Do Many of Australia's Bilateral Treaties Really Not Provide Full Advance Consent to Investor-State Arbitration? Analysis of Planet Mining v Indonesia and Regional Implications

L. Nottage
Nottage, Luke

Article from: TDM 1 (2015), in The Pacific Rim and International Economic Law: Opportunities and Risks of the Pacific Century

Abstract

Indonesia recently announced that it would review its 67 bilateral investment treaties (BITs). Shortly beforehand, it had unsuccessfully challenged the jurisdiction of an ICSID arbitral tribunal in a claim for expropriation and other violations brought by the Australian subsidiary of a UK coal mining company (Planet Mining v Indonesia). The tribunal's decision found that consent to jurisdiction existed under the coal mining licences given by Indonesian authorities, but not under the wording of the 1992 Australia-Indonesia BIT. It found that the countries had only given a "promise to ...

To read this article you need to be a subscriber

Sign in

Forgot password?

Sign in

Subscribe

Fill in the registration form and answer a few simple questions to receive a quote.

Subscribe now

Why subscribe?

TDM journal

Access to TDM Journal articles (well over 2500 articles in total for Premium account holders)

Legal & regulatory

Access to Legal & Regulatory data (well over 10000 documents)

OGEMID

OGEMID membership (lively discussion platform bringing together the world's international dispute management community)

Suggested Citation

L. Nottage; "Do Many of Australia's Bilateral Treaties Really Not Provide Full Advance Consent to Investor-State Arbitration? Analysis of Planet Mining v Indonesia and Regional Implications"
TDM 1 (2015), www.transnational-dispute-management.com

URL: www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=2177