1 Aloysius P. Llamzon, Corruption in International Investment Arbitration 7–8 (Oxford University Press 2014).
2 Bernardo M. Cremades & David J. A. Cairns, Trans-national Public Policy in International Arbitral Decision-Making: The Cases of Bribery, Money Laundering and Fraud, in Arbitration – Money Laundering, Corruption and Fraud 67 (K. Karsten & A. Berkeley eds., International Chamber of Commerce 2003); Christian Albanesi & Emmanuel Jolivet, Dealing With Corruption in Arbitration: A Review of ICC Experience, in ICC Special Supplement 2013: Tackling Corruption in Arbitration 28 (2013).
3 See also amongst others the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption and the Convention on the Fight Against Corruption involving Officials of the European Communities or Officials of Member States of the European Union.
4 Inan Uluc, Corruption in International Arbitration, DPhil thesis, viii (Pennsylvania State University 2016).
5 Kenneth D. Beale & Paolo Esposito, Emergent International Attitudes Towards Bribery, Corruption and Money Laundering, 75 Arb. 360, 368 (2009).
6 On the distinction between corruption as a bar to jurisdiction or admissibility, see e.g., Cameron A. Miles, Corruption, Jurisdiction and Admissibility in International Investment Claims, 3 J. Int’l Disp. Settlement 329 (2012); Aloysius Llamzon & Anthony C. Sinclair, Investor Wrongdoing in Investment Arbitration: Standards Governing Issues of Corruption, Fraud, Misrepresentation and Other Investor Misconduct, in Legitimacy: Myths, Realities, Challenges 500–503 (A. van den Berg ed., Kluwer Law International 2015). See also Lybia v. Nurool Insaat Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi, CA Paris, 28 Sep. 2021, Rev. Arb. 1154 (2021), and note by Grégoire Bertrou, Hugues Piguet & Dmitry Bayandin.
7 See e.g., Joachim Drude, Fiat Iustitia, ne pereat mundus: A Novel Approach to Corruption and Investment Arbitration, 35 J. Int’l Arb. 665, 695 et seq. (2018); Caline Mouawad & Jessica Beess und Chrostin, The Illegality Objection in Investor-State Arbitration, 37 Arb. Int’l 57 (2021); Hiroyuki Tezuka, Corruption Issues in the Jurisdictional Phase of Investment Arbitrations: An Arbitrator’s Checklist, in Addressing Issues of Corruption in Commercial and Investment Arbitration 62–64 (D. Baizeau & R. Kreindler eds, Kluwer Law International 2015); Stephan W. Schill, Illegal Investments in Investment Treaty Arbitration, 11 L. & Prac. Int’l Cts. & Tribunals 281 (2012); Patrick Dumberry, State of Confusion: The Doctrine of ‘Clean Hands’ in Investment Arbitration After the Yukos Award, 17 J. World Inv. & Trade 229 (2016); Llamzon & Sinclair, supra n. 6, at 507–508; Andrea J. Menaker, The Determinative Impact of Fraud and Corruption on Investment Arbitrations, 25 ICSID Rev. 67, 69–70 (2010); Aloysius Llamzon, On Corruption’s Peremptory Treatment in International Arbitration, in Addressing Issues of Corruption in Commercial and Investment Arbitration 39 (D. Baizeau & R. Kreindler eds, Kluwer Law International 2015). See also Aloysius Llamzon, Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation – The State of the ‘Unclean Hands’ Doctrine in International Investment Law: Yukos as both Omega and Alpha, 30 ICSID Rev. 315 (2015); Yas Banifatemi, The Impact of Corruption on ‘Gateway Issues’ of Arbitrability, Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Procedural Issues, in Addressing Issues of Corruption in Commercial and Investment Arbitration 24–25 (D. Baizeau & R. Kreindler eds, Kluwer Law International 2015); Jason W. Yackee, Investment Treaties and Investor Corruption: An Emerging Defense for Host States?, 53 Va. J. Int’l L. 723, 738–739 (2012).
8 Edoardo Marcenaro, Arbitrators’ Investigative and Reporting Rights and Duties on Corruption, in Addressing Issues of Corruption in Commercial and Investment Arbitration 141 (D. Baizeau & R. Kreindler eds, Kluwer Law International 2015).
