INTERNATIONALARBITRATIONAND LATIN AMERICAbyLuis M. O’NaghtenA kerman & MackrellInternational Latin A merican Bus ines s In...
WHY INTERNATIONAL      ARBITRATION?"In the transnational environment, international arbitration is theonly game. It is a d...
Why International        Arbitration?• A tale of 2 horror stories• The Chevron and Dole cases
Chevrons EcuadorianEnvironmental Contamination Case•   Chevron purchases Texaco in 2001 (including    Ecuadorian affiliate...
Osorio v. Dole Food Company• Oct. 20, 2009 S. Dist. Fla. Federal court  refused to enforce a $97 million dollar  award aga...
Use Of International        ArbitrationDisadvantages       Not comfortable with                     foreign law, courts a...
Use Of International        Arbitration• Perceptions of international  arbitration*    International arbitration is the  ...
Use of International      Arbitration      73% of in-house counsel preferarbitration to resolve cross-border disputes   * ...
Use Of International                Arbitration•   73% of in-house prefer arbitration to    resolve cross-border disputes*...
Use Of International        Arbitration   Ease of enforcement    of arbitral awards                             Advantage...
Use Of International          Arbitration• Perceived disadvantages to international  arbitration     Cost     Length of ...
Use Of International           Arbitration• Success of international arbitration*     25% of cases resolved prior to fina...
Use of International               Arbitration• Statistics show increase use of  international arbitration*     In 1992 t...
Use Of International    Arbitration US alienage contract cases             vs.  international arbitrations
Use Of International        ArbitrationICC Cases• Case load doubled from 1992 (337 cases)  to 2008 (663 cases)
Use Of International               ArbitrationICDR Cases• 1999 cases 453• 2008 cases 703 (55%  increase)/ 81  mediations 8...
ARBITRATION INLATIN AMERICA
Historical Policy      Toward Arbitration• Calvo Doctrine Summarized  –National law governs the rights of   foreign invest...
Historical Policy         Toward Arbitration• Calvo Doctrine Restated  “The foreign investor [under ICSID], by virtue of t...
Evolution of Latin American          Arbitration                     1930                  1960s-1970sLate 1800s          ...
Compendium of Latin American Arbitration LawCountry       New York      Panama       Arbitration    Washington            ...
ICC ARBITRATION     TRENDS
ICC ArbitrationsLatin American Parties
ICC Arbitrations Latin American Parties14                                 12.1%                                           ...
ICC Arbitrations             Latin American Parties250                                                    203 200         ...
ICC Arbitration Venues          Latin AmericaVenue       Legal considerations are most important       Logistical consid...
International Arbitration in      Latin America•   Arbitration Venues•   ICC countries - 2007
Advocacy in International          Arbitration•   Arbitration Venues•   ICC cities - 2007
ICC ArbitrationsPlace of Arbitrations in Latin America 10                             8.3%  8                             ...
ICC Latin American VenuesCountry     2004   2005   2006   2007   2008Argentina    11     4      3      5      1Bolivia    ...
ICSID Cases Against               Latin American StatesIncrease in ICSID Cases Against Latin American States    TOTAL CASE...
ICSID Cases Against Latin             American States% of ICSID/ICSID(AF) Cases Against Latin American States             ...
Survey of Arbitration in Latin                AmericaARBITRATION LAW                  Argentina              1967, ‘81TREA...
Survey of Arbitration in Latin                    America                      BoliviaARBITRATION LAW                     ...
Survey of Arbitration in Latin                America                      BrazilARBITRATION LAW                          ...
Survey of Arbitration in Latin                America                       ChileARBITRATION LAW                          ...
Survey of Arbitration in Latin                 America                     ColombiaARBITRATION LAW                        ...
Survey of Arbitration in Latin                America                     EcuadorARBITRATION LAW                          ...
Survey of Arbitration in Latin                America                       PerúARBITRATION LAW      ADOPTED              ...
Survey of Arbitration in Latin                 America                  VenezuelaARBITRATION LAW      ADOPTED             ...
