More than 100 years have now passed since Scott’s Terra Nova expedition to the Antarctic, which was quickly followed by the First World War. Out of the events of those times emerges the name of Edward Leicester Atkinson, the Royal Navy Surgeon and Antarctic explorer who was a member of the scientific staff of Scott’s expedition, and who went on to serve in the First World War. In his honour, the Edward Leicester Atkinson Prize will be awarded annually to a Royal Navy Medical Officer who displays the values of leadership and moral courage during the New Entry Medical Officer course, either at Britannia Royal Naval College or the Institute of Naval Medicine.

Jurisdiction — Whether Tribunal having jurisdiction over dispute — State responsibility — State entity — Manifest lack of a link with the State — ILC Articles on State Responsibility — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Definition of an investment — Duration — BITs between Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union and Egypt in 1977 and 2002 — Meaning of “communications” for purpose of 1977 BIT — Applicability ratione tempo ris of 2002 BIT — Time at which dispute arose — Whether a new dispute existed — Reliance on a BIT — Exclusive jurisdiction clause — Claims juridically distinct from contract claims — Existence of an investment — Time at which dispute arose — ICSID Convention, Article 25

Award — Applicable law — Consent to arbitration — State organ — Exercise of governmental authority — Attribution to the State — ILC Articles on State Responsibility — Denial of justice — Exhaustion of local remedies — Fair and equitable treatment — Fraud — Due diligence — Duty to inform — Legitimate expectations — Continuous protection and security of an investment — Duty to promote investments — 1977 and 2002 BITs between Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union and Egypt — Whether Egypt breaching its obligations under BITs

Award — Arbitration — Challenge to validity of partial arbitral award before Swiss Federal Court — Articles 190–2 of Swiss Private International Law Act — Whether parties entitled to second round of pleadings

Award — Arbitration — Challenge to validity of partial arbitral award before Swiss Federal Court — Article 192 of Swiss Private International Law Act — Whether parties waived right to set aside partial arbitral award

Award — Arbitration — Challenge to validity of partial arbitral award before Swiss Federal Court — Article 190(2)(b) of Swiss Private International Law Act — Whether arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction

Arbitration — Award — Economic crises in Argentina — Expropriation claim — Article IV(1) of Argentina — US Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1991 (“BIT”) — Whether Respondent failing to accord Claimant fair and equitable treatment — Article II(2)(a) of the Argentina — US BIT — Whether Respondent discriminating against Claimant — Umbrella clause — Defence of necessity — Remedies — Respondent requesting continued stay of enforcement of Award — Respondent applying for annulment of Award

Expropriation — Article IV(1) of the Argentina–US BIT — Interpretation — Indirect and creeping expropriation

Fair and equitable treatment — Article II(2)(a) of the Argentina–US BIT — Customary international law — Interpretation

Discrimination — Arbitrariness — Article II(2)(b) of the Argentina–US BIT — Interpretation — Applicable standards

Treaties — Bilateral Investment Treaty — Article II(2)(c) of the Argentina–US BIT — Umbrella clause — Treaty claims — Standards of protection

State responsibility — Defence of necessity — Customary international law — International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility, Article 25 — Essential interest of State — Grave and imminent peril — Alternatives available — Respondent’s contribution to crisis

Treaties — Defence of necessity — Article XI of Argentina–US BIT — Emergency clause — Essential security interest — Whether self-judging

Remedies — International law — Restitution — Compensation — Most applicable remedy — Applicable standard — Valuation method — Interest — Costs

Award — Stay of enforcement — ICSID Convention, Article 52(5) — ICSID Arbitration Rule 54 — Interpretation — Adequate assurances — Respondent applying for annulment of Award

Annulment — Grounds for annulment of Award — Manifest excess of power by arbitral tribunal — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Argentina–US BIT, Article I(1) — Jurisdiction — Shareholder claiming for its rights in a foreign company independent from the latter’s rights — Definition of investment

Annulment — Grounds for annulment of Award — Manifest excess of power by arbitral tribunal — Failure to state reasons — Argentina–US BIT, Article II(2)(a) — Standard of fair and equitable treatment — Stable legal and business environment

Annulment — Grounds for annulment of Award — Failure to state reasons — Argentina–US BIT, Article II(2)(c) — Umbrella clause — Shareholder’s claim for its rights in a foreign company independent from the latter’s rights — Interpretation

Annulment — Grounds for annulment of Award — Manifest excess of power by arbitral tribunal — Failure to state reasons — Relationship between Article 25 of International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility and Article XI of Argentina–US BIT — Necessity

Annulment — Grounds for annulment of Award — Manifest excess of power by arbitral tribunal — Failure to state reasons — Relationship between Article 27 of International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility and Article XI of Argentina–US BIT — Compensation — Interpretation

Compensation — Standard of compensation — Fair market value — Discounted market value — No expropriation — Failure to state reasons

