Palavras-chave
Foreign Awards
Arbitration
Indian Judiciary
Investments
Como Citar
Resumo
Com o aumento das transações transnacionais, os Estados-nação ganharam investimentos estrangeiros que auxiliaram no crescimento da economia nacional. Os tratados de investimento tornaram-se populares para facilitar o mecanismo de investimento entre um investidor estrangeiro e o estado anfitrião. O regime de investimento enfrentou muitas reviravoltas, mas ainda provou resistir ao teste do tempo. Os Tratados Bilaterais são um instrumento popular em que as partes optam por realizar investimentos em jurisdições estrangeiras. Desnecessário dizer que o regime complexo deu origem a uma série de disputas e questões. O próprio BIT prevê um mecanismo de resolução de disputas na forma de arbitragem de investimento. A importância da arbitragem reside na legalidade da execução de sua sentença. As atuais políticas indianas e a abordagem judicial são incertas e indeterminadas com relação à posição da Índia sobre a execução de decisões arbitrais de investimento. Não houve precisão ou coerência na política de cumprimento de sentenças. O judiciário indiano acrescentou mais combustível ao reino vago, dando pronunciamentos contraditórios. A abordagem oscilante do judiciário de pró-arbitragem para anti-arbitragem cria problemas para investidores estrangeiros e pode impactar a economia da Índia. Os pesquisadores ramificaram o artigo em capítulos e subcapítulos. Inicialmente, o trabalho apresentou a evolução do Regime de Tratados Bilaterais de Investimento da Índia. A segunda parte do artigo enumera as políticas indianas existentes e mede a adequação da estrutura regulatória indiana para lidar com a execução de sentenças arbitrais de investimento. Em seguida vem a maior parte da pesquisa que é de natureza analítica e exibe a abordagem oscilante do judiciário indiano sobre a questão em questão. Nesta parte, o pesquisador procura colmatar lacunas no regime de execução de adjudicação de investimentos. Por fim, são sugeridas medidas de combate para mitigar as armadilhas na execução de prêmios de investimento.
Referências
Aatreya, S. S. (2019). Can Investment Arbitral Awards be Enforced in India? -. Kluwer Arbitration Blog. https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/04/04/can-investment-arbitral-awards-be-enforced-in-india/
Abhisar Vidyarthi. (2020). Revisiting India’s Position to Not Join the ICSID Convention. Kluwer Arbitration Blog. https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/08/02/revisiting-indias-position-to-not-join-the-icsid-convention/
Anand, P. (2020). Vodafone v. India – End of a Saga? The Wire. https://thewire.in/business/vodafone-india-end-of-a-saga-investment-treaty-arbitration
Anti-arbitration injunction... - New York Convention Guide 1958. (n.d.). Retrieved January 13, 2023, from https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5149&opac_view=6
Arora, M. (2020). Indian Supreme Court Strikes Down Automatic Stay Provisions for Good. Kluwer Arbitration Blog. https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/02/15/indian-supreme-court-strikes-down-automatic-stay-provisions-for-good/
Baxi, D., Dubey, R., & Sidana, S. (2020). BIT arbitration awards: Enforcement regime in India. Bar and Bench. https://ijiel.in/blog/f/bit-arbitration-awards-enforcement-regime-in-india
Board of Trustees of the Port of Kolkata v. Louis Dreyfus Armatures SAS, 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 17695.
Bhushan, S. (2011). Bit Arbitration in India: Exploring Applicability of the 1996 Act and Enforcement of Resultant Arbitral Awards. Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, 4(2). http://articies.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-10-
Capital India Power Mauritius I and Energy Enterprises (Mauritius) Company v. India, ICC Case No 12913/MS, IIC 43 (2005).
Choudhary, A. G. & A. (2020). Enforcement of Bilateral Investment Treaty Arbitral Awards in India: A Quandary. NUALS Law Journal. https://nualslawjournal.com/2020/12/21/enforcement-of-bilateral-investment-treaty-arbitral-awards-in-india-a-quandary/
Desai, N. A. (2018). Bilateral Investment Treaty Arbitration and India With special focus on India Model BIT, 2016 Bilateral Investment Treaty Arbitration and India Bilateral Investment Treaty Arbitration and India Contents (Issue February). www.nishithdesai.com
Desai, N. A. (2019). Enforcement of foreign awards becomes easier: “patent illegality” removed from the scope of public policy - Lexology. Lexology. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4d6c99ad-4ab6-43f8-83e4-2d5d7c0cb4bf
GPF GP S.à.r.l. v Republic of Poland, [2018] EWHC 409 (Comm).
