Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Türkiye’nin Taraf Oluğu İki Taraflı Yatırım Anlaşmaları Çerçevesinde En Çok gözetilen Ulus Kaydının Uyuşmazlık Çözümüne İlişkin Anlaşma Hükümlere Teşmili

Year 2023, Volume: 43 Issue: 1, 1 - 36, 19.07.2023

Bilgin Tiryakioğlu

https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1174730

Abstract

Yatırımların Karşılıklı Korunması ve Teşvikine (YKTK) ilişkin anlaşmalar yatırımcılara yatırım tahkimi yolunu açmakta ve yatırım uyuşmazlıklarının çözümünde çok kritik bir rol üstlenmektedir. 1959 yılında Almanya ve Pakistan arasında ilk ikili yatırım anlaşmasının imzalanmasından sonra geçen 63 yılı içinde 2871 anlaşma imzalanmış ve bunlardan 2231’i yürürlüğe girmiştir. Sadece bu sayı bile yatırım uyuşmazlıkları ve bunların tahkim yoluyla çözümü bakımından ikili yatırım anlaşmalarının önemini ortaya koymaktadır. Yatırımlara uygulanacak muamele standardı olarak en çok gözetilen ulus kaydı neredeyse bütün YKTK anlaşmalarında yer almaktadır. Bununla beraber bu kaydın anılan anlaşmalarının usul hükümlerine uygulanıp uygulanmayacağı 2000 yılında Maffezini davasında verilen ICSID kararından bu yana tartışılmaktadır. Maffezini davasından sonra uyuşmazlık çözümüne ilişkin hükümler bakımından en çok gözetilen ulus kaydının kapsamına ilişkin olarak hakem kurullarının vermiş olduğu birbiriyle çelişkili kararlar ilgi odağı haline gelmiştir. Bu tartışmalara yol açan temel neden,hem en çok gözetilen ulus kaydı hem uyuşmazlık çözümüne ilişkin YKTK anlaşmalarındaki hükümlerin açık ve sınırları belirli bir biçimde kaleme alınmamış olmasıdır. Dolayısıyla, farklı hakem kurulları yorum yoluyla YKTK anlaşmalarındaki en çok gözetilen ulus kaydının uyuşmazlık çözümüne ilişkin hükümleri kapsayıp kapsamadığına ilişkin farklı sonuçlara ulaşmıştır. Birbiriyle çelişen hakem kararları yatırım tahkimi alanında dünya çapında tartışılmış, sonuçta hem hakem kararlarında hem ikili yatırım anlaşmaları uygulamasında önemli değişikliklerin gerçekleşmesine yol açmıştır. Türkiye’nin 2010 yılından başlayarak imzaladığı YKTK anlaşmalarında da bu değişim gözlenmiş ve en çok gözetilen ulus kaydının artık uyuşmazlık çözümüne ilişkin hükümleri kapsamayacağına ilişkin açık hükümlere yer verilmiştir

Keywords

Uyuşmazlık Çözümüne İlişkin Hükümler Yatırım Tahkimi İkili Yatırım Anlaşması ICSID Tahkimi En Çok Gözetilen Ulus Kaydı