9 Emmanuel Gaillard, The Emergence of Transnational Responses to Corruption in International Arbitration, 35 Arb. Int’l 1, 3 (2019).
10 Florian Haugeneder & Christoph Liebscher, Investment Arbitration – Corruption and Investment Arbitration in Austrian Arbitration Yearbook 2009 543 (C. Klausegger et al. eds, Stämpfli & Manz 2009); Matthias Scherer, Circumstantial Evidence in Corruption Cases Before International Arbitral Tribunals, 5 Int’l ALR 29 (2002); Nassib G. Ziadé, Addressing Allegations and Findings of Corruption: The Arbitrators’ Investigative and Reporting Rights and Duties, in Addressing Issues of Corruption in Commercial and Investment Arbitration 114 (D. Baizeau & R. Kreindler eds, Kluwer Law International 2015); Jean-Yves Garaud, L’Office de l’Arbitre en Arbitrage Commercial: Caractérisation de l’Illicéité et Mise en Oeuvre des Sanctions, Rev. Arb. 173, 181 (2019).
11 Sophie Lemaire, La Preuve de la Corruption, Rev. Arb. 185, 189 (2020); Ziadé, supra n. 10.
12 This situation may occur in circumstances where the tribunal found that there was no longer any dispute following the conclusion of a settlement between the parties (Azpetrol International Holdings BV, Azpetrol Group BV & Azpetrol Oil Services Group BV v. Republic of Azerbaijan, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/15, Award (8 Sep. 2009)) or because the claim was decided on another unrelated basis (Empresas Luchetti, SA & Luchetti Peru, SA v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/4, Award (7 Feb. 2005)). See also Cambodia Power Co. v. Kingdom of Cambodia, Electricité du Cambodge, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/18, Decision on Jurisdiction (22 Mar. 2011); Pawlowski, AG & Projekt Sever SRO v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/11, Award (1 Nov. 2021).
13 See e.g., Siemens AG v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Annulment and Revision Proceedings; Inceysa Vallisoletana SL v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award (2 Aug. 2006); F-W Oil Interests Inc. v. Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/14, Award (3 Mar. 2006).
14 Sebastien Besson, Initiatives of Arbitrators: Where to Draw the Line Between Activism and Passivity in Defining Issues in International Arbitration: Celebrating 100 Years of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators 223– 229 ( J. C. Bétancourt ed., OUP 2016).
15 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), Art. V(2)(b).
16 Similar arguments were also raised before the ICSID Annulment Committee in Siemens v. Argentina, but these proceedings were dismissed following a settlement between the parties. See Siemens AG v. Argentine Republic, supra n. 13.
17 MK Group v. SARL Onix, CA Paris, 16 Jan. 2018, Rev. Arb. 401 (2018), and note by S. Lemaire; Valeri Belokon v. Kyrgyz Republic, CA Paris, 21 Feb. 2017, Rev. Arb. 915 (2017), and note by M. Audit; Alstom Transports, CA Paris, 28 May 2019, Rev. Arb. 850 (2019), and note by Emmanuel Gaillard. On Alstom, see also the decision of the Cour de Cassation quashing the Court of Appeal’s decision, but on an issue that is not relevant for our discussion (Alstom Transports, Cass. Fr. (1 Ch. civ.),29 Sep. 2021, 19.19.769).
18 Asaf Niemoj, The Limitations on Article 43 ICSID Convention: An (Un)limited Instrument of the Tribunal?, 34 ICSID Rev. 697, 717 (2019); Pierre Mayer, L’Arbitre et l’Ordre Public, in Droit sans Frontières. Mélanges en l’Honneur du Professeur Éric Loquin 235 (LexisNexis 2018).
19 Stephan W. Schill, Crafting the International Economic Order: The Public Function of Investment Treaty Arbitration and Its Significance for the Role of the Arbitrator, 23 Leiden J. Int’l L. 401, 423 (2010); Besson, supra n. 14, at 235; Kathrin Betz, Economic Crime in International Arbitration, 35 ASA Bull. 281, 287 (2017).
20 Schill, supra n. 19, at 423. See also Bernardo Cremades, Corruption and Investment Arbitration, in Liber Amicorum in Honour of Robert Briner 203 (G. Aksen et al. eds, ICC 2005).
