Page 1

—— ensuring participation in the global legal community ——




About AILA……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


Programme Synopsis………………………………..……………………………………………………………


Programme Timetable ………………………………..…………………………………………………………..




Programme Faculty………………………………………………..…………………………………….............


Advisory Board ……………………………………………………………….………………………..……………


Board Directors ……………………………………………………………….………………………..……………


Tailor-made Programmes……………………………………………………………………………..............



ABOUT AILA Africa International Legal Awareness (AILA) is a non-profit organisation working to build legal capacity in African countries through a series of training workshops and other exchanges of knowledge aimed at building legal professional competence in international economic laws and practices relating to public and private commercial and economic transactions as well as the resolution of disputes arising from such transactions. AILA is authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in England and Wales as an external Continuing Professional Development (CPD) provider. Our aims are to: x

promote sustainable economic development in African countries through the advancement of knowledge, education, training, professional competence and practice in international economic laws or practices relating to investment, trade and all other economic aspects of relations which regulate international transactions;


advance the education of the public in African countries in international economic laws or practices relating to investment, trade and all other economic aspects of relations which regulate international transactions by all or any of the following means: lectures, conferences, seminars, or other similar forms of communication, practical experience schemes and similar programmes, mentoring, publications, or by commissioning research (and publishing the results of such research); and


provide access to legal services by facilitating pro-bono legal advice, consultation, assistance and representation to African countries on matters of public, policy, educational or legal interest concerning any international economic laws or practices relating to investment, trade and all other economic aspects of relations which regulate international transactions.


PROGRAMME SYNOPSIS Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration This programme aims to equip participants with an understanding of the key concepts of investment treaty law and investor-state arbitration as the main dispute settlement mechanism of investment disputes. It will cover the following topics: Historical Background; Policy Objectives & Issues The modern day concept of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) comes from three basic international law principles – Diplomatic Protection, Customary International Law & the use of Bilateral Treaties of Friendship, Commerce & Navigation. While history shows that there were other similar efforts to adopt multilateral frameworks, none proved to be as successful as the BIT. A BITs function is to promote and protect foreign direct investment between the nationals of two contracting States for the further economic development of the host countries. As with most other modern day legal frameworks, BITs arose from the need to protect foreign investment and have an effective dispute resolution mechanism that is capable of providing solutions to investment disputes. Most BITs and particularly those most recently drafted or amended, include a dispute settlement mechanism. These special clauses authorize investors to bring claims against the host state, using an international arbitration tribunal, instead of resorting to local courts. It pierces through the concept of State Sovereignty, which has traditionally disallowed any legal action against a government, putting in its place, state responsibility, as well as accountability. Sources of International Investment Law Investment treaty arbitration involves a number of different sources of law including the investment treaty, the law of the host State of the investment, the terms of any underlying contract (including the governing law clause) relevant to the investment (if applicable) and general international law. There were various reasons for the move to treaty standards as the source of protection of foreign investment, including the fact that there were contested standards between developed and developing states regarding the treatment of alien investors and the limits of diplomatic protection as a means of dispute settlement. The position of developed states is that there is an international minimum standard of treatment for the protection of foreign nationals while that of developing States is that aliens were to be treated no worse than their nationals. Interpretation of Investment Treaties The increase in investment dispute claims creates a valuable legal opportunity for treaty interpretation as well as case law. International investment law has been shaped through the contributions made by an array of treaties and the interpretations given to them. Invaluable to the interpretation of investment treaties is the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which consists of rules of treaty interpretation considered to represent customary international law, including by investment treaty tribunals. As the foundation to this discussion, we find article 31 of the Vienna Convention which reads; “A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose”. 6

Threshold Issues I.

Definitions of Investment and Investor

Investment: There is no model for the definition of investment and BITs for the most part have preferred to use a broad, all-inclusive definition. The ICSID convention wanted to predetermine those disputes that could be settled by arbitral tribunals and made an attempt in Article 25 of the ICSID Convention which reads: “The jurisdiction of the Centre shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment�, but also failed when it did not provide a clear definition of investment. This failure to define such an important term presents both a problem of interpretation and application. Tribunals can only rely on Article 25, the definition contained within the treaty or any domestic investment law. The problem in relation to treaties can easily be overcome. The bigger issue is in regards to domestic investment law when it contains an authorization to settle disputes in ICSID because now we face an issue of determining if the tribunal is competent or not to hear the issue on its merits. Investor: Definition of investor is closely tied to concepts of nationality and is crucial in determining the scope of treaty protection. BITs generally refer to both Natural Persons and Legal Persons. An investor can either be a natural person (any individual acting in his own name) or juridical entities (company or corporation). For the most part, investors prefer to act through legally incorporated entities. Investment claims that wish to use the legal framework of the ICSID convention, establish their own standard regarding a person that can qualify for the relief afforded by the specific treaty, based on nationality. In order to determine the nationality of a company we reference international law as well as practice. There is not one fixed set of criteria to make the determination but instead a complex variety of formats that can vary depending on the language of the treaty. The two most common methods used are the place of incorporation or registered office; and the place of central administration or headquarters. II.