Supporting Institution

Yok

Project Number

Yok

Thanks

Yok

References

  • Books, Articles and Other Sources google scholar
  • Alexandrov SA, ‘Introductory Note to International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID): SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Pakistan’ (2003) 42(6) ILM 1285-1289. google scholar
  • Baklacı P, ‘En Çok Gözetilen Ulus Kaydı ve Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Yollarına İlişkin Kurallar’, (2009) 5(20) Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika, 59-78. google scholar
  • Banifatemi Y, ‘The Emerging Jurisprudence on the Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment in Investment Arbitration’ in Andrea K Bjorklund, Ian A Laird and Sergey Ripinsky (eds.), Investment Treaty Law: Current Issues III (BIICIL 2009) 241-273. google scholar
  • Baraktaroğlu Özçelik G, ‘ICSID Hakem Kararlarında “Yol Ayrımı” (“Fork in the Road”) Kayıtları’ (2020) 40(1) PPIL 497-518. google scholar
  • Collins D, An Introduction to International Investment Law (Cambridge University Press 2016). google scholar
  • Çalışkan Y, ‘ICSID Jurisdiction: Whose Dictionary Will be Used for the Definition of Investment and the Scope of Consent’ in Ceyda Süral and Ekin Ömeroğlu (eds), Foreign Investment Law (Seçkin 2016) 91-106. google scholar
  • Dolzer R and Schreuer C, Principles of International Investment Law (Oxford 2008). google scholar
  • Eskiyörük S and Çağan G, ‘Yeni Nesil İki Yanlı Yatırım Anlaşmalarında Güncel Eğilimler’, (2021) 19 (220) Legal Hukuk Dergisi 1607-1644. google scholar
  • Fietta S, ‘Most Favoured Nation Treatment and Dispute Resolution under Bilateral Investment Treaties: A Turning Point?’, (2005) 4 IntlALR 131-138. google scholar
  • Figanmeşe İA, ‘The Impact of the Maffezini Decision on the Interpretation of MFN Clauses in Investment Treaties’ (2011) 8(2) Ankara Law Review 221-237. google scholar
  • Friedland PD, ‘The Scope of Most Favoured Nation Treatment Under the Energy Charter Treaty’ in Graham Coop and Clarisse Ribeiro (eds), Investment Protection and The Energy Charter Treaty (JurisNet 2008) 101-114. google scholar
  • Gaillard E, ‘Investment Treaty Arbitration and Jurisdiction Over Contract Claims - the SGS Cases Considered’ in Todd Weiler (ed), International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID,
  • NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law (Cameron 2005) 325-346. google scholar
  • Ganesh A, ‘Cooling of Period (Investment Arbitration)’ (2017)7 MPIL 1-15. google scholar
  • Giray FK, ‘Türkiye’nin Taraf Olduğu İki Taraflı Yatırımların Karşılıklı Teşviki ve Korunması Anlaşmalarında Öngörülen İhtilaf Çözüm Yolları’ (1997) 17(1-2) MHB 217-228. google scholar
  • Gölcüklü İ, ‘Umbrella Clauses in the ICSID Arbitration’ (2017) 37(2) PPIL 352-375. google scholar
  • Köşgeroğlu Şit B, ‘Model İkilı Yatırım Anlaşmaları ve Türkiye’nin Model İkilı Yatırım Anlaşması Taslağı’ (2013) 107 TBB Dergisi 143-172. google scholar
  • Maupin JA, ‘MFN-Based Jurisdiction in Investor-State Arbitration: Is there Any Hope for a Consistent Approacah’ (2011) 14 J. Int’l Econ L 157-190. google scholar
  • Pazarcı H, Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri Birinci Kitap, (18th edn, Turhan 2019). google scholar
  • Reinisch A, ‘Maffezini v Spain Case, Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law’ (2011) MPEPIL. google scholar
  • Rowe S and Svetlana P, ‘Current Trends in ‘Umbrella Clause’ Claims Arising From Breaches of Contractual Obligations’ (2021) International Bar Association https://www.ibanet.org/current-trends-umbrella- clause-claims >Accessed 24 July 2022. google scholar
  • Sarkinovic, TB, ‘Umbrella Clauses an Their Policy Implications’ (2011) 24 Hague Yearbook of International Law 313-357. google scholar
  • Schreuer C, ‘Investment Treaty Arbitration and Jurisdiction over Contract Claims-the Vivendi I Case Considered’ in Todd Weiler (ed), International Investment Law and Arbirtation: Leading Cases from the ICSID,
  • NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law (Cameron 2005) 281-323 (Investment). google scholar
  • Schreuer C, ‘Travelling the BIT-Route-Of Waiting Periods, Umbrella Clauses and Forks in the Road’ (2004) 5(2)The Journal of World Investment & Trade 231-256. (BIT-Route). google scholar
  • Sevgi S, ‘En Çok Gözetilen Ulus Kaydının İkili Yatırım Anlaşmalarının Usule İlişkin Hükümleri Üzerindeki Etkisi: Maffezini Davası’ (2020) 8 (1-2) SHD 89-123. google scholar
  • Sinclair AC and Ramia L, ‘MFN Treatment and the Adjudication of İnvestment Disputes’ (2009) 21(2) National Law School of İndia Review 15-124. google scholar
  • Stoppioni E, ‘Jurisdictional Impact of Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses’ (2017), http://www.mpi. lu/fileadmin/mpi/medien/research/MPEiPro/EiPro_Sample_Jurisdictional_İmpact_of_MFN_ Clauses_2017-Feb.pdf google scholar
  • Sur M, Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları, (15th edn, Beta 2021). google scholar
  • Tiryakioğlu B, Doğrudan Yatırımların Uluslararası Hukukta Korunması (Dayınlarlı 2003) (Doğrudan Yatırmlar). google scholar
  • Tiryakioğlu B, ‘Yatırım Tahkiminde (Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Kayıtları Kapsamında) Yetki ve Kabul Edilebilirlik’ in Hatice Özdemir Kocasakal and Süheyla Balkar (eds), Tahkim Anlaşması (Onikilevha 2020) 87-101 (Yetki). google scholar
  • Uzun E, ‘Milletlerarası Hukuk Açısından En Çok Gözetilen Ulus Kaydı’ (2004) 24 MHB 741-766 (En Çok Gözetilen Ulus Kaydı). google scholar
  • Uzun E, ‘Uluslararası Andlaşmaların Geçici Uygulanması-Viyana Andlaşmalar Hukuku Sözleşmesi 25. Madde’ (2018) 9(2) İnÜHFD 187-210 (Viyana Andlaşmalar Hukuku). google scholar