21 Ziadé, supra n. 10, at 114.
22 Llamzon, supra n. 1, at 228.
23 Emmanuel Gaillard, La Corruption Saisie par les Arbitres du Commerce International, Rev. Arb. 805, 836– 837 (2017).
24 Metal-Tech Ltd v. Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No ARB/10/3, Award (4 Oct. 2013), para. 200.
25 Ibid., para. 256.
26 Ibid., para. 265.
27 Joe Tirado, Matthew Page & Daniel Meagher, Corruption Investigation by Governmental Authorities and Investment Arbitration: An Uneasy Relationship, 29 ICSID Rev. 493, 498 (2019).
28 Lemaire, supra n. 11, at 193.
29 Lao Holdings NV & Sanum Investments Ltd v. Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic [2021] SGHC (I) 10.
30 Ibid., para. 153.
31 Gaillard, supra n. 23, at 836–837; Mayer, supra n. 18, at 241 et seq.; Domitille Baizeau & Tessa Hayes, The Arbitral Tribunal’s Duty and Power to Address Corruption Sua Sponte, in International Arbitration and the Rule of Law: Contribution and Conformity 248–253 (A. Menaker ed., Kluwer Law International 2017). See also e.g., Metal-Tech Ltd v. Republic of Uzbekistan, supra n. 24, paras 244 et seq.
32 See in that respect Baizeau & Hayes, supra n. 31, at 243–244; Niemoj, supra n. 18, at 717–718; Tezuka, supra n. 7, at 55.
33 Infinito Gold Ltd v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/5, Award (3 Jun. 2021).
34 Ibid., para. 178.
35 Ibid., para. 181.
36 Ibid
37 Tezuka, supra n. 7, at 55–56.
38 Cremades & Cairns, supra n. 2, at 82.
39 Augustin Aynes, La Charge de la Preuve, Rev. Arb. 3, 6 (2020).
40 Simon Greenberg, Le Standard de la Preuve en Arbitrage International, Rev. Arb. 113, 114 (2020).
41 Kevin M. Clermont & Emily Sherwin, A Comparative View of Standards of Proof, 50 Am. J. Comp. L. 243, 253–255 (2002).
42 Olivier Caprasse & Maxime Tecqmenne, La Preuve du Dommage en Arbitrage, Rev. Arb. 156–157(2020).
43 Patrick Kinsch, Entre Certitude et Vraisemblance, le Critère de la Preuve en Matière Civile, in Mélanges en l’Honneur du Doyen Georges Wiederkehr – De Code en Code 455–457 (Dalloz 2009).
44 See e.g., Andrea J. Menaker, Proving Corruption in International Arbitration, in Addressing Issues of Corruption in Commercial and Investment Arbitration 78–79 (D. Baizeau & R. Kreindler eds, Kluwer Law International 2015).
45 See e.g., ICC Arbitration Rules, Art. 19: ‘The proceedings before the arbitral tribunal shall be governed by the Rules and, where the Rules are silent, by any rules which the parties or, failing them, the arbitral tribunal may settle on, whether or not reference is thereby made to the rules of procedure of a national law to be applied to the arbitration’.
46 Klaus Peter Berger, International Economic Arbitration 444 et seq. (Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers 1993); Jean-François Poudret & Sébastien Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration 551 (Sweet and Maxwell 2007); Aynes, supra n. 39, at 7; Greenberg, supra n. 40, at 127; Andreas Reiner, Burden and General Standards of Proof, 10 Arb. Int’l 328, 331–332 (1994); Christophe Seraglini, Les Conflits de Loi en Matière de Preuve dans l’Arbitrage International, Rev. Arb. 133, 145 (2020).
47 Jan Oostergetel & Theodora Laurentius v. Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL Award (23 Apr. 2012), para. 147. See also Metal-Tech Ltd v. Republic of Uzbekistan, supra n. 24, para. 238.