Award — Arbitration — International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes — ICSID Convention, Article 55 — Application for enforcement of arbitration award in United Kingdom courts — Order against assets — Central bank of foreign State — State immunity — Whether property of central bank immune from enforcement proceedings — United Kingdom State Immunity Act 1978, Sections 13(2)(b) and 14(4) — Interpretation of Section 14(4) — Whether contrary to right of access to a court — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 6(1) — United Kingdom Human Rights Act 1998, Section 3(1) — Whether contrary to right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions — First Protocol to European Convention, Article 1

Arbitration — Investment dispute — Enforcement of two guarantees — Claimant loaning monies to local statutory corporation — Respondent guaranteeing loans in 1990 and 1993 agreements — Loans for power station improvement project — Applicable law — Whether implied representation by Claimant that project viable and suitable — Whether Claimant owing duty of care to Respondent — Whether breach of duty of care — Whether inequality of bargaining power

Award — Stay of enforcement — Applicable standards — Interpretation — ICSID Convention, Article 52(5) — ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 54 — Merits of application — Catastrophic consequences — Recovery of payment — Prejudice to prospects of collecting Award — Provision of security

Annulment — Annulment of Award — Investment dispute — Whether serious departure from fundamental rule of procedure — Whether failure to state reasons — Whether Tribunal exceeding its powers

Interpretation — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(b), (d) and (e) — Whether Tribunal manifestly exceeding its powers — Whether serious departure from fundamental rule of procedure — Whether Award failing to state reasons on which based

Costs — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1)(e) — Whether applicable to costs — Allocation — Payment of legal expenses — Interest

Award — Binding nature — ICSID Additional Facility (AF) Rules, Articles 42 and 52 — Interpretation — When Award final — Whether requests for supplemental decisions rendering Award non-final until Tribunal decided on supplemental decision

Award — Review by domestic courts — United States Federal Arbitration Act — Three-month period for serving notice of motion to vacate — Award final from issuance if arbitrators manifesting intent to decide all issues referred to arbitration

Award — Request for supplementary decisions — ICSID (Additional Facility) Rules, Article 58 — Whether dismissal of all claims on the merits necessarily disposed of particular claim

Arbitration — Bilateral investment treaty — Investment dispute — Alleged violations of bit by Respondent through its State enterprise — Misrepresentations in connection with purchase of local branch of Estonian social bank — Failure to adhere to write-off agreement to amortize losses arising from purchase — Alleged breach of settlement agreement to assign claims — Unjustified revocation of banking licence — Harassment of claimants — Damages

Jurisdiction — Objections by Respondent — No arbitrable investment dispute — Alleged violations of investment treaty denied — Damages — Counterclaim — Whether dispute concerning an investment

Counterclaim — Dismissal of claim and counterclaim — No breach of bit — No misrepresentations associated with purchase — No breach of settlement agreement — No breach of write-off agreement — Revocation of bank licence not contrary to bit or Estonian law — No proof of harassment of Claimants — Respondent’s counterclaim dismissed

Award — Request for supplementary decisions and rectification — Alleged failure by tribunal to discuss specific violations of bit contended by Claimants — Request denied — No omission on part of Tribunal — Costs of request awarded against Claimants

Settlement — Agreement for settlement of dispute — Recorded as award on agreed terms — Discontinuance of proceedings

Award — Award on agreed terms — Agreement for settlement of dispute — Nature of agreement — No additional rights, benefits or privileges conferred — Principles governing interpretation and implementation — Agreement binding on legal successors to parties — Article 55 of icsid (AF) Arbitration Rules

The Dayton Accords of 1995 for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina provided for arbitration over the boundary line in the Brčko area of Bosnia. Arbitration took place between the Muslim and Croat Federation and the Republika Srpska. The Award of 14 February 1997 did not draw a boundary line but established an international interim supervisory regime. On 15 March 1998 the Arbitral Tribunal handed down a Supplemental Award which extended the interim regime pending further action by the Tribunal. The Final Award of 5 March 1999 establishes a permanent self-governing Brčko District government that is independent of the two entities. The Tribunal reserves the authority to revise its decision in case of a failure of either party to cooperate in the implementation of the new regime.

The Dayton Accords of 1995 for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina provided for arbitration over the boundary line in the Brćko area of Bosnia. Arbitration took place between the Muslim and Croat Federation and the Republika Srpska. Both party appointed arbitrators refused to sign the Award. The Award of 14 February 1997 did not draw a boundary line but established an international interim supervisory regime. The Tribunal decided on the basis of international law and equity, but it refused to apply the principle of non-recognition of territorial gains obtained in violation of international law. On 15 March 1998 the Arbitral Tribunal handed down a Supplemental Award. This holds out the prospect of a further decision by the Tribunal in early 1999.

The Dayton Accords of 1995 provided for arbitration over the boundary line in the Brčko area of Bosnia. Arbitration took place between the Muslim and Croat Federation and the Republica Srpska. Both party-appointed arbitrators refused to sign the Award. The Award does not draw a boundary line but establishes an international interim supervisory regime. The Tribunal decided on the basis of international law and equity. But it refused to apply the principle of non-recognition of territorial gains obtained in violation of international law. A further decision of the Tribunal is planned by 15 March 1998.

Award — Award Ultra Petita — Meaning of Ultra Petita

Award — Incomplete Form of the Award.