Crimea-Related Investment Arbitration Cases against Russia before International Investment Arbitration Tribunals

INTRODUCTION. The article is devoted to the analysis of the position of the Russian Federation in ten investment cases initiated by Ukrainian investors after the events in Crimea in 2014. The article also highlights current trends in the issue of confidentiality of international investment disputes. The authors analyze whether Russian strategy is effective based on the experience of foreign states, and also make assumptions about the enforceability of arbitration awards. Where the tribunals rendered awards on the merits, the authors highlight the problem of recognition and enforcement, and also assess Russia’s the arguments to set aside these awards.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. This study is based on arbitral awards and information from public sources,including official press releases and interviews with Russian representatives in connection with the pending investment disputes. The authors employed the historical method, as well as such general scientific methods as analysis, synthesis, analogy, description, modeling.

RESEARCH RESULTS. The result of the study is the identification and formulation of patterns in investment disputes with respect to investments in Crimea to which Russia as a party of Russia, the identification of typical arguments of the parties and the conclusions of arbitral tribunals on this type of disputes.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Having analysed the awards rendered against Russia by international investment tribunals, the authors presented an overview of the parties’ arguments that were presented when the arbitration considered the issue of jurisdiction and resolved the dispute on the merits. The authors assessed these arguments in terms of their credibility on the basis of existing in international investment case-law.

1. Ando N. Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). – Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. 2006. URL: https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e71.

2. Aust A. Vienna convention on the law of treaties (1969). – Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. 2006. URL: https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e71.

3. Blackaby N., Partasides C., Redfern A., Hunter M. Redfern and Hunter on international arbitration. Oxford University Press. 2015. 808 p.

4. Bohmer L. UNCITRAL tribunal rejects security for costs application prompted by Russia’s belated decision to defend itself in under-the-radar Crimea case. – Investment Arbitration Reporter. 2019. URL: https://www.iareporter.com/articles/uncitral-tribunal-rejects-security-for-costs-application-prompted-by-russias-belated-decision-to-defend-itself-in-under-the-radar-crimea-case/.

5. Feria-Tinta M. The South China Sea case: Chess Arbitration? – EJIL:Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International law. 2016. URL: https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-south-china-sea-case-chess-arbitration/.

6. Hamid L. Ilaşcu: From Contested Precedent to Well-Established Case-Law. – Strasbourg Observers. 2019. URL: https://strasbourgobservers.com/2019/10/31/ilascu-from-contested-precedent-to-well-established-case-law/.

7. Hepburn J. Investigation: full jurisdictional reasoning comes to light in Crimea-related BIT arbitration vs. Russia. – Investment Arbitration Reporter. 2017. URL: https://www.iareporter.com/articles/full-jurisdictional-reasoning-comes-to-light-in-crimea-related-arbitration-ever-est-estate-v-russia/.

8. Hepburn J. Ukrainian energy firm Ukrenergo is latest to file a Crimea-related arbitration claim against Russia. – Investment Arbitration Reporter. 2019. URL: https://www.iareporter.com/articles/ukrainian-energy-firm-ukrener-go-is-latest-to-file-a-crimea-related-arbitration-claim-against-russia/.

9. Hepburn J., Kabra R. Investigation: further Russia investment treaty decisions uncovered, offering broader window into arbitrators’ approaches to Crimea controversy. – Investment Arbitration Reporter. 2017. URL: https://www.iareporter.com/articles/investigation-further-russia-investment-treaty-decisions-uncovered-offering-broader-window-into-arbitrators-approaches-to-crimea-controversy/.

10. Neumann T., Peters A. Transparency. – Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. 2019. URL: https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law-mpeipro/e2226.013.2226/law-mpeipro-e2226?rskey=j7Il7s&result=1&prd=OPIL.

11. Peterson L.E. In jurisdiction ruling, arbitrators rule that Russia is obliged under bit to protect Ukrainian investors in Crimea following annexation. – Investment Arbitration Reporter. 2017. URL: https://www.iareporter.com/articles/in-jurisdiction-ruling-arbitrators-rule-that-russia-is-obliged-under-bit-to-protect-ukrainian-investors-in-crimea-following-annexation/.

12. Peterson L.E. Russia held liable for expropriation of bank operations in billion dollar arbitration, as well as of airport. – Investment Arbitration Reporter. 2019. URL: https://www.iareporter.com/articles/russia-held-liable-for-expropriation-of-bank-operations-in-billion-dollar-arbitration-as-well-as-of-airport/.