This Essay examines Metal-Tech’s treatment of corruption, building upon the analytical structure set forth in this author’s 2014 Note, Streamlining the Corruption Defense. That Note’s framework for analyzing ICSID awards involving allegations of corruption proves useful for examining the Metal-Tech award. Implementing that framework, this Essay concludes that the standard of proof applied by the tribunal represents a departure from prior ICSID jurisprudence. It also questions whether an application of comparative fault principles could have achieved a more just result. Finally, this Essay argues that the tribunal could have resolved some lingering questions by staying the proceedings pending the outcome of Uzbekistan’s domestic corruption investigation.
Michael A. Losco, Charting a New Course: Metal-Tech v. Uzbekistan and the Treatment of Corruption in Investment Arbitration, 64 Duke Law Journal Online 37-52 (2014)