  • Vessel S, ‘Clearing a Path Through a Tangled Jurisprudence: Most-Favored-Nation Clauses and Dispute Settlement Provisions in Bilateral İnvestment Treaties’ (2007) 32 The Yale Journal of International 125-189. google scholar
  • Wong J, ‘Umbrella Clauses in Bilateral Investment Treaties: Of Breaches of Contract, Treaty Violations, and the Divide between Developing and Developed Countries in Foreign İnvestment Disputes’ (2006) 14 George Mason Law Review 137-179. google scholar
  • Ziegler AR, ‘Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) Treatment’ in August Reinisch (ed), Standards of Investment Protection (Oxford 2008) 59-86. google scholar Awards google scholar
  • ADF Group Inc v United States of America, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/00/1, https://www.italaw. com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0009.pdf google scholar
  • Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret ve Sanayi A.S. v Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No ARB/03/29, http://www.italaw.com/cases/131 google scholar
  • Camuzzi International S.A. v Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No ARB/03/7, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ ita0108.pdf google scholar
  • Consorzio Groupement L.E.S.I. DIPENTA v People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No ARB/03708 http://italaw.com/cases/323 google scholar
  • Emilio Agustín Maffezini v Kingdom of Spain, ICSDD Case No ARB/97/7, https://www.italaw.com/ sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0479.pdf google scholar
  • Ethyl Corporation v The Government of Canada, (UNCİTRAL) http://www.italaw.com/cases/409 google scholar
  • Gas Natural SDG, S.A. v The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/10, https://www.italaw. com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0354.pdf google scholar
  • İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi v Turkmenistan, (8.3.2016) ICSID Case No ARB/10/24, http://italaw. com/cases/2560 google scholar
  • Kılıç İnşaat İthalat İhracat Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v Turkmenistan, Decision on Article VII.2 of the Turkiye-Turkmenistan Bilateral Investment Treaty, ICSID Case No ARB/10/1, https:// www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0932.pdf google scholar
  • Kılıç İnşaat İthalat İhracat Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v Turkmenistan, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/10/1, http://www.italaw.com/cases/1220 google scholar
  • MTD Equity Sdn Bhd and MTD Chile SA v Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No ARB 01/07, https:// www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0544.pdf google scholar
  • Muhammet Çap & Sehil Inşaat Endustri ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti. v Turkmenistan, Decision on Respondent’s Objection to Jurisdiction under Article VII (2), ICSID Case No ARB/12/6, http://www.italaw. com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw4163.pdf google scholar Muhammet Çap & Sehil Inşaat Endustri ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti. v Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No ARB/12/6, http://www.italaw.com/cases/2036 google scholar
  • National Grid PLC v The Argentine Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction, https://www.italaw.com/ sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0553.pdf google scholar
  • Plama Consortium Limited v Republic of Bulgaria, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/03/24, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0669.pdf google scholar
  • PSEG Global Inc., The North American Coal Corporation, and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Üretim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/02/5, https://www.italaw.com/ sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0694.pdf google scholar
  • Ronald S. Lauder v The Czech Republic, (UNCITRAL), http://www.italaw.com/cases/610 google scholar
  • RosInvest Co UK Ltd v The Russian Federation, Award on Jurisdiction (SCC Arb V079/2005), https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0719.pdf google scholar
  • Salini Costruttori SpA and Italstrade SpA v Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/02/13, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0735. pdf google scholar
  • SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No ARB/10/13, http://www.italaw.com/cases/1009 google scholar
  • SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No ARB/02/6, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0782.pdf google scholar
  • Siemens AG v The Argentine Republic ICSID Case No ARB/02/08, https://www.italaw.com/sites/ default/files/case-documents/ita0788.pdf google scholar
  • Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v Argentine Republic ve AWG Group Ltd v The Argentine Republic (Suez), ICSID Case No ARB/03/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0049.pdf google scholar
  • Telenor Mobile Communications AS v Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/03/24, https:// www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0858.pdf google scholar
  • Vladimir Berschader and Moise Berschader v The Russian Federation, Case No 080/2004, https:// www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0079_0.pdf google scholar
  • Western NIS Enterprise Fund v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/04/02, http://www.italaw.com/ cases/1167 google scholar

Extension of the Most Favoured Nation Clause to Dispute Settlement Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties Which Turkey is a Party of

Year 2023, Volume: 43 Issue: 1, 1 - 36, 19.07.2023

Bilgin Tiryakioğlu

https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1174730

Abstract

Bilateral investment treaties (BITs) pave the way for international investment arbitration for investors and play a crucial role in the settlement of investment disputes. In 63 years, 2871 BITs have been signed between States and 2231 of them have entered into force since the first BIT concluded between Germany and Pakistan in 1959. This alone reveals the importance of BITs in terms of the disputes arising from investment and their settlement through arbitration. Almost every BIT contains most favored nation (MFN) clause as a standard of treatment. However, the applicability of MFN clauses to procedural provisions of a BIT has been a controversial issue since 2000 when an ICSID tribunal’s award was rendered in the Maffezini case. Following the Maffezini case, conflicting arbitral awards have have become the centre of attention as to the scope of MFN clauses in terms of whether they could be extended to dispute resolution provisions. One of the main reasons leading to this controversy is that the BIT provisions regarding MFN clauses as well as dispute resolution provisions have not been formulated in a clear and unambiguous manner. Accordingly, different arbitral tribunals have interpreted BIT provisions differently regarding the extension of MFN clauses to dispute resolution provisions. This problem has had an impact all over the world and has led a radical shift both for arbitral awards that have been rendered by investment tribunals and BIT practices of almost all countries. MFN clauses no longer cover dispute resolution provisions of BITs that have been signed by Turkey since 2010.

Keywords

Dispute resolution provision Investment arbitration Bilateral investment treaties ICSID Arbitration ost favoured nation clause

Project Number

Yok

References

  • Books, Articles and Other Sources google scholar
  • Alexandrov SA, ‘Introductory Note to International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID): SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Pakistan’ (2003) 42(6) ILM 1285-1289. google scholar
  • Baklacı P, ‘En Çok Gözetilen Ulus Kaydı ve Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Yollarına İlişkin Kurallar’, (2009) 5(20) Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika, 59-78. google scholar
  • Banifatemi Y, ‘The Emerging Jurisprudence on the Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment in Investment Arbitration’ in Andrea K Bjorklund, Ian A Laird and Sergey Ripinsky (eds.), Investment Treaty Law: Current Issues III (BIICIL 2009) 241-273. google scholar
  • Baraktaroğlu Özçelik G, ‘ICSID Hakem Kararlarında “Yol Ayrımı” (“Fork in the Road”) Kayıtları’ (2020) 40(1) PPIL 497-518. google scholar
  • Collins D, An Introduction to International Investment Law (Cambridge University Press 2016). google scholar
  • Çalışkan Y, ‘ICSID Jurisdiction: Whose Dictionary Will be Used for the Definition of Investment and the Scope of Consent’ in Ceyda Süral and Ekin Ömeroğlu (eds), Foreign Investment Law (Seçkin 2016) 91-106. google scholar
  • Dolzer R and Schreuer C, Principles of International Investment Law (Oxford 2008). google scholar
  • Eskiyörük S and Çağan G, ‘Yeni Nesil İki Yanlı Yatırım Anlaşmalarında Güncel Eğilimler’, (2021) 19 (220) Legal Hukuk Dergisi 1607-1644. google scholar
  • Fietta S, ‘Most Favoured Nation Treatment and Dispute Resolution under Bilateral Investment Treaties: A Turning Point?’, (2005) 4 IntlALR 131-138. google scholar
  • Figanmeşe İA, ‘The Impact of the Maffezini Decision on the Interpretation of MFN Clauses in Investment Treaties’ (2011) 8(2) Ankara Law Review 221-237. google scholar
  • Friedland PD, ‘The Scope of Most Favoured Nation Treatment Under the Energy Charter Treaty’ in Graham Coop and Clarisse Ribeiro (eds), Investment Protection and The Energy Charter Treaty (JurisNet 2008) 101-114. google scholar
  • Gaillard E, ‘Investment Treaty Arbitration and Jurisdiction Over Contract Claims - the SGS Cases Considered’ in Todd Weiler (ed), International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID,
  • NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law (Cameron 2005) 325-346. google scholar
  • Ganesh A, ‘Cooling of Period (Investment Arbitration)’ (2017)7 MPIL 1-15. google scholar
  • Giray FK, ‘Türkiye’nin Taraf Olduğu İki Taraflı Yatırımların Karşılıklı Teşviki ve Korunması Anlaşmalarında Öngörülen İhtilaf Çözüm Yolları’ (1997) 17(1-2) MHB 217-228. google scholar
  • Gölcüklü İ, ‘Umbrella Clauses in the ICSID Arbitration’ (2017) 37(2) PPIL 352-375. google scholar
  • Köşgeroğlu Şit B, ‘Model İkilı Yatırım Anlaşmaları ve Türkiye’nin Model İkilı Yatırım Anlaşması Taslağı’ (2013) 107 TBB Dergisi 143-172. google scholar
  • Maupin JA, ‘MFN-Based Jurisdiction in Investor-State Arbitration: Is there Any Hope for a Consistent Approacah’ (2011) 14 J. Int’l Econ L 157-190. google scholar
  • Pazarcı H, Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri Birinci Kitap, (18th edn, Turhan 2019). google scholar
  • Reinisch A, ‘Maffezini v Spain Case, Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law’ (2011) MPEPIL. google scholar
  • Rowe S and Svetlana P, ‘Current Trends in ‘Umbrella Clause’ Claims Arising From Breaches of Contractual Obligations’ (2021) International Bar Association https://www.ibanet.org/current-trends-umbrella- clause-claims >Accessed 24 July 2022. google scholar
  • Sarkinovic, TB, ‘Umbrella Clauses an Their Policy Implications’ (2011) 24 Hague Yearbook of International Law 313-357. google scholar
  • Schreuer C, ‘Investment Treaty Arbitration and Jurisdiction over Contract Claims-the Vivendi I Case Considered’ in Todd Weiler (ed), International Investment Law and Arbirtation: Leading Cases from the ICSID,
  • NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law (Cameron 2005) 281-323 (Investment). google scholar
  • Schreuer C, ‘Travelling the BIT-Route-Of Waiting Periods, Umbrella Clauses and Forks in the Road’ (2004) 5(2)The Journal of World Investment & Trade 231-256. (BIT-Route). google scholar
  • Sevgi S, ‘En Çok Gözetilen Ulus Kaydının İkili Yatırım Anlaşmalarının Usule İlişkin Hükümleri Üzerindeki Etkisi: Maffezini Davası’ (2020) 8 (1-2) SHD 89-123. google scholar
  • Sinclair AC and Ramia L, ‘MFN Treatment and the Adjudication of İnvestment Disputes’ (2009) 21(2) National Law School of İndia Review 15-124. google scholar
  • Stoppioni E, ‘Jurisdictional Impact of Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses’ (2017), http://www.mpi. lu/fileadmin/mpi/medien/research/MPEiPro/EiPro_Sample_Jurisdictional_İmpact_of_MFN_ Clauses_2017-Feb.pdf google scholar
  • Sur M, Uluslararası Hukukun Esasları, (15th edn, Beta 2021). google scholar
  • Tiryakioğlu B, Doğrudan Yatırımların Uluslararası Hukukta Korunması (Dayınlarlı 2003) (Doğrudan Yatırmlar). google scholar
  • Tiryakioğlu B, ‘Yatırım Tahkiminde (Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Kayıtları Kapsamında) Yetki ve Kabul Edilebilirlik’ in Hatice Özdemir Kocasakal and Süheyla Balkar (eds), Tahkim Anlaşması (Onikilevha 2020) 87-101 (Yetki). google scholar
  • Uzun E, ‘Milletlerarası Hukuk Açısından En Çok Gözetilen Ulus Kaydı’ (2004) 24 MHB 741-766 (En Çok Gözetilen Ulus Kaydı). google scholar
  • Uzun E, ‘Uluslararası Andlaşmaların Geçici Uygulanması-Viyana Andlaşmalar Hukuku Sözleşmesi 25. Madde’ (2018) 9(2) İnÜHFD 187-210 (Viyana Andlaşmalar Hukuku). google scholar
