Compliance and Enforcement of Awards: Is
There Really a Practical Difference between
ICSID and Ad Hoc Arbitration?
MR. VASANI: Ian, thank you. Good afternoon everybody. Freya
Baetens was unfortunately unable to make it today, so Todd Weiler is
filling in as her faithful understudy. Our panel is tasked with discussing
the rather knotty question: Compliance and enforcement of ICSID awards:
Is there really a difference between ICSID and ad hoc arbitration?
That question raises issues that range from the ICSID annulment
mechanism to the perception of ICSID arbitration by certain states, to the
fundamental question of whether ICSID arbitration is any longer the
"preferred method" of resolving investor-State disputes.
Our two authors have provided thoughtful, and having read the
papers, at times provocative contribution to these questions that are likely
to lead to very lively debates.
Let me introduce our speakers: Our first author is Sylvia Tonova.
Sylvia is an attorney in Washington, D.C. at the office of White & Case and
practices with the international arbitration and litigation groups. She
concentrates her practice on the representation of sovereign states and
private clients in investment treaty and commercial arbitrations. Our
second author, who could not be here, Freya Baetens, has rather
dangerously asked Todd to present her paper on her behalf.
MR. VASANI: Freya is an Assistant Professor of public international
law at Leiden University. She’s an Executive Board member of the Society
of International Economic Law and Fellow of the Center for International
Sustainable Development Law.
Our panelists really need no introduction and will be known to most
of you. To my immediate left is Margrete Stevens. She’s a consultant in
King & Spalding’s office in Washington, D.C. working on investment
treaty claims for the firm’s leading international arbitration group. As you
all know, prior to joining King & Spalding, she worked for nearly 20 years
at ICSID, where she served primarily as senior counsel.