Critically analyse the concept of fair and equitable treatment in Essay - 1

Critically analyse the concept of fair and equitable treatment in investment treaties, taking into account recent investment - Essay Example CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Republic of Argentina, Violation of FET provisions, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8 (Adopted May 25 2005). Eureko B.V. v. Republic of Poland Eureko B.V. v. Republic of Poland, violation of FET provisions, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/17, (Adopted August 19 2005). Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, violation of FET principles, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13) (Decision on Jurisdiction, June 16, 2006). LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp., LG&E International Inc. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/. 02/1, Emphasis on the obligation of transparency (Decision on Liability, Oct 3, 2006). Loewen Group, Inc. and Raymond L. Loewen v. United States of America, violation of FET provisions, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/98/3, (Awarded on Award of June 26, 2003). Metalpar S.A. and Buen Aire S.A. v. Republic of Argentina, violation of FET provisions, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/5, (Awarded on April 27, 2006). MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, violation of FET provisions, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27, (Awarded on Mar 21, 2007). Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Republic of Lithuania, violation of FET provisions, ICSID Arbitration Case No. ARB/05/8, (Awarded on September 11, 2007). PSEG Global Inc. and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Uretim v. Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Republic of Turkey, obligation on transparency on FET provisions, ICSID Case No. ... v. United Mexican States, rule of law under FET provisions, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/3, (Awarded on June 2, 2007). NAFTA –UNCITRAL Cases Alex Genin, Eastern Credit Limited, Inc. and A.S. Baltoil v. Republic of Estonia, violation of FET provisions, Case No. ARB/99/2, (Awarded on June 25, 2001). S.D. Myers, Inc. v. The Government of Canada, Chapter 11-NAFTA ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL/ UNCITRAL RULES, (Awarded on November 26, 2002). UNCITRAL (UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW GAMI Investments, Inc. v. The United Mexican States, UNCITRAL, (Final Award November 12, 2004). International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v The United Mexican States, violation of FET principles ,UNICITRAL ( NAFTA), ( Final Award January 26,2006). Occidental Exploration and Production Co. v. Republic of Ecuador, violation of FET provisions, UN 3467, (Final Award July 1, 2004). Pope & Talbot v. Canada, violation of FET provisions, UNCITRAL (NAFTA) (Award on Merits of Phase 2 of April 10, 2001). Ronald S. Lauder v. Czech Republic, violation of FET provisions, UNCITRAL, (Final Award of 3 September 2001). Saluka Investments BV v. The Czech Republic, violation of FET Provisions, UNCITRAL Rules; IIC 211 (2006); 4P 116/2006 (Award on September 7, 2006). INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (ICJ) Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (US v. Italy), violation of FET provisions, ICJ Rep.15, 94-95, 28, ILM 1109 (1989), (Final Award n July 20, 1989). List of Treaties and Conventions â€Å"Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).† (Adopted 1995 entered into force 1997). â€Å"North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)† (Entered in to force from 1 January 1994). Abs /Shawcross Draft of 1967 (adopted 1959 entered into