Luis M. O’NaghtenShareholder, Akerman SenterfittMiami Global Practice GroupPractice Area: International complex commercial...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

International Arbitration and Latin America (by L.O\'Naghten 2011)

413 views
327 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
413
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
11
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Sin dar una lección en historia, mencionare’ bravamente varios de estos elementos influyentes. La reputación de Latinoamérica como “contra arbitraje” esta basada en gran parte en La Doctrina Calvo, emanada por el Jurista Argentino - Carlos Calvo. Un doctrino de derecho publico internacional, Desarrollada en respuesta a inquietudes de soberanía y imperialismo Principio en tanto se relaciona a arbitraje internacional: 1. Los extranjeros no pueden reclamar o disfrutar de derechos, trato o protecciones superiores a los nacionales 2. Limitaba resoluci ón de disputas a las leyes y jurisdicción del Estado anfitri ón CLICK Brincando a los 1930s, una crisis global económica, impacto en el comercio internacional severamente, Resultando en Póliticas económicas proteccionistas Y Aislacionismo político y económico No sorprendentemente, fue un tiempo de poca inversión extranjera CLICK La panorámica internacional política cambio en los 40s y 50s  notablemente, las naciones unidas se formo – y de ahí salieron varios esfuerzos “internacionales” políticos y económicos. Reconociendo las fuerzas de comercio internacional, se formo la Convención de Nueva York en 1958, a la cual ____ países latinoamericanos participo dentro de 3 anos 1970s: Proteccionismo Proteccionismo económico – La teoría del tiempo era sustituir la dependencia en las importaciones con industrias nacionales [STATE SUBSIDIZED INDUSRIES?] inversión extranjera comparativamente baja 1976: Características esenciales de la Convención de Panamá Acuerdo regional Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA) Moldeado en base a la Convención de Nueva York sobre ejecuci ón de laudos arbítrales Ante la falta de selección por las partes, se aplican las Reglas de la Comisión Interamericana de Arbitraje Comercial (CIAC - basadas en UNCITRAL/CNUDMI) 1970s y 80s: Abandono de la doctrina Calvo Debilidad relativa económica y política Oposición estadounidense a la doctrina Calvo; interés en zonas de libre comercio en las Américas 1990s: Teorías económicas neo-liberales Aceleración de la globalización Acuerdos bilaterales de inversión Lla en Incorporación de México al NAFTA, aumento de acuerdos multilaterales de inversión, acuerdos bilaterales de inversión --- > LOS NÚMEROS HABLAN POR ELLOS MISMOS
  • International Arbitration and Latin America (by L.O\'Naghten 2011)

    1. 1. INTERNATIONALARBITRATIONAND LATIN AMERICAbyLuis M. O’NaghtenA kerman & MackrellInternational Latin A merican Bus ines s InitiativeMiami, Florida March 22-23
    2. 2. WHY INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION?"In the transnational environment, international arbitration is theonly game. It is a de facto monopoly. … So the reason I insist thatinternational arbitration is not arbitration is that we can live withoutarbitration. Countries A, B, and C may take different views –encourage, discourage, or even outlaw arbitration – but ifinternational arbitration goes, international economic exchange willsuffer immensely." ~Jan Paulsson, "International Arbitration is not Arbitration," Stockholm International Arbitration Review, 2008:2
    3. 3. Why International Arbitration?• A tale of 2 horror stories• The Chevron and Dole cases
    4. 4. Chevrons EcuadorianEnvironmental Contamination Case• Chevron purchases Texaco in 2001 (including Ecuadorian affiliate Texpet)• Texpet accused of causing environmental damage to rain forest (1966-1992)• Texpet and Ecuador reached a 1995 settlement (assumption of responsibility by Petroecuador)• Texpet sued in NY federal court 1993• Case dismissed case in 1996: forum non conviniens• Plaintiffs in 2003 re-filed in Ecuador and Chevron now faces a $27 Billion adverse judgment• Chevron filed an arbitration against Ecuador in the Permanent Court of Arbitration alleging denial of justice claim
    5. 5. Osorio v. Dole Food Company• Oct. 20, 2009 S. Dist. Fla. Federal court refused to enforce a $97 million dollar award against Dole ($647K per person)• 150 Nicaraguans sued for having been exposed to a pesticide (DBCP) b/w 1970-1982• Nicaraguan court awarded judgment based on "Special Law 364" enacted in 2000 to handle the DBCP• Plaintiffs sought enforcement in Florida• Court ruled: "the judgment in this case did not arise out of proceedings that comported with the international concept of due process."
