Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: International tribunal 680million dollars against Dominican republic

  1. #1
    *** Sin Bin ***
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    96
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default International tribunal 680million dollars against Dominican republic


  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    217
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    They have more chance of getting blood from a stone

  3. #3
    Platinum
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    10,381
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    These are not binding at all, even under the scrutiny of the law as foreign transnational must first pursuit claims under the immediate location of their rights. In this case, a Dominican court should have been involved in the primary and last stages. A step to revert to the international treaty is counter to the basis of the legitimate procedural contract between the company and the Dominican State.

    As in fact, the same can be counter-productive to the normal activities of such company in the DR and the Dominican state as per contract.


    "The Republic raised objections to the jurisdiction of the tribunal to hear the claims under the Treaty. The Tribunal's decision rejected these objections and now the arbitration will proceed to a final hearing in 2009."

    The tribunal in fact was not in jurisdiction as the contract between both the company and the Dominican State stipulates first course of legal step in advent of disputes to be addressed in the DR while the contract is standing.

    The tribunal overstepped a very specific article that the France-Dominican Republic Bilateral Investment Treaty provides for. In such case, the same also applies to a Dominican held company or entity in due legal process in France...

    This sets a legal base for the Treaty to be found nullified and broken...

    The DR still resembles a lot the French code and much of it is based on the actual French articles when dealing with international codes and treaties...

    Will it stand? Doubt it very much... But the company shot a blank and now will face live rounds in the cross fire... Quite a very big mistake to do when you still had higher ground from a legal standpoint...

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •