Uzbekistan and Spentex (investor). However, in the midst of term of the Investment Agreement certain changes in legal provisions, economic and business conditions and policies were adversely changed by the authorities in Uzbekistan. These changes being contrary to the provisions of Investment Agreement jeopardized the legal stability of its project company and its business became completely unviable. Spentex made many representations to Uzbek authorities and its financers for rectifying the situation but the same went unheard and ultimately project company was forced to shut down all its factories in Uzbekistan and bankruptcy was thrust upon it. Harassment by tax authorities and prosecutors was another reason which never allowed STTL to function normally as arbitrary penalties were imposed and pressure from the prosecutor was a common feature

The arbitration proceeding also finds a mention in Spentex India’s 2012-13 Annual Report:

During the period of investment Government of Uzbekistan changed certain laws and policies by breaching the investment agreement and rendered operation of STTL unviable. Since treaties entered between the Governments of India and Uzbekistan and the Investment agreement entered between Govt. of Uzbekistan and STTL were breached, company has issued notice claiming in excess of USD 100 Mn. towards protection of investment and payment of dues & compensation for the losses suffered by the company.

Interestingly, although the above quote from the Annual Report refers to the the bilateral investment treaty (BIT) between India and Uzbekistan being breached, the claimant in the arbitration proceeding is the Dutch subsidiary of Spentex India, suggesting that the claimant has sought protection under the Netherlands-Uzbekistan BIT. This is not unusual, as transnational corporations investing in foreign countries often structure their investments through a subsidiary in The Netherlands in order to avail the benefits of the vast network of Dutch BITs. The IISD, in a critical piece, notes that Dutch BITs “invite[] ‘treaty shopping,’ – i.e. routing investments through third countries to acquire the protection of investment treaties that investors would not, otherwise, have in their home state jurisdiction.” Even though the merits of the practice continue to be debated, there is no general international legal rule prohibiting investors from structuring their investments in a manner that allows them to avail of the greater protection available under certain treaties.

This development is interesting because it, once again, shows the blurring of the traditional capital-importing/capital-exporting dichotomy in discussions on investment treaties and investment arbitration. While investment treaties and investment arbitration may initially have emerged in a world where capital exporting countries primarily sought to protect their investors operating in capital importing countries, the scenario today does not allow for such a clear distinction to be easily drawn as traditional capital exporting countries gradually find themselves fending off claims by foreign investors. This, for example, is reflected in the evolution of the United States BIT program, which was focused mainly at investment protection abroad in its early days. In recent times, however, as the flow of investments into the United States has increased, its BITs have evolved to take into account not just the need for protecting investments abroad, but also the impact of such treaties and claims by foreign investors on the domestic regulatory space available to the government.

Faced with several claims by foreign investors under different BITs, there has been widespread criticism of the Indian BIT program as being too “pro-investor.” The Indian government has gone back to the drawing board and is currently reviewing its BITs. Cornered by the many treaty claims it faces, the government may well see BITs and investment arbitration as liabilities that expose it to unnecessary international litigation. However, as the Spentex case well illustrates, Indian investors are also increasingly investing abroad. Given the reciprocal basis of BITs generally, if India dilutes the standards of substantive and procedural protection in its BITs in immediate response to the claims filed against it, this would also weaken the protection available to Indian investors abroad. Therefore, as India undertakes to review and rationalize its BIT program, it must strike a careful balance between its domestic regulatory interests, on the one hand, and the interests of the Indian investor abroad, on the other. In its attempt to shield itself from claims by foreign investors, India should not deprive its own investors the benefits and protection promised by BITs.

Hat-tip to Aditya Singh for the alert about the Spentex arbitration.

An Update on Investment Treaty Arbitrations Against India

Over the past year or so India has been involved in a number of disputes with foreign investors which are at various stages of settlement. Discussions to reach a settlement are apparently underway in the dispute initiated by Vodafone against the retrospective capital gains tax sought to be imposed by the government, although the FT notes that a settlement is “highly unlikely until after India’s forthcoming national election in 2014, if at all.”

Negotiations have failed to yield result in at least two other disputes, leading to the initiation of arbitration under some investment treaties. An arbitral tribunal has been set up in a dispute initiated by “Devas Multimedia and its U.S. associates (who invested in the deal through foreign direct investment routed via Mauritius) against the Government of India following the cancellation of the deal for the launch of two satellites and the allocation of S-band spectrum to Devas.” The arbitration has been commenced under the India-Mauritius BIT and will be held under the UNCITRAL Rules with the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague acting as the registry. The tribunal comprises of Canadian lawyer and politician Marc Lalonde QC (presiding arbitrator), Chilean lawyer and currently a Judge ad hoc at the ICJ Francisco Orrego Vicuña, and the former Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court Justice Anil Dev Singh. The investor-claimants are being represented by lawyers from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom, LLP. India is instructing lawyers from the Indian law firm Khaitan & Co. and Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt and Mosle, LL.P.

Reports also suggest that an arbitral tribunal has been constituted in a dispute initiated by ByCell, a telecommunications firm incorporated in Switzerland and owned by a Cypriot company and Russian nationals, under India’s BITs with Cyprus and Russia. The Lex Arbitri blog offers some information on the events leading to the dispute. According to the Economic Times, India has appointed Professor Brigitte Stern as its party appointed arbitrator. Details about the other arbitrators are not yet public. Curtis will also represent India in this proceeding.

On the appointment of Prof. Stern, the Indian government is apparently of the view that “[a] strong arbitrator will ensure that government’s case is represented effectively”. While this view stresses the importance of party appointed arbitrators, I think the Economic Times goes a bit far in claiming that India has “rope[d]” in “Brigitte Stern to take on Swiss telco ByCell”.  The institution of party appointed arbitrators is a common feature of international adjudication. Parties regularly choose their arbitrators in international proceedings and even the ICJ allows States to appoint ad hoc Judges for disputes in which a State party does not have a Judge of its nationality on the Court. In a diverse international legal order, party appointment can serve a useful purpose as it allows the parties to choose a person who, in their opinion, can best understand their concerns, position and culture, and can effectively explain these to his or her fellow adjudicators. India’s reason to appoint Prof. Stern appears to be reasonable in so far as it is based on India’s belief that Prof. Stern is best placed to understand the concerns of developing host-States as respondents in investment arbitration. But, now that Prof. Stern has been appointed, she also has certain obligations of independence and impartiality as a judicial member of the tribunal. To say that she has been appointed by India to “take on” ByCell presents an inaccurate picture of the role and function of an arbitrator in a proceeding of this nature. India’s lawyers will be “taking on” ByCell, not the arbitrator appointed by India.

On a related note, the issue of India’s BITs recently came up for discussion in the Indian parliament. A Member of Parliament inquired how many BITs India had concluded. In response, the Minister of State for Commerce stated that India has concluded BITs with 82 States, of which 72 BITs have come into force. He also stated that India has paid Aus $ 98,12,077 to White Industries following the award against India. Interestingly, the Minister noted that, in light of its loss in the White Industries arbitration, India is now reviewing the text of its model BIT.

Hat tip to Aditya Singh for sharing the Economic Times article on the ByCell arbitration.

BREAKING: Award in India-Pak Kishenganga Arbitration Delivered

The Kishenganga Tribunal at the PCA

A Tribunal constituted under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (also called the “Court of Arbitration” under the Treaty) today rendered its (partial) Award in a dispute between India and Pakistan over the construction of the Kishenganga hydro-electric power project by the former (previously covered here, here, and here). According to The Hindu, the Tribunal in its Award found that:

India can go ahead with the diversion of the waters of Kishanganga, a tributary of Jhelum, for hydro-electric power generation.

However, the court restrained India from adopting the drawdown flushing technique for clearing sedimentation in the run-of-the river project designed for generation of 330 MW power. India may have to adopt a different technique for flushing.

In the initial reports received by The Hindu it is learnt that the court also sought statistics on the environmental flows into the river downstream of the project.

To recall, Pakistan had originally requested the Tribunal to determine two issues:

1. Whether India’s proposed diversion of the river Kishenganga (Neelum) into another Tributary, i.e. the Bonar Madmati Nallah, being one central element of the Kishenganga Project, breaches India’s legal obligations owed to Pakistan under the Treaty, as interpreted and applied in accordance with international law, including India’s obligations under Article III(2) (let flow all the waters of the Western rivers and not permit any interference with those waters) and Article IV(6) (maintenance of natural channels)? [the “First Dispute”]

2. Whether under the Treaty, India may deplete or bring the reservoir level of a run-of-river Plant below Dead Storage Level (DSL) in any circumstances except in the case of an unforeseen emergency? [the “Second Dispute”]

From the above, it thus appears that the Tribunal found in favour of India on the issue of diversion (the “First Dispute”), but against it on the second issue of reservoir level (the “Second Dispute”).

As of writing this post, neither the Award nor a press-release was available on the Permanent Court of Arbitration website. As always, we hope that the Award will soon be made publicly available. ILCurry will bring you more detailed analyses as and when that happens.

UPDATE (19 Feb. 2013): The partial Award is now available on the PCA website here. A press-release is available here. According to the press-release:

In its Partial Award, which is final with respect to the matters decided therein, without appeal and binding on the Parties, the Court of Arbitration unanimously decided:

1. that the Kishenganga Hydro-Electric Project (KHEP) constitutes a Run-of-River Plant under the Treaty, and India may accordingly divert water from the Kishenganga/Neelum River for power generation by the KHEP in the manner envisaged. However, when operating the KHEP, India is under an obligation to maintain a minimum flow of water in the Kishenganga/Neelum River, at a rate to be determined by the Court in a Final Award.