  • Vessel S, ‘Clearing a Path Through a Tangled Jurisprudence: Most-Favored-Nation Clauses and Dispute Settlement Provisions in Bilateral İnvestment Treaties’ (2007) 32 The Yale Journal of International 125-189. google scholar
  • Wong J, ‘Umbrella Clauses in Bilateral Investment Treaties: Of Breaches of Contract, Treaty Violations, and the Divide between Developing and Developed Countries in Foreign İnvestment Disputes’ (2006) 14 George Mason Law Review 137-179. google scholar
  • Ziegler AR, ‘Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) Treatment’ in August Reinisch (ed), Standards of Investment Protection (Oxford 2008) 59-86. google scholar Awards google scholar
  • ADF Group Inc v United States of America, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/00/1, https://www.italaw. com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0009.pdf google scholar
  • Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret ve Sanayi A.S. v Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No ARB/03/29, http://www.italaw.com/cases/131 google scholar
  • Camuzzi International S.A. v Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No ARB/03/7, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ ita0108.pdf google scholar
  • Consorzio Groupement L.E.S.I. DIPENTA v People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No ARB/03708 http://italaw.com/cases/323 google scholar
  • Emilio Agustín Maffezini v Kingdom of Spain, ICSDD Case No ARB/97/7, https://www.italaw.com/ sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0479.pdf google scholar
  • Ethyl Corporation v The Government of Canada, (UNCİTRAL) http://www.italaw.com/cases/409 google scholar
  • Gas Natural SDG, S.A. v The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/10, https://www.italaw. com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0354.pdf google scholar
  • İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi v Turkmenistan, (8.3.2016) ICSID Case No ARB/10/24, http://italaw. com/cases/2560 google scholar
  • Kılıç İnşaat İthalat İhracat Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v Turkmenistan, Decision on Article VII.2 of the Turkiye-Turkmenistan Bilateral Investment Treaty, ICSID Case No ARB/10/1, https:// www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0932.pdf google scholar
  • Kılıç İnşaat İthalat İhracat Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v Turkmenistan, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/10/1, http://www.italaw.com/cases/1220 google scholar
  • MTD Equity Sdn Bhd and MTD Chile SA v Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No ARB 01/07, https:// www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0544.pdf google scholar
  • Muhammet Çap & Sehil Inşaat Endustri ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti. v Turkmenistan, Decision on Respondent’s Objection to Jurisdiction under Article VII (2), ICSID Case No ARB/12/6, http://www.italaw. com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw4163.pdf google scholar Muhammet Çap & Sehil Inşaat Endustri ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti. v Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No ARB/12/6, http://www.italaw.com/cases/2036 google scholar
  • National Grid PLC v The Argentine Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction, https://www.italaw.com/ sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0553.pdf google scholar
  • Plama Consortium Limited v Republic of Bulgaria, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/03/24, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0669.pdf google scholar
  • PSEG Global Inc., The North American Coal Corporation, and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Üretim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/02/5, https://www.italaw.com/ sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0694.pdf google scholar
  • Ronald S. Lauder v The Czech Republic, (UNCITRAL), http://www.italaw.com/cases/610 google scholar
  • RosInvest Co UK Ltd v The Russian Federation, Award on Jurisdiction (SCC Arb V079/2005), https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0719.pdf google scholar
  • Salini Costruttori SpA and Italstrade SpA v Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/02/13, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0735. pdf google scholar
  • SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No ARB/10/13, http://www.italaw.com/cases/1009 google scholar
  • SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No ARB/02/6, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0782.pdf google scholar
  • Siemens AG v The Argentine Republic ICSID Case No ARB/02/08, https://www.italaw.com/sites/ default/files/case-documents/ita0788.pdf google scholar
  • Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v Argentine Republic ve AWG Group Ltd v The Argentine Republic (Suez), ICSID Case No ARB/03/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0049.pdf google scholar
  • Telenor Mobile Communications AS v Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/03/24, https:// www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0858.pdf google scholar
  • Vladimir Berschader and Moise Berschader v The Russian Federation, Case No 080/2004, https:// www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0079_0.pdf google scholar
  • Western NIS Enterprise Fund v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/04/02, http://www.italaw.com/ cases/1167 google scholar
There are 62 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Environmental and Resources Law (Other), Law in Context
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Bilgin Tiryakioğlu 0000-0001-5574-1525

Project Number Yok
Early Pub Date May 5, 2023
Publication Date July 19, 2023
Submission Date September 14, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2023 Volume: 43 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Tiryakioğlu, B. (2023). Extension of the Most Favoured Nation Clause to Dispute Settlement Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties Which Turkey is a Party of. Public and Private International Law Bulletin, 43(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1174730
AMA Tiryakioğlu B. Extension of the Most Favoured Nation Clause to Dispute Settlement Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties Which Turkey is a Party of. PPIL. July 2023;43(1):1-36. doi:10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1174730
Chicago Tiryakioğlu, Bilgin. “Extension of the Most Favoured Nation Clause to Dispute Settlement Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties Which Turkey Is a Party of”. Public and Private International Law Bulletin 43, no. 1 (July 2023): 1-36. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1174730.
EndNote Tiryakioğlu B (July 1, 2023) Extension of the Most Favoured Nation Clause to Dispute Settlement Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties Which Turkey is a Party of. Public and Private International Law Bulletin 43 1 1–36.
IEEE B. Tiryakioğlu, “Extension of the Most Favoured Nation Clause to Dispute Settlement Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties Which Turkey is a Party of”, PPIL, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 1–36, 2023, doi: 10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1174730.
ISNAD Tiryakioğlu, Bilgin. “Extension of the Most Favoured Nation Clause to Dispute Settlement Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties Which Turkey Is a Party of”. Public and Private International Law Bulletin 43/1 (July 2023), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1174730.
JAMA Tiryakioğlu B. Extension of the Most Favoured Nation Clause to Dispute Settlement Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties Which Turkey is a Party of. PPIL. 2023;43:1–36.
MLA Tiryakioğlu, Bilgin. “Extension of the Most Favoured Nation Clause to Dispute Settlement Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties Which Turkey Is a Party of”. Public and Private International Law Bulletin, vol. 43, no. 1, 2023, pp. 1-36, doi:10.26650/ppil.2023.43.1.1174730.
Vancouver Tiryakioğlu B. Extension of the Most Favoured Nation Clause to Dispute Settlement Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties Which Turkey is a Party of. PPIL. 2023;43(1):1-36.
 Download Cover Image