Exhaustion of Local Remedies

This session looks at the different types of pre-arbitration conditions that have been included in investment treaties and how they have been applied by tribunals, including the exhaustion of local remedies requirements, and fork-in the road clauses. The relationship between international arbitration and adjudication by domestic courts may be addressed in various provisions of BITs. Some older BITs require the exhaustion of local remedies (Ghana-Romania 1989); others require time efforts before the local courts for a discrete period of time. The typical Fork in the Road provision requires an investor to make a definitive choice between the host State’s domestic courts and international arbitration. Loss of access to international arbitration only applies if the parties and cause of action in the two lawsuits are identical. III.

Jurisdiction and Admissibility

Making a clear distinction between the concepts of jurisdiction and admissibility has been the subject of much legal debate. The ICSID rules are silent, failing to define either of these terms. The only available definition in any law is found in Rule 79 of the International Court of Justice. This in investment arbitration law serves no other purpose than as a mere guideline. To solve this dilemma, practitioners and arbitral tribunals have turned to different legal systems to see how it has been handled. IV.

Provisional Measures

The sharp rise in investment disputes has produced a greater need for the application of provisional measures or interim relief. Provisional measures which can be either in the form of tribunal 7

recommendations or court orders are designed to preserve the rights of the investor until the conclusion of the arbitration process. These requests, which can be submitted by the investor or issued unilaterally by the arbitral tribunal, are characterized by having a sense of urgency or need, designed to prevent further damage or loss of rights to the investor. The measures may vary, depending on the particularities of the case, but are all considered provisional in nature. While the subsequent award, may result to be in line with the initial measure taken, this alone does not automatically give provisional measures a permanent status. It is only the execution of the award that can ultimately convert interim measures’ temporary status to permanent. Substantive Standards I.


The taking away of someone’s personal property is the most severe method of interference. The concept of territorial sovereignty has traditionally allowed and accepted a host state’s right to expropriate a foreign investor’s property. Customary International Law has set a standard in order to protect investors against expropriation by placing a limit on a host State’s sovereignty. As for the BITs, modern day drafting has incorporated specific steps a state must comply with in order to complete the expropriation process and in all cases, the investor retains the right to be fairly and promptly compensated. II.

Fair and Equitable Treatment

It has become a standard within BITs as well as multilateral investment treaties to include the concept of Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET). The use of this term is not new to public international law; instead it has consistently evolved both in its practical use, as well as interpretation. This principle made its first appearance in the Treaties of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation. Its practical implications today are considerable and can have large financial implications. ICSID claims that have been successful have primarily achieved this alleging that the host country violated FET. III.

National treatment principle

National Treatment is a principle incorporated into BITs by which a host country extends to foreign investors treatment that is no less favourable than the treatment that it accords to national investors, in like circumstances. Its purpose is to achieve comparative equality and prohibit discrimination against investors or their investment. The mirage of interpretations regarding the meaning of “no less favourable” and “in like circumstances” had led to a lot of legal discussions. Legal topics, which are too equally broad to entertain here, since there, are entire books written on them. Nonetheless the importance is to reiterate that these terms are very much a part of the standard verbiage contained within modern BITs. Even in those cases where a BIT does not contemplate these principles, arbitral tribunals actively seek comparisons in like circumstances. IV.

Most-favoured nation treatment clauses

These clauses on the other hand seek to establish equality between the competitive opportunities within a State. They also try to abolish economic distortions between investors of different nationalities and the host country, as well as national investors. The idea is to create a legal framework by which anyone that wants to invest has the confidence that they are contracting in terms that are no less preferential to those that came before them. The concern is however that an overbroad or poorly redacted MFN clause can potentially open the door for claimants to use any of the treaties available between that host country and their investors. 8


