Stans Energy Corp V.HRE.H

RE:Update From David

[Kaliahk]

OK Colima, watch what you ask for. The comment by David that Stans is relying upon UNCITRAL is troubling. If you read the arbitration decision the MCCI does not find jurisdiction under UNCITRAL but as another international arbitration court. IN fact they went to great lengths to explain why arbitration under UNCITRAL was not required. They had linguistic experts advising them on the meaning of the Kyrgyz law on resolution of investment disputes, as well as an expert advise them that the interpretation they were adopting was not ridiculous or some such like term. Whether correct or not, this was all to avoid having to be an arbitration panel under UNCITRAL. Have not done any extensive research but, unless the parties agree to an arbitrator, it appears the UNCITRAL regs require the Secy Gen of the Permanent Court at the Hague to appoint the arbitrator. It is not done by an international arbitration court like the MCCI as was done here. I don't think UNCITRAL just lets the investor forum shop to any international arbitration forum it chooses (as Stans did in this case). Not saying that Stan's loses as proceeding through UNCITRAL may not be required, but the claim makes me nervous.