Henry, S. (2014). Bilateral investment treaties: What they are and why they matter. In China Business Review (Issue JUL). https://www.uschina.org/reports/bilateral-investment-treaties-what-they-are-and-why-they-matter
Hubbard, J. L. (2020). Advantages to International Arbitration: Enforceability | Fitch Law Partners LLP. Fitch. https://www.fitchlp.com/blog/2020/10/advantages-to-international-arbitration-enforceability/
Iqbal, A. (2020). Enforcement of investment awards in India. IPleaders. https://blog.ipleaders.in/enforcement-investment-awards-india/
JNedumpara, J., Laddha, A., & Janardhan, S. (2019). Mapping Indian Judiciary’s Approach to Investment Treaty Arbitration. In NLUD Journal of Legal Studies (Vol. 1). http://www.dea.gov.in/sites/
Kachwaha, S. (2013). The New Challenges and Opportunities for India in Bilateral Investment Treaties. Lexis Nexis Reserch Solutions, 29(2).
Kajkowska, S. P. and E. (2019). Grounds to Refuse Enforcement. Global Arbitration Review. https://globalarbitrationreview.com/guide/the-guide-challenging-and-enforcing-arbitration-awards/1st-edition/article/grounds-refuse-enforcement
Khan, K. A. L. and M. (2020). Enforcement of BIT Awards at Bay in India as the Courts Rule Out the Applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Asian Dispute Review, 22(1). https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/Asian+Dispute+Review/22.1/ADR2020004
Mathur, S. S. A. & R. (2020). International Investment Arbitration From Indian Perspective. Live Law. https://www.livelaw.in/law-firms/articles/international-investment-arbitration-from-indian-perspective-158535
Mishra, S. T. and I. (2020). Recent Developments in the Enforcement of New York Convention Awards in India. In Kluwer Arbitration Blog. https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/07/06/recent-developments-in-the-enforcement-of-new-york-convention-awards-in-india/
Modi Entertainment v. WSS. G. Cricket Pte. Ltd., (2003) 4 SCC 341.
Moses, M. L. (2017). The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration. In The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316585245
Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador, [2005] EWCA Civ 1116.
OECD. (2016). The Policy Framework for Investment (PFI). https://www.oecd.org/investment/pfi.htm
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301;
Pipes, S., Builders, A., Geco, W., Pipes, S., Pipes, S., & Pipes, S. (2020). Public Policy In Arbitration Gets New Wings : Review Of Indian Supreme Court Decisions In 2014. Economic Law Practice, 2011–2014. https://www.mondaq.com/india/trials-appeals-compensation/367752/public-policy-in-arbitration-gets-new-wings-review-of-indian-supreme-court-decisions-in-2014
Ranjan, P., & Raju, D. (2011). The Enigma of Enforceability of Investment Treaty Arbitration Awards in India. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, 6, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2194607800000491
Renusagar v. General Electric, AIR 1994 SC 860.
RITVIK M. KULKARNI. (2020). Judicial Ambiguity in Enforcement of Investment Awards in India | Koinos. Koinos Indian Arbitration Blog. https://indianarbitrationlaw.com/2020/06/30/judicial-ambiguity-in-enforcement-of-investment-awards-in-india/
R M Investments and Trading Company Private Limited v. Boeing Corporation, AIR 1994 SC 1136.
Sahani, V. S. (2019). ARTICLE A HARDY CASE MAKES BAD LAW. FORDHAM INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL, 1–37.
Shri Lal Mahal Ltd v. Progetto Grano Spa, (2014) 2 SCC 433.
Thakur, T. (2020). Reforming the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism and the host state’s right to regulate: a critical assessment. Indian Journal of International Law 2020 59:1, 59(1), 173–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40901-020-00111-2
Tying Wei Chiang. (2018). Anti-Arbitration Injunctions in Investment Arbitration : Lessons Learnt From the India V . Vodafone Case. Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, 11(2), 251–276.
Vashistha, K. and H. (2020). Stumbling Stone in the Enforceability of Investment Arbitral Awards in India Medium. LEGIS SENTENTIA. https://medium.com/legis-sententia/stumbling-stone-in-the-enforceability-of-investment-arbitral-awards-in-india-e468b2e15fda
Union of India v. Khaitan Holdings (Mauritius) Limited and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6755.
Union of India v. Vodafone Group Plc UK and Another, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8842.
Union of India v. Vodafone Group Plc UK and Another, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8842.
Union of India v. Vodafone Group Plc UK and Another, 2017 SCC Online Del 9930.
United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (10 June 1958).
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.
Vodafone Mobile Services Limited vs Union of India,2018
White Industries Australia Limited v. The Republic of India, Final Award, November 30, 2011.
World Sport Group (Mauritius) Limited v. MSM Satellite (Singapore) Pte Limited., (2014) 11 SCC 639.
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2023 Lex Humana (ISSN 2175-0947)