Umbrella Clauses

An umbrella clause which has also has been referred to as the ‘elevator’, ‘mirror effect’, ‘parallel effect’, and ‘sanctity of contract’ provision is a provision in an investment treaty that guarantees the observation of obligations assumed by the host state vis-à-vis the investor. Such a clause has been used to elevate breaches of contractual obligations in direct agreements between states and investors to the level of a treaty violation. Investment Treaty Drafting and Negotiating Drafting any legal document can be as difficult as negotiating its terms. The reason for this is twofold: (a) the drafter must be able to effectively convey unto paper the conditions of the contract, which is more easily done when the drafter and the negotiator are the same. But prove to be more challenging when they are not, which seems to be the norm, the “assembly line contract”; and (b) be keenly aware that every word within a given contract carries its interpretation. Therefore they must be considered strategically, before being incorporated into an enforceable legal instrument. The negotiation, drafting and future disputes within a BIT are all directly linked to one another, like in a domino effect. While one does not discard the legitimacy of certain investor claims, the reality is that there are also many which could have been curtailed or completely avoided had there been a more efficient drafting of the BIT. Failure to update or renegotiate existing BITs can lead to arbitral awards that can potentially cripple the host state. Settlement of International Investment Disputes I.

Practice under ad hoc arbitration using UNCITRAL

This session looks at the practice and procedures under the UNCITRAL Rules. Many investment treaties allow the investor a choice of which arbitration rules will govern the arbitral procedure. These could be, among others, the ICC, the LCIA, ICSID or UNCITRAL Rules. Unlike the ICC, the LCIA and ICSID, the UNCITRAL is not an arbitral institution. UNCITRAL arbitrations are ad hoc and its Rules do not refer to a standing body but they do allow for the use of an Appointing Authority. All of the services must be organised and paid for by the parties and the arbitrators in UNCITRAL arbitrations. II.

ICSID as a self-contained system

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), established in 1966, is an international arbitration institution, created through a multilateral treaty. It is governed by its member states through a secretariat whose function is to oversee operations; these include administrating dispute resolution proceedings, as well as advisory activities. The ICSID system was designed to be self-contained – to operate independently and without relying on or interference from courts – even where a party does not cooperate. Absent agreement otherwise, ICSID process is exclusive, with no right to pursue other remedies once a choice is made to pursue a claim through ICSID. Article 26 is designed to ensure non-interference with the procedure once an ICSID case has commenced. In particular, self-contained procedural rules means no role for courts in appointment or challenge of arbitrators; proceedings; choice of law; provisional measures; review of award. The local procedural law at the seat plays no role and pecuniary obligations of awards must be recognized as if final judgments of State courts and there are no grounds to refuse enforcement of the award.



Arbitration Advocacy and Case Management

This session looks at how to prepare for investor-state arbitration. Historically, a large majority of States had little to no experience in conducting this highly specialized form of international litigation. Although in practice substantial work is carried out by external counsel, this method does little to develop the training and experience of government lawyers to achieve the skills needed to become self-sufficient in conducting future cases. States should be committed to develop an In-house legal team to handle investment claims. IV.

Selecting an Arbitrator

This session covers issues involved with selecting arbitrators for investment-treaty arbitration. The constitution of the tribunal can be one of the most important factors in both the process and the outcome of a dispute. Issues covered include how tribunals are constituted, how parties identify prospective arbitrators, who is being appointed in treaty cases and the consequences of those choices. This session also addresses the standards that apply to arbitrators in treaty cases, the grounds for challenging arbitrators and treaty cases in which parties have challenged arbitrators. V.

Arbitrator Challenges

This session will address the arbitrator’s duty to disclose and investigate conflicts of interest; the duty of the parties to investigate and inform the arbitrator of conflicts of interest; the formal and timing requirements of making a challenge; the challenge procedure and effect on the arbitral proceeding; the standard for disqualifying arbitrators; the consequences of a successful challenge; the impact of the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest; issues of independence giving raise to challenges (multiple appointments, the arbitrator’s relationship with a party/counsel in the arbitration, etc); and issues of impartiality giving rise to challenges (issue conflicts, the conduct of the arbitration, the failure to disclose, etc). VI.

Interpretation and Revision of the Award

The window by which to request the interpretation of an award is extremely narrow and technical, making the chances of an award fitting those specific criteria very remote. In practice revisions are seldom requested, in fact ICSID only has information regarding the presentation of three, of which the parties resolved two before the case was ever heard by the tribunal. VII.

Recognition and Enforcement of Awards

This session covers the recognition and enforcement of treaty awards. Many treaties and international contracts typically offer an investor a choice between a tribunal operating under the ICSID Rules and a tribunal operating under one of the many other arbitration rules. This session considers the implications that this choice may have for the recognition, enforcement and forcible execution of a resulting treaty award. In particular, we will contrast the recognition and enforcement of awards under the “self-contained” enforcement regime of ICSID with the alternative of greater State-court supervision under the New York Convention. We will also consider the practical implications of the different rules under these regimes as regards the possibility of conditioning a stay of enforcement pending annulment/setting aside review. VIII.