48 See e.g., Lao Holdings NV v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/6, Award (6 Aug. 2019); Sanum Investments Ltd v. Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, PCA Case No. 2013-13, Award (6 Aug. 2019); Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd v. Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration & Production Company Ltd (‘Bapex’), Bangladesh Oil Gas & Mineral Corp. (‘Petrobangla’), ICSID Case No. ARB/10/11 and ICSID Case No. ARB/10/18, Decision on the Corruption Claim (25 Feb. 2019); Getma International, NCT Necotrans, Getma International Investissements, NCT Infrastructure & Logistique v. Republic of Guinea, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/29, Award (16 Aug. 2016).
49 Seraglini, supra n. 46, at 142.
50 Ibid., at 139–141; Yu Hong-Lin, Adopting a ‘Range of Factors’ and ‘Division of Systems’ Approach: Establishing Principles for a Consistent Standard of Proof to Assess Illegality in Foreign Investment Disputes, J. Bus. L. 75, 85–86 (2021).
51 Cremades, supra n. 20, at 210.
52 Kabir A. N. Duggal, Principles of Evidence in Investor-State Arbitration 222–223 (DPhil thesis, Universiteit Leiden 2019).
53 See e.g., ICSID Convention Arbitration Rules, rule 34(1) (‘The arbitral tribunal shall be the judge of the admissibility of any evidence adduced and of its probative value’); UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, Art. 27(4) (‘The arbitral tribunal shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and relevance of the evidence offered’).
54 Mateus Aimoré Carreteiro, Standard of Proof in International Arbitration: Proposed Guidelines for Promoting Predictability, 49 Revista Brasileira Arbitragem 82, 94 (2016).
55 Georg Gavrilovic & Gavrilovic DOO v. Republic of Croatia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/39, Award (26 Jul. 2018), para. 229.
56 Duggal, supra n. 52, at 40; Jérôme Ortscheidt, La Réparation du Dommage dans l’Arbitrage Commercial International 38 (Dalloz 2001). See e.g., ICC Case No. 6497, ICC 8891, ICC 12990 No. 251; The Rompetrol Group NV v. Romania, ICSID Case No ARB/06/03, Award (29 Apr. 2013), para. 178; Dadras International & Per-Am Construction Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran & Tehran Redevelopment Company, IUSCT Case No. 567-213/215-3 (7 Nov. 1995), para. 120.
57 UNCITRAL Arbitral Rules, Art. 27: ‘1. Each party has the burden of proving the facts relied on to support its claim or defence’.
58 Ibid., Art. 24: ‘1. Each party shall have the burden of proving the facts relied on to support his claim or defence’.
59 Aynes, supra n. 39, at 6.
60 Frédéric G. Sourgens, Kabir Duggal & Ian A. Laird, Evidence in International Investment Arbitration 24 (OUP 2018); Mojtaba Kazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues – A Study on Evidence Before International Tribunals 221 et seq. (Kluwer Law international 1996). See also Metal-Tech Ltd v. Republic of Uzbekistan, supra n. 24, para. 237.
61 Aynes, supra n. 39, at 5.
62 Mathilde Frappier, Actualités de la Condition de Conformité de l’Investissement Étranger au Droit Interne de l’État Hôte, Paris J. Int’l Arb. 741, 749 (2019).
63 Uluc, supra n. 4, at 156. See e.g., Waguih Elie George Siag & Clorinda Vecchi v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/05/15, Award (1 Jun. 2009), para. 317; Jan Oostergetel & Theodora Laurentius v. Slovak Republic, supra n. 47, para. 148; The Rompetrol Group NV v. Romania, supra n. 56, para. 178; Apotex Holdings Inc. & Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, NAFTA/ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/12/ 1, Award (25 Aug. 2014) Part VIII, para. 8.8; Metal-Tech Ltd v. Republic of Uzbekistan, supra n. 24, para. 238; Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No ARB/ 11/12, Award (10 Dec. 2014), para. 299; Karkey Karadeniz Elektrik Uretim AS v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No ARB 13/1, Award (22 Aug. 2017), para. 497.
64 Menaker, supra n. 44, at 80–81; Duggal, supra n. 52, at 142; Anna Magdalena Kubalczyk, Evidentiary Rules in International Arbitration – A Comparative Analysis of Approaches and the Need for Regulation, 3 Groningen J. Int’l L. 85, 105 (2015). See e.g., Ioannis Kardassopoulos & Ron Fuchs v. Republic of Georgia, ICSID Case Nos ARB/05/18 and ARB/07/15, Award (3 Mar. 2010), para. 229; Bern von Pezold and others v. Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No ARB/10/15, Award (28 Jul. 2015), para. 177.