2. Except in the case of an unforeseen emergency, the Treaty does not permit India’s reduction below “Dead Storage Level” of the water level in the reservoirs of Run-of-River Plants located on the rivers allocated to Pakistan under the Treaty. This ruling does not apply to Plants already in operation or under construction (whose designs have been communicated by India and not objected to by Pakistan)

The Court expects to be able to render its Final Award determining the minimum flow of water India would be required to release in the Kishenganga/Neelum River by the end of 2013.

 

More on this soon!

Indian SC delivers judgment in Kaiser, overrules Bhatia

Readers interested in international arbitration would be aware of what have been called the “misgivings”of the Indian courts on international arbitration. The Supreme Court has rendered several controversial judgments on the Indian Arbitration Act of 1996 in the past, none being more infamous than the Bhatia International judgment. In Bhatia, the Court held that Part I of the Indian Arbitration Act is also applicable in proceedings for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, even though Part II of the law deals with the “enforcement of certain foreign awards”, unless the applicability of Part I has been excluded by the parties. A result of this was that Indian courts could set-aside foreign arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Act contained in Part I. This was considered anomalous by many in the international arbitration community in so far it allowed Indian courts seized with the enforcement of foreign awards (“secondary jurisdication”) to not just deny enforcement, but even set-aside the foreign arbitral (a task usually reserved for the courts of the “primary jurisdiction” — the seat).

Now, in Kaiser Aluminium, the Court has overruled Bhatia, holding that there is complete “segregation” between Parts I and II of the Indian Act. With this, the Court moves towards an understanding of the proper functions of the courts of the primary and secondary jurisdiction:

Thus, it is clear that the regulation of conduct of arbitration and challenge to an award would have to be done by the courts of the country in which the arbitration is being
conducted. Such a court is then the supervisory court possessed of the power to annul the award. (para. 128)

The Court concludes:

198. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Arbitration Act, 1996 has accepted the territoriality principle which has been adopted in the UNCITRAL Model Law. Section 2(2) makes a declaration that Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 shall apply to all arbitrations which take place within India. We are of the considered opinion that Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 would have no application to International Commercial Arbitration held outside India. Therefore, such awards would only be subject to the jurisdiction of the Indian courts when the same are sought to be enforced in India in accordance with the provisions contained in Part II of the Arbitration Act, 1996. In our opinion, the provisions contained in Arbitration Act, 1996 make it crystal clear that there can be no overlapping or intermingling of the provisions contained in Part I with the provisions contained in Part II of the Arbitration Act, 1996.

No doubt, the judgment would be welcomed by the international arbitration community to the extent it brings Indian law and practice in conformity with internatioanal practice and standards.

Moreover, having read the Court’s decision once, in my opinion the Court’s engagement with international arbitration at a conceptual level would go a long way in promoting consistency and sound practice in the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India. I have long believed that the problems relating to the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in India have resulted from a failure of the Indian courts to conceptually engage with international arbitration. Thus, for example, Indian courts have, in my opinion, relied overly upon textual and contextual tools of interpretation, without promoting a conceptual understanding of international arbitration first. Kaiser seems to mark a welcome departure from this trend. The counsels and the Court have for the first time engaged in a thorough analysis of fundamental issues such as the territoriality and delocalization of international arbitration. Whereas these terms may be very familiar to international arbitration lawyers, the discussion in India hitherto has almost always avoided this framework. So, apart from the welcome commercial implications of the decision, I hope that the judgment would also help promote a better understanding of international arbitration in India, both amongst the courts and the scholars. Indeed, now that the Bhatia saga is over, and with the attempt in Kaiser to conceptually analyze arbitration, hopefully we can move on to further fine tuning Indian arbitration law to the demands of the transnational economic order.

The full-text of the judgment (.pdf) is available here.

Back from Break, with a Summer Update!

Apologies for the extended summer break (not for the lack of thoughts or developments, though).

Let’s begin with a recap of what’s been happening for India at the international stage over the summer:

The ICJ and Justice Bhandari’s election:

1. Justice Bhandari was finally sworn-in as a judge of the International Court of Justice on 19 June 2012 (right before the Diallo judgment was read). For those interested, here’s a photo of Justice Bhandari being sworn in, and a video of him making the (rather short) solemn declaration (the oath).

2. On the debate surrounding Justice Bhandari’s nomination (see this for some background), two main criticisms have been leveled against Justice Bhandari’s nomination by India for the ICJ. The first, as reflected here, argues that as a national judge with little or no real experience in international law, Justice Bhandari’s nomination by the Indian national group of the PCA reflected absurd decision making. From an international legal perspective, the underlying assumption of this view is thus: “a judge may be well-versed with domestic legal traditions, but one assumes that a Judge at the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, responsible for adjudicating on questions of international law (Article 38), would possess knowledge of international law!” The second criticism, as argued by Arghya Sengupta in an OpEd in The Hindu, takes issue with the nomination of Justice Bhandari, a sitting Supreme Court Judge, by the government of India on grounds of undermining the independence of the Supreme Court Judge (Justice Bhandari). As much as I understand, and perhaps even agree with, some of the sentiments behind these arguments, I still disagree with several individual arguments inherent in these criticisms, especially in light of the rather inchoate state of the international legal profession in India. However, I’d save my thoughts on this for later.

3. I’ve blogged about a right to Information application seeking information on Justice Bhandari’s nomination earlier. In response, the Ministry of External Affairs denied some information on Justice Bhandari’s nomination on the ground that the RTI Act allows withholding information related to strategic interests of the country, and besides it would also affect canvassing for Justice Bhandari. Now, the Central Information Commission has asked the MEA to provide the requested information. Interestingly, the CIC has also asked for the Indian national group of the PCA to answer some of the queries (could an argument be made here that the national group is not a “public authority” for the purposes of the RTI Act?).

Moving on to the Enrica Lexie incident (covered previously here and here):

There’s been considerable discussion on the international legal aspects of the incident.

1. Duncan Hollis, over on Opinio Juris, takes a look at the incident through the prism of the SS Lotus case decided by the PCIJ.

2. A debate in The Hindu captures the essential position and arguments both for and against the jurisdiction of Indian courts over the Italian marines. Samir Saran and Samya Chatterjee argue that the Indian courts do not have jurisdiction. Prabir Purkayastha and Rishabh Bailey, referring to Article 97 of the UNCLOS and the SS Lotus judgment, argue that Indian courts “also” have jurisdiction over the incident (as opposed to exclusive jurisdiction of Italy). Finally, Samir Saran disputes the above interpretation of Article 97 and also makes a very interesting argument based on the Indian Merchant Shipping Act.

3. Meanwhile, and perhaps more importantly, Judge Gopinath of the Kerala High Court has rendered (a reasonably well crafted) judgment in the writ petition filed by the Italian marines arguing that Indian courts do not have jurisdiction. The Court ruled that the Indian courts can exercise jurisdiction over the Italian marines under the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure as they were within India’s contiguous/exclusive economic zone. It addressed a number of other important matters such as the sovereign immunity of the marines (held no sovereign immunity), the “compatibility” of several national laws (including the SUA Act) with the UNCLOS (held are “compatible”), and the relevance of past precedence (the Raymund Genacio case — differentiated on facts). Particularly interesting is the Court’s interpretation of the UNCLOS. For example, in defining valid exercise of sovereign authority by India in the territorial-, contiguous-, and exclusive economic zones under the UNCLOS, it notes:

To hold that a coastal state has no right whatsoever to protect its nationals exercising their legitimate rights inside the coastal state’s CZ/EEZ, would be nothing but a total travesty of justice and an outrageous affront to the nation’s sovereignty. Such a view would mean that any day, any passing-by ship can simply shoot and kill, at its will, fishermen engaged in earning their livelihood; and then get away with its act on the ground that it happened beyond the territorial waters of the coastal state. Such a view will not merely be a bad precedent, but a grossly unjust one, and will go against all settled principles of law. (para. 33)

At the WTO:

1. On 25 June, the DSB established a Panel with standard terms of reference in the poultry dispute between the US (complainant) and India (DS430: India — Measures Concerning the Importation of Agricultural Products).

2. According to news reports, the US has threatened to challenge India’s compulsory license for Nexavar at the WTO. This comes after reports that India’s commerce minister had defended the WTO consistency of the license.

Bilateral Investment Treaties/Arbitration:

1. The Sistema dispute appears to be moving forward, with the six-month notice period nearing its end and the selection of a legal team by India. Several names have been suggested, including Mr. Rodman Bundy, Prof. Donald McRae and Senior Advocate A K Ganguli.

2. Several NGO’s have written a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressing concern over the ongoing US-India BIT negotiations. Their main attack appears to be against investor-state dispute settlement provisions.

3. In Nepal, a breakaway faction of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has said that it will work towards scrapping of the recently concluded BIT with India.

4. The latest on the Vodafone BIT dispute is that it is moving forward with India not agreeing to Vodafone’s demands. Reports suggest that Prime Minister Singh would soon take a decision on Vodafone’s plea “seeking an undertaking that the [retrospective] amendment would not apply to it.”

And, finally, here’s the quote of the summer by none other than India’s (“underachieving“) Prime Minister:

“there are no international solutions to India’s problems”

– Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, returning from his trip to Los Cabos for the G20 and Rio.

A Freudian slip now, Mr Singh? : )

Vodafone BIT Dispute: India’s Initial Response

In response to Vodafone filing a notice of dispute against India under the India-Netherlands BIT, here is India’s initial response as per a news report:

Referring to the recent threat of Vodafone to invoke bilateral investment treaty with the Netherlands on the tax issue, the official said the arbitration clause in the BIPA (Bilateral Investment Protection Agreement) cannot apply in Vodafone-Hutchison deal as it was signed in Cayman islands.

“The deal happened in Cayman islands and they are invoking India-Netherlands BIPA,” the finance ministry official said, adding “while in the Supreme Court Vodafone said that the deal happened outside India, under BIPA it is saying it has made substantial investment in India.”

