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

In some recent investment arbitration cases, tribunals have been presented with facts that suggest that foreign investors and public officials in the host state have engaged in corrupt practices. In its analysis of the extension of the anti-corruption campaign to investment arbitration, this article examines the legal measures adopted to combat corruption before investor-state arbitral tribunals in light of a study of World Duty Free Co. Ltd. v. The Republic of Kenya. An examination of the background to the World Duty Free v. Kenya dispute, the broader circumstances that surrounded the dispute, and Kenyas political climate that was not within the tribunals purview, demonstrate that investment arbitration tribunals are not sufficiently equipped to exhaustively tackle corruption. Given the intricate political and public nature of corruption, responses to foreign investment-related corruption also have to be multi-faceted.

International Investment Arbitration and Corruption Claims: An Analysis of World Duty Free v. Kenya