65 Hong-Lin, supra n. 50, at 80.
66 See e.g., Waguih Elie George Siag & Clorinda Vecchi v. Arab Republic of Egypt, supra n. 63, para. 326; EDF (Services) Ltd v. Romania, ICSID Case No Arb/05/13, Award (8 Oct. 2009), para. 64; Dadras International & Per-Am Construction Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran & Tehran Redevelopment Co., supra n. 56, paras 123–124.
67 See e.g., Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/02/18, Award (27 Jul. 2007); The Rompetrol Group NV v. Romania, supra n. 56, para. 181.
68 Cecily Rose, Questioning the Role of International Arbitration in the Fight Against Corruption, 31 J. Int’l Arb. 183, 193 (2014).
69 Aikaterini Florou, Adverse Inferences and Penalty Default Rules in International Investment Arbitration: A Policy Approach to the Production of Evidence, 10 J. Int’l Disp. Settlement 423, 424 (2019); Scherer, supra n. 10, at 31.
70 Duggal, supra n. 52, at 131; Albanesi & Jolivet, supra n. 2, at 31; Uluc, supra n. 4, at 181; Nathan D. O’Malley, Rules of Evidence in International Arbitration: An Annotated Guide 209–210 (Informa Law 2012).
71 See e.g., Karkey Karadeniz v. Pakistan, supra n. 63, paras 492–493; Waguih Elie George Siag & Clorinda Vecchi v. Arab Republic of Egypt, supra n. 63, para. 326; Unión Fenosa Gas SA v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/4, Award (31 Aug. 2018), para. 7.52.
72 Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi AS v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/ 29, Award (27 Aug. 2009), paras 142–143.
73 See e.g., Dadras International & Per-Am Construction Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran & Tehran Redevelopment Co., supra n. 56, paras 123–124; Waguih Elie George Siag & Clorinda Vecchi v. Arab Republic of Egypt, supra n. 63, para. 326; African Holding Co. of America, Inc. & Société Africaine de Construction au Congo SARL v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/21, Award on the Objections to Jurisdiction and Admissibility (29 Jul. 2008), para. 52.
74 Greenberg, supra n. 40, at 116.
75 Vibe Ulfbeck & Marie-Louise Holle, Tort Law and Burden of Proof – Comparative Aspects. A Special Case for Entreprise Liability?, in European Tort Law 2008 29 (H. Koziol & B. C. Steininger eds, Springer 2009).
76 Aimoré Carreteiro, supra n. 54, at 87.
77 Ibid., at 87–88.
78 Ibid., at 88. See also Michele Taruffo, Rethinking the Standards of Proof, 51 Am. J. Comp. L. 666 (2003).
79 Mark Schweizer, The Civil Standard of Proof – What Is It Actually?, 20 Int’l J. Evid. & Proof 217, 220 et seq. (2016); Bernard Hanotiau, Satisfying the Burden of Proof: The Viewpoint of a Civil Law Lawyer, 10 Arb. Int’l 341, 345–346 (1994); Kinsch, supra n. 43, at 458–463.
80 Sophie Cuykens, Damien Holzapfel & Laurent Kennes, La Preuve en Matière Pénale 25 (Larcier 2015). See also Swiss Criminal Procedure Code, Art. 10: ‘Where there is unsurmountable doubt as to whether the factual requirements of alleged offence have been fulfilled, the court shall proceed on the assumption that the circumstances more favourable to the accused occurred’.
81 Caprasse & Tecqmenne, supra n. 42, at 156–157.
82 Greenberg, supra n. 40, at 120.
83 See amongst others Haugeneder & Liebscher, supra n. 10, at 546; O’Malley, supra n. 70, at 208; Vera Han Houtte, Adverse Inferences in International Arbitration, in Written Evidence and Discovery in International Arbitration: New Issues and Tendencies 198 (T. Giovannini & A. Mourre eds, Dossiers ICC Institute of World Business Law 2009); Reiner, supra n. 46, at 335.