Under the BIT, an “investment” for the purposes of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal exists if there an  “asset invested in accordance with the national laws and regulations of the Contracting Party in the territory of which the investment is made….” Article 1(a) also provides the usual inclusive listing of what constitutes “investment” for the purposes of the BIT.

Weekly Update: Investment Arbitration, BRICS, WTO, Tulbul and More….

Here are some of the major international legal developments of relevance to India and South Asia for the week ending 31 March 2012:

Investment Arbitration

• Vodafone may file a claim against India under the India-Netherlands BIT for the capital gains tax sought to be retrospectively imposed by India against it: Indian Express, Independent, DNA, Wall Street Journal (paywalled).
• Norwegian telecom operator Telenor, faced with the prospect of its Indian joint venture losing 22 2G mobile licences due to the Supreme Court judgment in the 2G case, has filed a notice of dispute  against India under the India-Singapore BIT seeking damages to the tune of USD 14 billion: Economic Times. [With a notice of dispute already filed by the Russian company Sistema against India, this makes it two investment treaty disputes arising out of the Supreme Court’s 2G judgment]

WTO Disputes

• India is preparing to file a dispute against the US at the WTO over the visa fee charged by the latter for Indian software companies. The claim: “discrimination” against the Indian software companies which are being asked to pay higher H1B and L1 visa fee for their employees than the American firms for bringing more number of skilled immigrants to their country at lesser costs:  Economic Times.
• The US called upon India to accede to the government procurement agreement — a plurilateral WTO agreement.
• The US and EU have come out against the local content requirements in India’s Jawaharlal Nehru Solar Mission, which requires requires solar mission investors to use Indian manufactured solar modules and source 30 percent of their inputs from India: Hindustan Times. The Indian government is already reported to be preparing its strategy in case a dispute is filed at the WTO.

International River Water Disputes

• India and Pakistan may resort to arbitration under the Indus Waters Treaty to settle the dispute over the Tulbul navigation project in Kashmir: Nation. For now, the official word from the Indian government is that it is exchanging technical data with Pakistan, and that “if required, they will explore the way forward for resolving the issue under the provisions of the Treaty”. (Recall that an arbitration between the two countries over the Kishenganga power project is already underway at the PCA; in addition, arbitration is also being considered for the Nimoo-Bazgo power project.)

EU Emissions Scheme

• The Indian government has confirmed that it will be directing Indian airlines not to participate in the EU’s controversial aviation emissions rule. (Recall that China has already boycotted the EU scheme, as well): ICTSD.

India-Pakistan Trade

• Following up on its commitment to grant MFN treatment to India, Pakistan’s commerce ministry announced that India will now be able to export all products into Pakistan, with the exception of a ‘negative list’ of 1,200 items.

UN Special Rapporteur on AFSPA in Kashmir

• After a visit to Kashmir, rhe UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions stated that the Indian Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act has become a symbol of “excessive state power” and has “no role to play in a democracy”: NDTV, Hindustan Times. The official press release can be found here.

BRICS

• The past week saw the leaders from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa assemble in Delhi for the fourth BRICS Summit. The theme of the summit was “BRICS Partnership for Global Stability, Security and Prosperity”.
• The countries were called upon to support a common developing country candidate as the successor of DG Lamy.
• In addition, the heads of state of the BRICS countries signed two agreements supporting trade in local currencies between them. The two agreements are: (i) the Master Agreement on Extending Credit Facility in Local Currencies; and, (ii) the BRICS Multilateral Letter of Credit Confirmation Facility Agreement. More details can be found in a MEA document here.
• In culmination of the summit, the BRICS countries issued the “Delhi Declaration“. Here are some excerpts from the Declaration:

• On the Doha Round at the WTO:

16. We will continue our efforts for the successful conclusion of the Doha Round, based on the progress made and in keeping with its mandate. Towards this end, we will explore outcomes in specific areas where progress is possible while preserving the centrality of development and within the overall framework of the single undertaking. We do not support plurilateral initiatives that go against the fundamental principles of transparency, inclusiveness and multilateralism. We believe that such initiatives not only distract members from striving for a collective outcome but also fail to address the development deficit inherited from previous negotiating rounds. Once the ratification process is completed, Russia intends to participate in an active and constructive manner for a balanced outcome of the Doha Round that will help strengthen and develop the multilateral trade system.

• On Syria:

21. We express our deep concern at the current situation in Syria and call for an immediate end to all violence and violations of human rights in that country. Global interests would best be served by dealing with the crisis through peaceful means that encourage broad national dialogues that reflect the legitimate aspirations of all sections of Syrian society and respect Syrian independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty. Our objective is to facilitate a Syrian-led inclusive political process, and we welcome the joint efforts of the United Nations and the Arab League to this end. We encourage the Syrian government and all sections of Syrian society to demonstrate the political will to initiate such a process, which alone can create a new environment for peace. We welcome the appointment of Mr. Kofi Annan as the Joint Special Envoy on the Syrian crisis and the progress made so far, and support him in continuing to play a constructive role in bringing about the political resolution of the crisis.

