Glencore I: Adopting Stabilization Clauses in Investment Contracts and Seeking Non-Pecuniary Remedies in Investment Arbitration Still Makes Sense Glencore International A.G. and C.I. Prodeco S.A. v. Republic of Colombia (ICSID, Case No. ARB/16/6)

Authors

Gilberto A. Guerrero-Rocca, Florida International University College of Law

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2020

Excerpt

The final award rendered in Glencore International A.G. and C.I. Prodeco S.A. v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID case No. ARB/16/6 on August 25, 2019 (hereinafter the “Award” or “Glencore I”), highlights the practical relevance of analyzing treaty-based arbitration claims using a broader lens. In fact, the factual context in Glencore I may lead practitioners and stakeholders to revisit the adoption of stabilization clauses in investment contracts in the “era of BITs,” and could encourage arbitral tribunals to acknowledge the legitimacy of granting non-pecuniary remedies (including specific performance) in cases where investors are targeted simultaneously by many branches and agencies of the host State.

Recommended Citation

Gilberto A. Guerrero-Rocca, Glencore I: Adopting Stabilization Clauses in Investment Contracts and Seeking Non-Pecuniary Remedies in Investment Arbitration Still Makes Sense Glencore International A.G. and C.I. Prodeco S.A. v. Republic of Colombia (ICSID, Case No. ARB/16/6), in CASTELEIRO, Andrés Delgado; ESIS, Ivette. Revisión de laudos de arbitrajes de inversión 2019: I Encuentro anual (Santiago de Chile, 25/06/2020). Revista de Direito Internacional, Brasília, v. 17, n. 2, 2020.