84 Hong-Lin, supra n. 50, at 80. In a similar vein, see also Duggal, supra n. 52, at 146; Caprasse & Tecqmenne, supra n. 42, at 156–157.
85 Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd v. Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration & Production Co. Ltd (‘Bapex’), Bangladesh Oil Gas & Mineral Corp. (‘Petrobangla’), supra n. 48, para. 805.
86 Gaillard, supra n. 9, at 4. See also Gaillard, supra n. 23, at 834–835.
87 See e.g., Cortec Mining Kenya Ltd, Cortec (Pty) Ltd & Stirling Capital Ltd v. Republic of Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/29, Award (22 Oct. 2018); Quiborax SA & Non Metallics Minerals SA v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2, Award (16 Sep. 2015); Churchill Mining PLC & Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case Nos ARB/12/14 and 12/40, Award (6 Dec. 2016); Methanex Corp. v. United States of America, UNCITRAL/Nafta Award (3 Aug. 2005); Jan Oostergetel & Theodora Laurentius v. Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL Ad hoc Award (13 Apr. 2012); Azurix Corp. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Award (14 Jul. 2006); Sistem Mühendislik Insaat Sanayi AS v. Kyrgyz Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/06/1, Award (9 Sep. 2009); Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Ltd v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/ 3, Award (20 May 1992); International Thunderbird Gaming Corp. v. United Mexican States, UNCITRAL/NAFTA Award (26 Jan. 2006), para. 150.
88 Bridgestone Licensing Services, Inc. & Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. Republic of Panama, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/34, Award (14 Aug. 2020).
89 ECE Projektmanagement International GmbH v. Kommanditgesellschaft Panta Achtundsechzigste Grundstücksgesellschaft mbH & Co. v. Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2010-5, Award (19 Sep. 2013).
90 Ibid., para. 4.879.
91 See in contrast, Metal-Tech Ltd v. Republic of Uzbekistan, supra n. 24, paras 237–238.
92 See also Waguih Elie George Siag & Clorinda Vecchi v. Arab Republic of Egypt, supra n. 63, para. 326; Vladislav Kim, Pavel Borissov, Aibar Burkitbayev, Almas Chukin, Lyazzat Daurenbekova, Adal Issabekov, Damir Karazzayev, Aidan Karibzhanov, Aigul Nurmakhanova, Kairat Omarov, Nikolay Varenko & Gulzhamash Zaitbekova v. Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/6, Decision on Jurisdiction (8 Mar. 2017), para. 545.
93 Republic of Croatia v. Mol Hungarian Oil & Gas Plc, PCA Case No. 2014-15, Award (23 Dec. 2016), paras 107–113.
94 See e.g., Tethyan Copper Company Pty Ltd v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/1, Decision on Respondent’s Application to Dismiss the Claims (with reasons) (10 Nov. 2017), paras 283–306; EDF (Services) Ltd v. Romania, supra n. 66, para. 221; Getma International, NCT Necotrans, Getma International Investissements, NCT Infrastructure & Logistique v. Republic of Guinea, supra n. 48, paras 181–184; Union Fenosa Gas SA v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/4, Award (31 Aug. 2018), para. 7.52; The Rompetrol Group NV v. Romania, supra n. 56, paras 181–183.
95 See e.g., Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines, supra n. 63, para. 479; Georg Gavrilovic & Gavrilovic DOO v. Republic of Croatia, supra n. 55, paras 233–398; Liman Caspian Oil BV & NCL Dutch Investment BV v. Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No ARB/07/14, Award (22 Jun. 2010), para. 422.
96 Sourgens, Duggal & Laird, supra n. 60, at 85.
97 See e.g., Oil Fields of Texas, Inc. v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran & National Iranian Oil Co., IUSCT Case No. 43, Award (8 Oct. 1986), para. 25; Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi AS v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, supra n. 72, paras 142–143.
98 African Holding Co. of America, Inc. & Société Africaine de Construction au Congo SARL v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, supra n. 73, para. 52.
99 Westinghouse International Projects Company, Westinghouse Electric SA, Westinghouse Electric Corp., & Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc. v. National Power Corp., Republic of Philippines, ICC Case No. 6401, Preliminary Award (19 Dec. 1991), para. 104; Westacre Investment Inc. v. Jugoimport-SDPR Holding Co. Ltd & ors, ICC Case No. 7047, Award (28 Feb. 1994); Dadras International & Per-Am Construction Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran & Tehran Redevelopment Co., supra n. 56, paras 123–124; Rumeli Telekom AS & Telsim Mobil Telekomikasyon Hizmetleri AS v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, Award (29 Jul. 2008), para. 709; Waguih Elie George Siag & Clorinda Vecchi v. Arab Republic of Egypt, supra n. 63, para. 326; EDF (Services) Ltd v. Romania, supra n. 66, para. 64; Liman Caspian Oil BV & NCL Dutch Investment BV v. Kazakhstan, supra n. 95, paras 422–424; Karkey Karadeniz v. Pakistan, supra n. 63, paras 492–493.
100 Sourgens, Duggal & Laird, supra n. 60, at 85.
101 Karkey Karadeniz v. Pakistan, supra n. 63, para. 492.
102 Lao Holdings NV v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic, supra n. 48, para. 110; Sanum Investments Ltd v. Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, supra n. 48, para. 108; EDF (Services) Ltd v. Romania, supra n. 66, para. 221; Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines, supra n. 63, para. 479; African Holding Co. of America, Inc. & Société Africaine de Construction au Congo SARL v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, supra n. 73, para. 52; Valeri Belokon v. Kyrgyz Republic, UNCITRAL Award (24 Oct. 2014), para. 148; Liman Caspian Oil BV & NCL Dutch Investment BV v. Kazakhstan, supra n. 95, paras 422–424; Rumeli Telekom AS & Telsim Mobil Telekomikasyon Hizmetleri AS v. Republic of Kazakhstan, supra n. 99, para. 709; Karkey Karadeniz v. Pakistan, supra n. 63, para. 492; Waguih Elie George Siag & Clorinda Vecchi v. Arab Republic of Egypt, supra n. 63, para. 326.
103 Union Fenosa Gas SA v. Arab Republic of Egypt, supra n. 94, para. 7.52; The Rompetrol Group NV v. Romania, supra n. 56, paras 181–183; Georg Gavrilovic & Gavrilovic DOO v. Republic of Croatia, supra n. 55, para. 398.
104 Glencore International AG & CI Prodeco SA v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/6, Award (27 Aug. 2019), para. 669.
105 Republic of Croatia v. Mol Hungarian Oil & Gas Plc, supra n. 93, para. 113; Tethyan Copper Co. Pty Ltd v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, supra n. 94, para. 402; Getma International, NCT Necotrans, Getma International Investissements, NCT Infrastructure & Logistique v. Republic of Guinea, supra n. 48, para. 184; Metal-Tech Ltd v. Republic of Uzbekistan, supra n. 24, para. 243.
106 Éric Teynier, L’Office de l’Arbitre d’Investissement: Le Cas Particulier de l’Investissement Illicite, Rev. Arb. 117, 165 (2017).
107 Paul Stothard & Lolan Sagoe-Moses, Proving Corruption Allegations in International Arbitration – A Return to the Balance of Probabilities Standard?, 15 Int’l Arb. Rep. 29, 30 (2020).
108 See e.g., Belgian Judiciary Code, Art. 1708.
109 Chevron Corp. & Texaco Petroleum Co. v. Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL Second Partial Award on Track II (30 Aug. 2018), para. 4.24.
110 Constantine Partasides, Proving Corruption in International Arbitration: A Balanced Standard for the Real World, 25 ICSID Rev. 47, 58 (2010).
111 Haugeneder & Liebscher, supra n. 10, at 556.
112 Lemaire, supra n. 11, at 191–192.
113 Llamzon, supra n. 1, at 201.
114 See also Waguih Elie George Siag & Clorinda Vecchi v. Arab Republic of Egypt, supra n. 66, Dissenting Opinion of Prof. Francisco Orrego Vicuña (of the Award) (11 May 2009).
115 Lao Holdings NV v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic, supra n. 48; Sanum Investments Ltd v. Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, supra n. 48.
116 Sanum Investments Ltd v. Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, supra n. 48, para. 158.
117 Ibid., para. 161.
118 Ibid., para. 177.
119 Diana A. A. Reisman, Apportioning Fault for Performance Corruption in Investment Arbitration, 37 Arb. Int’1 8 (2021).