• On Iran:

22. The situation concerning Iran cannot be allowed to escalate into conflict, the disastrous consequences of which will be in no one’s interest. Iran has a crucial role to play for the peaceful development and prosperity of a region of high political and economic relevance, and we look to it to play its part as a responsible member of the global community. We are concerned about the situation that is emerging around Iran’s nuclear issue. We recognize Iran’s right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy consistent with its international obligations, and support resolution of the issues involved through political and diplomatic means and dialogue between the parties concerned, including between the IAEA and Iran and in accordance with the provisions of the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions.

Foreign Law Firms Practising in India

The Madras High Court rendered its judgment on legality of foreign law firms and lawyers practicing in India on 21 February 2012. The judgment is available here and has been covered on Legally India and Bar & Bench, amongst other news services. In short, the judgment permits foreign lawyers to “fly in and fly out” for arbitration proceedings and advising clients on foreign law matters. Participation in litigious or advisory work in India is otherwise prohibited for all foreign law firms and lawyers. Aditya Singh, an Indian LL.M. student at Yale Law School, points out the following important paragraphs in the judgment:

Extracts from AK Balaji v The Government of India, Ashurst LLP, White & Case et al (WP5614/2010) (emphasis added)

Para 3: The 1st respondent in his counter warns that if the foreign law firms are not allowed to take part in negotiations, settling up documents and arbitrations in India, it will have a counter productive effect on the aim of the government to make India a hub of International Arbitration. In this connection, it is stated that many arbitrations with Indian Judges and Lawyers as Arbitrators are held outside India, where both foreign and Indian Law Firms advise their clients. If foreign law firms are denied entry to deal with arbitrations in India, then India will lose many of the arbitrations to Singapore, Paris and London. It will be contrary to the declared policy of the government and against the national interest.

Para 25: The learned counsel referred to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where a specific provision is contained in Section 2(1)(f) which provides for international commercial arbitration for resolving disputes arising out of legal relationships where at least one of the parties is an individual or a body corporate of a foreign origin.  Even the Preamble to the aforesaid Act states that the General Assembly of the United Nations having recommended that all countries give due consideration to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and the UNCITRAL Conciliation Rules, the parties are required to seek amicable settlement of disputes arising in the context of international commercial relations by recourse to conciliation. According to the learned counsel, this necessitates the involvement of foreign legal experts having knowledge of foreign law. Learned counsel referred to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case ofVodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. Union of India in S.L.P. (C) No.26529 of 2010, which extensively dealt with issues relating to the impact of foreign investment and inflow of foreign currency on Indian economy, as also other issues involving fiscal implications on the economic development of the country vis-`-vis international commercial transactions.

Para 51:We find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the foreign law firms that if foreign law firms are not allowed to take part in negotiations, for settling up documents and conduct arbitrations in India, it will have a counter productive effect on the aim of the Government to make India a hub of International Arbitration. According to the learned counsel, many arbitrations with Indian Judges and Lawyers as Arbitrators are held outside India, where both foreign and Indian law firms advise their clients.  If foreign law firms are denied entry to deal with arbitrations in India, then India will lose many of the arbitrations to foreign countries. It will be contrary to the declared policy of the Government and against the national interest. Some of the companies have been carrying on consultancy/support services in the field of protection and management of intellectual, business and industrial proprietary rights, carrying out market surveys and market research and publication of reports, journals, etc. without rendering any legal service, including advice in the form of opinion, but they do not appear before any courts or tribunals anywhere in India. Such activities cannot at all be considered as practising law in India. It has not been controverted that in England, foreign lawyers are free to advice on their own system of law or on English Law or any other system of law without any nationality requirement or need to be qualified in England.

Para 55: International arbitration is growing big time in India and in almost all the countries across the globe.  India is a signatory to the World Trade Agreement, which has opened up the gates for many international business establishments based in different parts of the world to come and set up their respective businesses in India.