    6. 6. Use Of International ArbitrationDisadvantages  Not comfortable with foreign law, courts and to lack of understanding of foreign procedure international  Difficulty in recognizing litigation judicial awards  Perception that foreign courts may be corrupt  Not wanting to deal with foreign language  Lack of confidentiality  Too much time  Too expensive
    7. 7. Use Of International Arbitration• Perceptions of international arbitration*  International arbitration is the preferred mechanism of dispute resolution for cross border disputes  International arbitration is effective  Enforcement procedures work * International Arbitration: Corporate Attitudes and practice, Study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers and the School of International Arbitration, Queen Mary, University of London, 2006 and 2008
    8. 8. Use of International Arbitration 73% of in-house counsel preferarbitration to resolve cross-border disputes * International Arbitration: Corporate Attitudes and Practice, Study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers and the School of International Arbitration, Queen Mary, University of London, 2006 and 2008
    9. 9. Use Of International Arbitration• 73% of in-house prefer arbitration to resolve cross-border disputes*  95% of in-house counsel insert some type of dispute resolution clause to resolve cross border disputes  62% insist on arbitral clauses  48% use standard arbitration clauses and 43% tailor the clause to the individual contract  88% satisfied with international arbitration * International Arbitration: Corporate Attitudes and Practice, Study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers and the School of International Arbitration, Queen Mary, University of London, 2006 and 2008
    10. 10. Use Of International Arbitration Ease of enforcement of arbitral awards Advantages to (New York Convention) international Neutrality of arbitral arbitration tribunals Flexibility Depth of expertise of arbitrators Privacy and confidentiality Finality
    11. 11. Use Of International Arbitration• Perceived disadvantages to international arbitration  Cost  Length of time of proceedings  Possibility of intervention by national courts into the arbitral process  Inability to compel third parties to join arbitral proceeding
    12. 12. Use Of International Arbitration• Success of international arbitration*  25% of cases resolved prior to final hearing; plus 7% resolved by settlement and consent decree  49% of cases resolved with voluntary compliance of arbitral award (76% of arbitral proceedings, non-prevailing party voluntarily complied with award)  11% of cases result in recognition and enforcement proceeding  8% resolved by settlement followed by litigation * International Arbitration: Corporate Attitudes and Practice, Study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers and the School of International Arbitration, Queen Mary, University of London, 2008
    13. 13. Use of International Arbitration• Statistics show increase use of international arbitration*  In 1992 there were 809 more US alienage contract cases than international arbitrations  In 2005, this was reversed: 1,749 more international arbitrations than US alienage contract cases*Christopher A. Whytock, "The Arbitration-Litigation relationship in Transnational Dispute Resolution: Empirical Insights from the US Federal Courts," in World Arbitration & Mediation Review (Vol. 2, No. 5) (2008)
    14. 14. Use Of International Arbitration US alienage contract cases vs. international arbitrations
    15. 15. Use Of International ArbitrationICC Cases• Case load doubled from 1992 (337 cases) to 2008 (663 cases)
    16. 16. Use Of International ArbitrationICDR Cases• 1999 cases 453• 2008 cases 703 (55% increase)/ 81 mediations 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 0 07 9 1 2 5 8 0 3 6
    17. 17. ARBITRATION INLATIN AMERICA
    18. 18. Historical Policy Toward Arbitration• Calvo Doctrine Summarized –National law governs the rights of foreign investors. –A host state for foreign investors is not required to confer any international standard of treatment. –Foreign investors should seek relief through local courts alone (i.e., not through diplomatic protection).
