At Nishimura & Asahi, we draw on our strengths across the firm and assemble the most efficient and skilled practice group in the area of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). Our team includes not only litigators with extensive experience in international arbitrations, but also lawyers involved in the drafting and negotiation of investment treaties and free trade agreements as well as those regularly handling international trade disputes, including those utilizing WTO, working closely together to counsel our clients on ways to manage risks and solutions on issues regarding their foreign investments and their relationships with host governments.
We also efficiently support Japanese investors as well as the Japanese government in the area of ISDS and investment treaties arbitration through our strong relationship with law firms outside Japan, such as the U.S. and EU, where investment treaties arbitration is frequently utilized.
- Related practice areas
- Cross-border M&ACorporate & Commercial TransactionsCross-border Financial TransactionsCross-border RestructuringInternational LitigationInternational ArbitrationInternational TaxationWTO/Regional Trade AgreementsInternational Investment Agreements & ISDSTrade Remedies & Defenses (Anti-dumping, CVD & Safeguards)Customs & TariffsCross-border Transactions (General)Lobbying & Contributing to Planning & Enacting of Public PolicyInfrastructure/PPPElectricity/GasNatural Resources & EnergyTelecommunicationsBroadcasting Internet/Cyber LawFilmEntertainmentSportsMedicine/Medical DevicesMedical Field/HealthcareHealthcare IT/Medical CloudBiotechnologyElectronicsAutomotive & Auto PartsAerospace/SpaceRobotics/Artificial IntelligenceChemicalsChinaHong KongKoreaTaiwanSingaporeMalaysiaPhilippinesIndonesiaThailandVietnam/Mekong AreaMyanmarIndiaOther Asian CountriesTurkey/Middle EastEU & EU Member StatesEuropean Countries (except EU Member States)/Russia/CIS United StatesCanadaBrazilMexicoOther Latin American CountriesAfricaAustralia/New Zealand
Case Notes on Investment Treaty Arbitration Awards and Decisions (85) Mesa Power LLC v Canada;Articles
A decision on who should make a determination concerning procedural requirements in investment treaty arbitration - U.S. Supreme Court Decision, March 5, 2014, BG Group PLC v. Republic of ArgentinaArticles
Case Notes on Investment Treaty Arbitration Awards and Decisions (61) The Rompetrol Group N. v Romania; Creeping violations of the FET standard, compensation for “reputational damage” incurred by a legal person.Articles
Case Notes on Investment Treaty Arbitration Awards and Decisions (52) Antoine Goetz and others v Republic of Burundi; Counterclaim by Respondent State in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Jurisdiction and Admissibility.Articles