Para 57: Institutional Arbitration has been defined to be an arbitration conducted by an arbitral institution in accordance with the rules of the institution. The Indian Council of Arbitration is one such body. It is reported that in several cases of International Commercial Arbitration, foreign contracting party prefers to arbitrate in India and several reasons have been stated to choose India as the seat of arbitration. Therefore, when there is liberalization of economic policies, throwing the doors open to foreign investments, it cannot be denied that disputes and differences are bound to arise in such International contracts. When one of the contracting party is a foreign entity and there is a binding arbitration agreement between the parties and India is chosen as the seat of arbitration, it is but natural that the foreign contracting party would seek the assistance of their own solicitors or lawyers to advice them on the impact of the laws of their country on the said contract, and they may accompany their clients to visit India for the purpose of the Arbitration. Therefore, if a party to an International Commercial Arbitration engages a foreign lawyer and if such lawyers come to India to advice their clients on the foreign law, we see there could be no prohibition for such foreign lawyers to advise their clients on foreign law in India in the course of a International Commercial transaction or an International Commercial Arbitration or matters akin thereto. Therefore, to advocate a proposition that foreign lawyers or foreign law firms cannot come into India to advice their clients on foreign law would be a far fetched and dangerous proposition and in our opinion, would be to take a step backward, when India is becoming a preferred seat for arbitration in International Commercial Arbitrations. It cannot be denied that we have a comprehensive and progressive legal frame work to support International Arbitration and the 1996 Act, provides for maximum judicial support of arbitration and minimal intervention. That apart, it is not in all cases, a foreign company conducting an International Commercial Arbitration in India would solicit the assistance of their foreign lawyers. The legal expertise available in India is of International standard and such foreign companies would not hesitate to avail the services of Indian lawyers. Therefore, the need to make India as a preferred seat for International Commercial Arbitration would benefit the economy of the country.

Para 63: After giving our anxious consideration to the matter, both on facts and on law, we come to the following conclusion :-

(i) Foreign law firms or foreign lawyers cannot practice the profession of law in India either on the litigation or non-litigation side, unless they fulfil the requirement of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules.

(ii) However, there is no bar either in the Act or the Rules for the foreign law firms or foreign lawyers to visit India for a temporary period on a fly in and fly out basis, for the purpose of giving legal advise to their clients in India regarding foreign law or their own system of law and on diverse international legal issues.

(iii) Moreover, having regard to the aim and object of the International Commercial Arbitration introduced in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, foreign lawyers cannot be debarred to come to India and conduct arbitration proceedings in respect of disputes arising out of a contract relating to international commercial arbitration.

(iv) The B.P.O. Companies providing wide range of customised and integrated services and functions to its customers like word-processing, secretarial support, transcription services, proof-reading services, travel desk support services, etc. do not come within the purview of the Advocates Act, 1961 or the Bar Council of India Rules.  However, in the event of any complaint made against these B.P.O. Companies violating the provisions of the Act, the Bar Council of India may take appropriate action against such erring companies.

For my part, without commenting on the substantive aspects, I would only express my reservations with respect to the Court’s observation that “India is becoming a preferred seat for arbitration in International Commercial Arbitrations” and that “[i]t cannot be denied that we have a comprehensive and progressive legal frame work to support International Arbitration and the 1996 Act, provides for maximum judicial support of arbitration and minimal intervention.” As of now, this seems quite a utopian view, far removed from reality, in my opinion. There is a long way to before India becomes a “preferred” seat for arbitration with a “progressive” legal framework.

Repercussions of the 2G Judgment: A BIT Claim Against India?

Reacting to the Indian Supreme Court’s judgment in the 2G spectrum case, Sistema, a Russian company, has invoked its right under Article 9.1 of the bilateral investment treaty between the government of the Russian Federation and the Government of India by filing a notice of dispute against India. Sistema has a joint venture with India’s Shyam Group — SistemaShyam Teleservices , in which the Russian government also has a stake of 17.14%. (see reports in the Economic Times and LiveMint)

This is the official explanation from the Sistema website:

[Sistema] has today sent a formal notice to The Republic of India notifying it of a dispute under the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of India arising from the decision of the Supreme Court of India issued on February 2, 2012 regarding the cancellation of 122 telecom licenses, including 21 licenses belonging to Sistema Shyam TeleServices Ltd (“SSTL”), in which Sistema owns a 56.68% share. Sistema believes that the cancellation of SSTL’s licenses following Sistema’s investment of billions of dollars into the Indian cellular sector is contrary to India’s obligations under the BIT, including obligations to provide investments with full protection and security and obligations not to expropriate investments.

The formal notice requests The Republic of India to settle the dispute relating to the revocation of SSTL’s 21 telecom licenses in an amicable way within six months.  If the dispute is not amicably resolved by August 28, 2012 Sistema reserves the right to commence proceedings against The Republic of India as provided in the BIT.

Hat-tip to Luke of IA Reporter.

India loses White Industries BIT Arbitration

UPDATE (13 February 2012): We now have access to the full text of the arbitral award: White Industries v. India Arbitral Award (Click to download; PDF ~ 5 MBs)

According to various reports (Indian Express, IAReporter), an arbitral tribunal constituted under the Australia-India bilateral investment treaty (BIT) has held India to be in breach of its obligations under the BIT and international law to an Australian mining company –White Industries. We haven’t discussed this dispute before, except in passing, however, this arbitration proceeding has been quite high profile, generating a lot of interest in the Indian news media and press (Times of India). A detailed background of the facts is available through an earlier IAReporter report. Very briefly, here are the essential details:

The treaty claim by White Industries Australia Ltd., an Australian mining company, was filed against the Government of India [in 2010 presumably] following complaints by the company that the Indian courts have failed to enforce a foreign arbitration award obtained in 2002 in a dispute between White Industries and its Indian joint-venture partner, Coal India Ltd., an Indian state-owned entity.
The Australian firm entered into a joint-venture agreement in 1989 for the development of a major coal mine in Eastern India. At the time, the mine represented the largest investment by Australia in India.
In 1999, White took its JV partner, Coal India Ltd. to arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) rules provided by their agreement.

[…]

[T]he Australian firm obtained a favourable arbitral award in May of 2002 and turned to the Delhi High Court in September of that year in an effort to enforce that award.
For its part, Coal India Ltd. responded by lodging its own bid before a different Indian Court, the Calcutta High Court, to have the award set aside. White Industries objected to these efforts, and filed a petition contesting that Court’s jurisdiction to entertain a set-aside request.
On May 17, 2003, a Judge of the Calcutta High Court ruled that the Court had jurisdiction over the set-aside proceedings. Following an appeal by White Industries, a panel of the same Court ruled the following year that the Indian courts could consider a setting-aside of the ICC award. The May 7, 2004 judgment did not rule on the merits of the set-aside application.
That judgment is currently on appeal before the Indian Supreme Court.

Badrinath Srinivasan, over at the Practical Academic blog, provides more details, obtained under the Right to Information Act from Coal India, on the original ICC arbitration between White Industries and Coal India.

Presumably, White Industries, tired by the delay in the Indian court proceedings (its been 7 years since the matter has been pending before the Supreme Court), decided to file a claim under the Australia-India BIT in 2010. The arbitration was held under the UNCITRAL Rules (recall that India is not a party to the ICSID Convention), with hearings taking place in September 2011 at Maxwell Chambers in Singapore. The three member tribunal hearing the claim consisted of: of Charles N. Brower (claimant’s nominee), Christopher Lau (India’s nominee), and J. William Rowley (tribunal chair). On the details of the party’s legal representation and the proceedings, IAReporter notes:

White Industries is understood to be represented by the law firm Mallesons in the treaty claim. On its website, the firm indicates that it is handling a claim under the Australia-India BIT. A Partner with the firm cited confidentiality obligations, when asked for comment. Meanwhile, Luthra, an Indian law firm, is representing White in the domestic Indian proceedings.
The Government of India is understood to have engaged the services of Toby Landau QC, a London-based barrister and arbitrator.

The Tribunal rendered its award in November 2011, merely two months after the oral hearing:

In a unanimous November 2011 arbitral award, a three-member tribunal ruled that White Industries Australia Ltd. was denied “effective means” of asserting claims and enforcing rights with respect to its investment in India. The award has not yet been published.

According to IAReporter, in reaching its conclusion, the tribunal held that a “commercial arbitration award can be an integral component of a broader foreign investment”. The result seems to be similar to the Saipem arbitration involving Bangladesh (although, in my opinion, the tribunal in Saipem did not conclusively answer the question of whether an arbitral award, in itself, constitutes an investment that can be expropriated by national courts by denying enforcement. Andrew Newcombe, over at the Kluwer Arbitration Blog, seems to agree on this). Also relevant here may be the award in GEA v. Ukraine (concerning a claim arising out of non-recognition and non-enforcement of a prior ICC award by Ukranian courts) where the tribunal held that the held that the relevant arbitral award did not constitute a protected investment under the Germany-Ukraine BIT or the ICSID Convention.

Of course, whether an ICC arbitral award constitutes an “investment” for the purposes of the BIT is an important question for, if the answer is yes, the non-enforcement and non-recognition of this award, in violation of the relevant international norms, can amount to expropriation by the state, thus providing a cause of action under the BIT. In this sense, these BIT tribunals can be seen as assessing the lawfulness of the actions of the national courts in enforcing and recognizing foreign arbitration awards. This comes close to the idea of an international court for the enforecement of arbitral awards, as proposed by, amongst others, Judges Howard Holtzmann and Stephen Schwebel. On the desirability of treaty tribunals taking up this role, a key question is obviously that of state consent for such function by the tribunals. Indeed, express state consent on this issue remains absent (hence the absence of an international court as proposed above), and it might not help the legitimacy of investment treaty arbitration if tribunals adopt such an “appellate” function over national courts in the absence of such consent. Of course, that’s quite a classical view of the problem. The transnationalists, obviously, might not see the absence of express state consent as a problem at all.

Another related issue is that of claims for the denial of justice under BITs. I shall save my thoughts on that for a later post.

As a practical matter, India’s loss can certainly help explain the recent reports indicating that India will not include investor-state arbitration clauses in its future bilateral investment agreements. On another note, the award in White industries also serves as a reminder of the need for smoothening out the creases in Indian arbitration law, a process that might already be underway as evidenced by the reconsideration of the law laid down in Bhatia International by a constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India.

P.S. Since the arbitration was held under the UNCITRAL Rules, the award has not been made public. In case it is, I will obviously post the link here.

P.P.S. A special thanks to Luke Eric Peterson of IAReporter for allowing free access to the reports on this dispute.