    19. 19. Historical Policy Toward Arbitration• Calvo Doctrine Restated “The foreign investor [under ICSID], by virtue of the fact that he is a foreigner, [is given] the right to sue a sovereign state outside its national territory, dispensing with the courts of law. This provision is contrary to the accepted principles of our countries [in Latin America] and, de facto, would confer a privilege on the foreign investor, placing the nationals of the country concerned in a position of inferiority.” ~ Chilean Governor to the World Bank, Tokyo, 1964
    20. 20. Evolution of Latin American Arbitration 1930 1960s-1970sLate 1800s Global Protectionism 1975-2000Calvo Doctrine Economic Demise of Crisis Calvo Doctrine 1990s Free Market Policies/BITs 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2010 Return of 1958 1976 Calvo? New York Convention Panama Convention
    21. 21. Compendium of Latin American Arbitration LawCountry New York Panama Arbitration Washington BITs FTAs Convention Convention Laws ConventionARGENTINA 1989 1994 1967/81 1994 55 0BOLIVIA 1995 1998 1997 1995 (07) 20 1BRAZIL 2002 1995 1996 NO 0 0CHILE 1975 1976 2004 1991 39 11COLOMBIA 1979 1986 1989/96/98 1997 2 1COSTA RICA 1987 1978 1998 1993 14 5DOMINICANREP. 2002 NO 2008 NO 9 3ECUADOR 1962 1991 1997 1986 (09) 25/17 0EL SALVADOR 1998 1980 1989/93 1984 20 6GUATEMALA 1984 1986 1995 2003 13 4HONDURAS 2001 1979 2000 1989 9 5MÉXICO 1971 1978 1993 NO 24 12NICARAGUA 2003 NO 2005 1995 16 4PANAMA 1985 1976 1999/2006 1996 17 4PARAGUAY 1998 1997 2002 1983 27 0PERU 1988 1989 2008 1993 30 2URUGUAY 1988 1989 1988 1993 26 1VENEZUELA 1995 1985 1998 1995 23 0 Compendium of Latin American Arbitration Law © 2009
    22. 22. ICC ARBITRATION TRENDS
    23. 23. ICC ArbitrationsLatin American Parties
    24. 24. ICC Arbitrations Latin American Parties14 12.1% 12.6% 12.4% 11.4% 12%12 9.8% 10.8% 11% 9.2%10 8.7% 8 6 4 2 0 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 Percentage
    25. 25. ICC Arbitrations Latin American Parties250 203 200 192 192200 175 185 170 137150 132 121 Latin American Parties in ICC100 Arbitrations50 0 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007
    26. 26. ICC Arbitration Venues Latin AmericaVenue  Legal considerations are most important  Logistical considerations must be considered
    27. 27. International Arbitration in Latin America• Arbitration Venues• ICC countries - 2007
    28. 28. Advocacy in International Arbitration• Arbitration Venues• ICC cities - 2007
    29. 29. ICC ArbitrationsPlace of Arbitrations in Latin America 10 8.3% 8 6.3% 6.3% 5.5% 6 4.6% 4.5% 3.5% 4 2.8% 2 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Percentage
    30. 30. ICC Latin American VenuesCountry 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Argentina 11 4 3 5 1Bolivia 1 0 0 0 0Brazil 10 1 14 14 8Chile 1 0 1 4 4Colombia 1 1 0 0 0Cuba 0 0 0 1 0Guatemala 0 1 0 0 0Mexico 10 10 11 8 9Panama 0 0 0 0 1Peru 0 0 0 0 1Uruguay 1 2 0 0 4Venezuela 1 0 0 0 0
    31. 31. ICSID Cases Against Latin American StatesIncrease in ICSID Cases Against Latin American States TOTAL CASES FILED EACH YEAR (EXCLUDING THE CARIBBEAN) 35 31 30 27 27 25 19 20 14 15 11 10 12 10 21 15 5 5 7 10 5 4 4 5 2 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (Partial) Total ICSID Cases ICSID Latin American Parties
