English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

A recent international arbitration case involving a Turkish construction firm highlighted the dangers of making claims under international investment treaties; however this is not the only case. This article analyzes three similar international arbitrations involving construction contracts that implicate the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). These contractors are entities who may have suffered, or who may be suffering, at the hands of a governmental entity under their international contracts and who are looking for a remedy under public international investment treaty law beyond their contractual dispute clauses (which may be less than satisfactory). The aspirations of these contractors for treaty redress may now have been curtailed as a result of these three cases. The cases also reveal a new trend in the applicability (or rather lack of applicability) of public international investorstate arbitration law to construction projects, particularly pure construction projects, as compared to construction concession agreements. The outcomes in these cases stand as a warning to all international contractors that they need to exercise extreme caution before they venture into making international public law investment treaty claims, because investment treaties will not provide protection from contractual matters, one of the prime defenses by the nation* Mr. Alcitepe is a Turkish national who practices international dispute resolution law as Counsel at Howrey LLP in Washington D.C. ** Mr. McHugh is Counsel at Pİllsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP İn Washington t).C., also advising clients on international dispute matters. Mr. Christian Henel, an associate at Howrey LLP, also contributed to this article. ' From the movie ^The Wizard of Oz" (1939). 84 Ankara Law Review Vol. 6 No. 2 State to construction claims. By a showing that the contractor is on time, that changes are the owner's responsibility, that these changes impacted the critical path, and that there was no reasonable probability that the contractor could be considered in default, the contractor '5 is in a position to show that the actions of the state entity were not contractually motivated but were in fact treaty violations.

BAYINDIR V. PAKISTAN AND THE DECLINE AND FALL OF INVESTMENT TREATY CLAIMS ON INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS