Stans Energy Corp V.HRE.H

RE:Did Kyrgyz Republic Agree, or Not, to Arbritate in the MCCI?

[Kaliahk]

Colima. I brought this up in a recent post of mine, but I have not seen any comment from David or any mention anywhere (including I believe the arbitration award decision) that asserted this as a basis for maintaining jurisdiction. I would have expected some mention if it was the center piece of their argument but tey have been silent upon that. As I stated in my answer to Goldgoose, and to clarify, the answer is it depends. Is it sufficient to participate in procedural matters without reservation of rights - i.e. asking for extensions of time - to give rise to consent to the tribunal? That is a question of Russian law for the Russian courts. If consent is treated like consent to personal jurisdiction of courts in the US, it would likely be enough. However, jurisdiction of an arbitration panel may well be treated differently (I do not know) and the record is not clear just what the participation was. We do not have copies of the pleadings, etc. to know. What we do know is that the Kyrgs didn't pick an arbitrator and did not participate in presenting any substantive defense. The only participation I recall were the motions for extensions of time before the arbitration panel was selected. the motion regarding lack of jurisdiction, and the motion for more time pending their application to the Russian courts for an injunction. It would be difficult to find an intention to consent to the MCCi from that, but there could be more of which I am not aware and the exact standard for consent I do not know. My position has always been that on the merits the jurisdiction of the MCCI would likely be overturned as a result of the CIS decision. However, if Stans has some undisclosed procedural argument, they may have a better chance of prevailing