    32. 32. ICSID Cases Against Latin American States% of ICSID/ICSID(AF) Cases Against Latin American States 19% 58% 39% 42% 61% 81% 58% 19% 39% PENDING CASES CONCLUDED CASES ALL CASESTOTAL 103 101 204LATINAMERICAN 60 20 80STATES
    33. 33. Survey of Arbitration in Latin AmericaARBITRATION LAW Argentina 1967, ‘81TREATIES NY CONVENTION 1989 PANAMA 1994 CONVENTION ICSID CONVENTION 1994BITs 55 IN FORCEFTAs/MITs MERCOSUR 0ICC CASES PER YEAR 2000 12 2004 30 2008 17ICSID CASES PENDING 36 CONCLUDED 6
    34. 34. Survey of Arbitration in Latin America BoliviaARBITRATION LAW 1997TREATIES NY CONVENTION 1995 PANAMA CONVENTION 1998 ICSID CONVENTION 1995 (07)BITs 20 IN FORCEFTAs/MITs ANDEAN COMMUNITY 1ICC CASES PER YEAR 2000 2 2004 1 2008 0ICSID CASES PENDING 2 CONCLUDED 0
    35. 35. Survey of Arbitration in Latin America BrazilARBITRATION LAW 1996TREATIES NY CONVENTION 2002 PANAMA CONVENTION 1995 ICSID CONVENTION NOBITs 0 IN FORCEFTAs/MITs MERCOSUR 0ICC CASES PER YEAR 2000 10 2004 30 2008 49ICSID CASES PENDING 0 CONCLUDED 0
    36. 36. Survey of Arbitration in Latin America ChileARBITRATION LAW 2004TREATIES NY CONVENTION 1975 PANAMA CONVENTION 1976 ICSID CONVENTION 1991BITs 39 IN FORCEFTAs/MITs US-CHILE FTA, CH-EU, CH- 11 EFTAICC CASES PER YEAR 2000 5 2004 8 2008 5ICSID CASES PENDING 3 CONCLUDED 0
    37. 37. Survey of Arbitration in Latin America ColombiaARBITRATION LAW 1989, ’96, ’98TREATIES NY CONVENTION 1979 PANAMA CONVENTION 1986 ICSID CONVENTION 1997BITs 2 IN FORCEMITs ANDEAN COMMUNITY, GROUP OF 3 1ICC CASES PER YEAR 2000 3 2004 8 2008 2ICSID CASES PENDING 0 CONCLUDED 0
    38. 38. Survey of Arbitration in Latin America EcuadorARBITRATION LAW 1997TREATIES NY CONVENTION 1962 PANAMA CONVENTION 1991 ICSID CONVENTION 1986 (09)BITs 17 IN FORCEFTAs/MITs ANDEAN COMMUNITY 0ICC CASES PER YEAR 2000 4 2004 0 2008 2ICSID CASES PENDING 5 CONCLUDED 1
    39. 39. Survey of Arbitration in Latin America PerúARBITRATION LAW ADOPTED 1996TREATIES NY CONVENTION 1988 PANAMA CONVENTION 1989 ICSID CONVENTION 1993BITs 30 IN FORCEFTAs/MITs US-PERU FTA, ANDEAN COMMUNITY 2ICC CASES PER YEAR 2000 2 2004 2 2008 2ICSID CASES PENDING 2 CONCLUDED 1
    40. 40. Survey of Arbitration in Latin America VenezuelaARBITRATION LAW ADOPTED 1998TREATIES NY CONVENTION 1995 PANAMA CONVENTION 1985 ICSID CONVENTION 1995BITs 23 IN FORCEFTAs/MITs ANDEAN COM. (w/drew), GROUP OF 3, MERCOSUR 0ICC CASES PER YEAR 2000 9 2004 3 2008 2ICSID CASES PENDING 3 CONCLUDED 3
    41. 41. Luis M. O’NaghtenShareholder, Akerman SenterfittMiami Global Practice GroupPractice Area: International complex commercial litigation andarbitration before United States courts and international arbitrationpanels (under ICC, AAA/ICDR, and UNCITRAL rules); handles a widerange of disputes in several countries in Latin America and Spain;focus on international financial frauds, energy disputes, corporatedisputes; fluent in Spanish; 20+ years in fieldClients: Foreign sovereigns; parties adverse to foreign sovereigns;major international banks; US based and foreign multinationalcorporations; US energy companiesProfessional affiliations: ICC Commission on Arbitration; ICCTask Force on Revision of Rules; USCIB Arbitration Florida Sub-CommitteeEducation: Georgetown University; Columbia Law SchoolContact: luis.onaghten@akerman.com or at 305.982.5687

    ×