Advertisement

The Use of Evidence Obtained Through a State’s Special Antitrust Powers in Investment Arbitration

  • Krystle M. BaptistaEmail author
  • Bianca M. McDonnell
Chapter
  • 22 Downloads
Part of the European Yearbook of International Economic Law book series (EUROYEAR)

Abstract

This chapter explores the use of evidence obtained by states in investment arbitration. In particular, it examines whether a state may use information it obtains through special powers of supervision, investigation and seizure granted to the antitrust agency, to defend itself against an investor’s claim in an investment arbitration. The chapter finds that such use of a state’s special powers constitutes a misuse of power under domestic law and a violation of due process in investment arbitration. Further, the treatment of a state as a single body for the purpose of establishing standing for international claims, does not entitle the state to blur domestic divisions of state powers to allow a special power to be used in a way that would contradict its intended purpose under domestic law. States should use the proper procedure for obtaining documents in an international arbitration: document production.

Keywords

Antitrust or antitrust powers Competition law Investment arbitration International arbitration Equality of arms Due process State powers Good faith Use of evidence State responsibility Document production 

References

  1. Aucoc L (1878) Conférences sur l’ administración et le droit administratif.  3rd edn. vol I. ParisGoogle Scholar
  2. Bédard J, Nelson T, Raymond Kalantirsky A (2010) Arbitrating in good faith and protecting the integrity of the arbitral process. Paris J Int Arbitr 2010(3):737–756Google Scholar
  3. Blackaby N et al (2009) Redfern and Hunter on international arbitration, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coughlin JJ (2001–2002) The history of the judicial review of administrative power and the future of regulatory governance. Idaho Law Rev 38:89–133. Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/736
  5. Crawford J (2006) State responsibility, Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Crawford J (2012) Brownlie’s principles of public international law, 8th edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Euler D (2016) Transparency rules and the Mauritius Convention: a favourable haircut of the state’s sovereignty in investment arbitration? ASA Bull 34(2):355–374Google Scholar
  9. Fierro Rodríguez D (2014) La desviación de poder en el derecho administrativo. El Jurista. Available at: http://www.eljurista.eu/2014/12/01/la-desviacion-de-poder-en-el-derecho-administrativo/
  10. García de Enterría E, Fernández TR (2011) Curso de derecho administrativo I, 15th edn. S.L. Civitas, MadridGoogle Scholar
  11. González H, Contreras M (2016) Límites a los requerimientos de información de la Comisión Europea (II). In: Recuerda Cirela M-A(Dtr) Problemas prácticos y actualidad del Derecho de la Competencia [Anuario de Derecho de la Competencia 2016], pp 331–338Google Scholar
  12. Guerra Fernández A, Vélez Fraga M (2013) Guía práctica de la Ley 3/2013, de 4 de junio, de creación de la Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia, Uría Menéndez, pp 33–34. Available at: https://www.uria.com/documentos/publicaciones/3842/documento/guiaPractica4Junio2013.pdf?id=4641
  13. Guillén Caramés J (2015) Régimen jurídico de los requerimientos de información efectuados por las autoridades de competencia. Revista de Administración Pública 197:41–89Google Scholar
  14. Hauriou M (1921) Précis de droit administratif et de droit public à l’usage des étudiants en licence (2e et 3e années) et en doctorat, Librairie de la Société du Recueil Sirey, ParisGoogle Scholar
  15. Higgins R (1995) Problems and process: international law and how we use it. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hobér K (2008) State responsibility and attribution. In: Muchlinski PT, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 549–582Google Scholar
  17. Laferriere E (1896) Traité de la jurisdiction administrative et des recours contentieux. 2nd edn. vol II. Paris Nancy: Berger-Levrault, ParisGoogle Scholar
  18. Laigneau M (2013) Inspections surprise des autorités de concurrence (“Dawn raid”) : l’expérience d’EDF. Revue juridique de l’économie publique 705, repère 2Google Scholar
  19. López Mendoza JA (2013) La desviación de poder. In: Alonso Regueira EM (ed) Estudios de derecho público. Asociación de Docentes UBA, Buenos Aires, pp 299–315. Available at http://www.derecho.uba.ar/docentes/pdf/estudios-de-derecho/003-edp-2-lopez-mendoza.pdf
  20. Martínez Sánchez A, Rodríguez Ordóñez J (2015) Inspecciones de competencia y consentimiento informado de la empresa investigada (comentario a la STS de 15/6/2015, “Montibello”) Comunicaciones en propiedad industrial y derecho de la competencia 76 (septiembre-diciembre):293–303Google Scholar
  21. Martínez Useros E (1955) Desviación de poder. Anales de la Universidad de Murcia (Derecho), 1955–1956, pp D5–D65. Available at http://www.derecho.uba.ar/docentes/pdf/estudios-de-derecho/003-edp-2-lopez-mendoza.pdf
  22. Momtaz D (2010) Attribution of conduct to the state: state organs and entities empowered to exercise elements of governmental authority. In: Crawford J, Pellet A, Olleson S, Parlett K (eds) The law of international responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 237–246Google Scholar
  23. Newcombe A (2010) The obligation to arbitrate fairly and in good faith in investment treaty arbitration, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, April 19. Available at: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2010/04/19/the-obligation-to-arbitrate-fairly-and-in-good-faith-in-investment-treaty-arbitration/
  24. Nicinski S (2009) L’autorité de la concurrence. Revue française de droit administrative 25(6):1237–1247Google Scholar
  25. Sipiorski E (2016) Evidence and the principle of good faith in investment arbitration: finding meaning in public international law. In: Moura Vicente D (ed) Towards a universal justice? Putting international courts and jurisdictions into perspective. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston, pp 347–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wälde T (2010a) Equality of arms in investment arbitration: procedural challenges. In: Yannaca-Small K (ed) Arbitration under international investment agreements: a guide to key issues. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 161–188Google Scholar
  27. Wälde T (2010b) Procedural challenges in investment arbitration under the shadow of the dual role of the state: asymmetries and tribunals’ duty to ensure, pro-actively, the equality of arms. Arbitr Int 26(1):3–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Armesto y AsociadosMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations