Contact with chambers should be made through the Practice Management Team. They are happy to discuss client requirements and provide further information on such matters as the expertise and experience of individual members, fees, working practices and languages spoken. We have members able to work in French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, Greek and Chinese (Mandarin).
Outside working hours, a member of our team is always available to be contacted on matters of an urgent nature. Contact should be made using the Chambers main number or email.
For our Singapore office, for client enquiries please contact our BD Director, Asia Pacific, Lara Quie and for all other queries please contact Lynn Quek. Out of office hours calls will automatically be diverted to our clerking team in London.
28 Maxwell Road
#02-03 Maxwell Chambers Suites
Singapore 069120
singapore@twentyessex.com
t: +65 62257230
Contact with chambers should be made through the Practice Management Team. They are happy to discuss client requirements and provide further information on such matters as the expertise and experience of individual members, fees, working practices and languages spoken. We have members able to work in French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, Greek and Chinese (Mandarin).
Outside working hours, a member of our team is always available to be contacted on matters of an urgent nature. Contact should be made using the Chambers main number or email.
For our Singapore office, for client enquiries please contact our BD Director, Asia Pacific, Lara Quie and for all other queries please contact Lynn Quek. Out of office hours calls will automatically be diverted to our clerking team in London.
28 Maxwell Road
#02-03 Maxwell Chambers Suites
Singapore 069120
singapore@twentyessex.com
t: +65 62257230
Tom Leary has had his case comment on the von Pezold v Zimbabwe ICSID arbitration published in the Journal of World Investment & Trade.
The case raised the question of investor-state arbitration’s sensitivity to the human rights of non-disputing parties. The case concerned the escalation of Zimbabwe’s Land Reform Programme, whereby white-owned estates were acquired or rendered valueless, without compensation, in a reversal of historic colonial land policies. Non-disputing parties asserted indigenous rights over the relevant estates as a matter of international human rights law but, adopting a restrictive approach to Rule 37(2)(b) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, the Tribunal refused to allow them to intervene in the case.
This case provides important insights, and raises vital questions, about how far modern investor-state arbitration should act as a forum for determining issues of international human rights law.
The article is available to view online via Brill Online.