PAW - Pacific Wildcat Resources Corp Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : PAW - Pacific Wildcat Resources Corp

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

Recommended by:

longz

From: Rocket Red	3/6/2019 9:10:38 PM
	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) of 3412

PART 25 - JURISDICTION 1. Preliminary Remarks 232. The Claimants contend that ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(1) requires that any objection to the jurisdiction of ICSID or the competence of the tribunal be made “as early as possible...and in any event no later than the time fixed for the filing of the Counter-Memorial.” 233. The Claimants state that the Respondent’s objections to jurisdiction are out of time. However, Rule 41(5) expressly permits the Respondent to raise its objections when it did. In any event, Rule 41(2) provides that the Tribunal “on its own initiative…at any stage of the proceeding” may consider whether the dispute is “within the jurisdiction of the Center and within its own competence.” 268 Either way, the jurisdictional issues have been fully argued and will be addressed by the Tribunal. The Claimants’ “preliminary” objection is rejected. 234. Equally, the Tribunal acknowledges that the arbitration clause survives the Government’s allegations of illegality, but the continued validity of the arbitration clause simply affirms the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine whether the Claimants made investments that qualified for treaty protection.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next