120 Metal-Tech Ltd v. Republic of Uzbekistan, supra n. 24; World Duty Free Co. Ltd v. Republic of Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award (4 Oct. 2006); Spentex Netherlands BV v. Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/26, Award (27 Dec. 2016); Chevron Corp. & Texaco Petroleum Co. v. Republic of Ecuador, supra n. 109.
121 Metal-Tech Ltd v. Republic of Uzbekistan, supra n. 24, paras 239–243. See also World Duty Free Co. Ltd v. Republic of Kenya, supra n. 120.
122 In investment arbitration, see e.g., Metal-Tech Ltd v. Republic of Uzbekistan, supra n. 24, para. 243; Spentex Netherlands BV v. Republic of Uzbekistan, supra n. 120; Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines, supra n. 63, para. 497. In commercial arbitration, see e.g., ICC Case Nos 3916, 6497, 8891, 12990, 15908. In national jurisprudence, see e.g., Customs and Tax Consultancy LLC v. République Démocratique du Congo, CA Paris, 16 May 2017, Rev. Arb. 248 (2018), and note by Jean-Baptiste Racine; Valeri Belokon v. Kyrgyz Republic, supra n. 17, and note by M. Audit; Alstom Transports, supra n. 17, and note by Emmanuel Gaillard; Airbus Helicopters SAS, CA Paris, 15 Sep. 2020, Rev. Arb. 1084 (2020), and note by Andrea Pinna. See also Gaillard, supra n. 23, at 877–883.
123 Gaillard, supra n. 9, at 4.
124 Garaud, supra n. 10, at 185; Scherer, supra n. 10, at 31.
125 Methanex Corp. v. United States of America, supra n. 87, Part III, Ch. B, para. 3.
126 See e.g., United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (1977) as well as the Woolf Committee report entitled ‘Business Ethics, Global Companies and the Defence Industry’.
127 Basel Institute on Governance, Corruption and Money Laundering in International Arbitration – A Toolkit for Arbitrators (Basel 2019).
128 Teynier, supra n. 106, at 160.
129 Glencore International AG & CI Prodeco SA v. Republic of Colombia, supra n. 104, para. 673.
130 Ibid., para. 674.
131 See also Methanex Corp. v. United States of America, supra n. 87; ECE Projektmanagement v. Czech Republic, supra n. 89, para. 4.885.
132 Tethyan Copper Co. Pty Ltd v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, supra n. 94, para. 394.
133 Teynier, supra n. 106, at 160–161; Frappier, supra n. 62, at 750. See e.g., Karkey Karadeniz v. Pakistan, supra n. 63, paras 550–551; Republic of Croatia v. Mol Hungarian Oil & Gas Plc, supra n. 93, para. 138.
134 Sanum Investments Ltd v. Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, supra n. 48, para. 111.
135 Ibid., para. 158.
136 See in particular, Vladislav Kim & ors v. Republic of Uzbekistan, supra n. 92, para. 575; Wena Hotels Ltd v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4, Award (8 Dec. 2000), paras 111–116; Glencore International AG & CI Prodeco SA v. Republic of Colombia, supra n. 104, para. 738.
137 Republic of Congo v. Commisimpex, CA Paris, 14 Oct. 2014, 13/03410.
138 Niko Resources v. Bangladesh, supra n. 48, Decision on Jurisdiction (19 Aug. 2013), para. 425.
139 Getma International, NCT Necotrans, Getma International Investissements, NCT Infrastructure & Logistique v. Republic of Guinea, supra n. 48, paras 224–225.
140 Marie Stoyanov, Werner Eyskens, Valentin Bourgeois & Michaël Fernandez-Bertier, Procedural Interplay Between Investment Arbitration and Criminal Proceedings in the Context of Corruption Allegations, b-Arbitra 7, 16–17 (2018).
141 Teynier, supra n. 106, at 149–150; Brody Greenwald, The Viability of Corruption Defenses in Investment Arbitration When the State Does not Prosecute, EJILTalk (15 Apr. 2015), www.ejiltalk.org/the-viability of-corruption-defenses-in-investment-arbitration-when-the-state-does-not-prosecute/.