Annulment and Challenge of Awards and the Recognition and Enforcement of Awards

This session looks at the very limited grounds for annulment and challenge of awards and the recognition and enforcement of ICSID awards. The enforcement provision under Article 54 is a 10

distinctive feature of the ICSID Convention. Most other instruments governing international dispute settlement do not cover enforcement but leave this issue to domestic laws or applicable treaties. The ultimate goal in any investment dispute claim is to reach agreement whether through private party negotiations or by the granting of an arbitral award. As discussed, arbitral awards, except on very limited bases cannot be challenged, therefore awards for the most part produce a state of finality. In the end, whether in a court of law or through international arbitration, the parties are just seeking a closure to their dispute.


PROGRAMME TIMETABLE Day 1 Venue 08.15 – 09.15 09.15 – 10.15 10.15 – 10.30 10.30 – 11.30 11.30 – 12.30 12.30 – 14.00 14.00 – 16.00 16.00 – 16.15 16.15 – 17.15

Day 2 Venue 09.15 – 11.15 11.15 – 11.30 11.30 – 13.00

13.00 – 14.00 14:00 – 15.45

15.45 – 16.00 16.00 – 17.00

Day 3 Venue 09.30 – 10.45 10.45 – 11.00 11.00 – 13.00

12.30 – 14.00 14.00 – 15.30 15.30 – 15.45 15.45 – 17.30 Day 4 Venue 09.30 – 10.45

Monday 14 September 2015 Steptoe & Johnson Registration Historical background: Policy Objectives & Issues in International Investment Law Kwadwo Sarkodie/Rachael O’Grady, Mayer Brown Tea/Coffee Break Sources of International Investment Law Norah Gallagher, Queen Mary, University of London Interpretation of Investment Treaties Jeremy Sharpe, Shearman & Sterling Lunch Break Investment treaties threshold issues: definitions of “investment” and “investor” Emilie Gonin, Doughty Street Chambers & Naomi Briercliffe, Allen & Overy Tea/Coffee Break Investment treaties threshold issues: definitions of “investment” and “investor” with Practical Exercise Emilie Gonin, Doughty Street Chambers & Naomi Briercliffe, Allen & Overy Tuesday 15 September 2015 Steptoe & Johnson Investment treaties substantive standards: Expropriation Lucas Bastin, Quadrant Chambers Tea/Coffee Break Investment treaties substantive standards: Fair and equitable treatment; national treatment Elizabeth Snodgrass, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP Lunch Break Investment treaties substantive standards: non-discrimination; most-favoured nation treatment; umbrella clauses Andrew Cannon, Herbert Smith Freehills Tea/Coffee Break Settlement of International Investment disputes: exhaustion of local remedies; fork in the road Luis Gonzalez Garcia, Matrix Chambers Wednesday 16 September 2015 Shearman & Sterling Investment treaties threshold issues: jurisdiction and admissibility Alex Uff, Shearman & Sterling Tea/Coffee Break Investment treaties threshold issues: jurisdiction & admissibility with Practical Exercise Alex Uff, Shearman & Sterling Lunch Break Settlement of International Investment disputes: Provisional measures Matthew Coleman, Steptoe & Johnson Tea/Coffee Break Investment treaty essentials in drafting and negotiation Joseph Tirado, Winston & Strawn Thursday 17 September 2015 Mayer Brown Settlement of International Investment disputes: practice under ad hoc arbitration using UNCITRAL Robert Volterra, Volterra Fietta 12

10.45 – 11.00 11.00 – 12.15 12.15 – 13.45 13.45 – 15.15

15.15 – 15.30 15.30 – 17.00

Day 5 Venue 09.15 – 10.45 10.45 – 11.00 11.00 – 12.00 12.00 – 12.15 12.15 – 13.15

13.15 – 14.15 14.15 – 15.15

15.15 – 15.30 15.30 – 16.30

18.30 – 20.30

Tea/Coffee Break Settlement of International Investment disputes: ICSID as a self-contained system Robert Volterra, Volterra Fietta Lunch Break Settlement of International Investment disputes: Arbitration Advocacy and Case Management Charles Nairac & Marily Paralika,White & Case Tea/Coffee Break Settlement of International Investment disputes: Arbitration Advocacy and Case Management - Practical Exercise/Role Play Charles Nairac & Marily Paralika,White & Case Friday 18 September 2015 White & Case Settlement of International Investment Disputes: Selecting an Arbitrator Steven Finizio, WilmerHale Tea/Coffee Break Settlement of International Investment Disputes: Arbitrator Challenges Karel Daele, Mischon de Reya Tea/Coffee Break Settlement of International Investment Disputes: Interpretation and Revision of Awards Marily Paralika,White & Case Lunch Break Settlement of International Investment Disputes: Recognition and Enforcement of Awards Dipen Sabharwal,White & Case Tea/Coffee Break Settlement of International Investment Disputes Part Nine: Annulment and Challenge of Awards Charles Nairac,White & Case DRINKS RECEPTION – White & Case


PARTICIPANTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Name Amalia Lui Shio Bobby Banson Cajetan Osisioma Chege Njoroge Chinweaku Odigboegwu Comfort Lobe Makane Dorcas Mirette Nkongme Oluwaseyilayo Ojo Funmi Roberts Gilbert Bongam Andrews Tetteh Ikpeme Nkebem

13. 14. 15. 16.

Irene Bayiga-Sserubiri Lucas Olu Daramola Joseph Bernard Ashalley Matome Kgomommu

Organisation Clyde & Co Minca-Premo & Co. SPA Ajibade & Co. Lesinko Njoroge & Gathogo Advocates Nigerian Bottling Company (Coca-Cola Hellenic) Jacques Nyemb Chambers Dorcas Ngongme Legal S.O & C Legal Funmi Roberts & Co. Bongam and Youmbi Law firm Lexnet Consult International Centre for Arbitration and Mediation Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs Afe Babalola & Co. AELEX Legal Practitioners & Arbitrators Department of Trade & Industry

17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Olatunde Busari Olusola Adegbonmire Paulman Chungu Wendy Nimako-Boateng Yousria El Gamal

Akinwunmi & Busari LP Sola Ajijola and Co. Barristers and Solicitors Ranchhod, Chungu Advocates Ghana Investment Promotion Centre Egyptian State Lawsuits Authority

Country Tanzania Ghana Nigeria Kenya Nigeria Cameroon Cameroon Nigeria Nigeria Cameroon Ghana Nigeria Uganda Nigeria Ghana South Africa Nigeria Nigeria Zambia Ghana Egypt


2015 FACULTY Alexander Uff is Counsel in Shearman & Sterling LLP’s International Arbitration Group. He has practiced exclusively in international arbitration for over ten years in Paris, New York and London. He represents corporations, States and State entities in commercial and investor-State arbitrations. His experience includes joint ventures and disputes in the energy, oil and gas, telecommunications, IP, pharmaceutical, agribusiness, M&A, insurance and defense sectors, infrastructure and technical disputes and delay claims. Andrew Cannon is a partner at Herbert Smith Freehills LLP. He specialises in international arbitration and public international law. He has extensive experience of advising states, state-owned entities and major companies on all aspects of public international law, including on structuring investments and the availability of relief under multilateral and bilateral investment treaties. He has acted in ad hoc and institutional arbitrations across multiple jurisdictions and under a broad range of governing laws. Charles Nairac, a partner at White & Case, in Paris, specialises in international arbitration, particularly in the sectors of construction and energy. He is involved in international arbitrations relating to trade and investment governed by the rules of the major arbitral institutions and through ad hoc arbitrations, in English and French. Charles is listed in the main legal reference publications such as Legal 500 2013, the International Who's Who of Construction Lawyers, 2013, 2012 and GAR 100 PLC. Dipen Sabharwal is a partner at White & Case in London and deals primarily with international arbitration matters. Dipen has acted as counsel in arbitrations seated in different jurisdictions including London, New York, Singapore, Stockholm, Riyadh and Tokyo. He has experience in a number of international arbitrations under the ICC, LCIA, UNCITRAL, SIAC, AAA and other regimes involving a wide range of legal and procedural issues. Elizabeth Snodgrass is counsel in the international arbitration group at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP in London. She has advised on more than thirty-five investor-state and international commercial arbitration matters, with particular focus on the energy sector and disputes involving states and state entities. Liz has taught the International Arbitration course on the LLM Programme at University College London and she regularly speaks on arbitration and international law topics. Emilie Gonin is a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers. Her practice focuses on investment treaty arbitration. She was previously an associate in the international arbitration department of Allen & Overy in London where she acted as counsel for States and investors. In addition to her teaching experience in Rwanda and Cameroun, she is a lecturer on investment treaty arbitration at Sciences Po Paris. She is also an assistant editor for the Kluwer arbitration Blog in respect of Africa.


Jeremy K. Sharpe is a partner in Shearman & Sterling’s International Arbitration and Public International Law practices, based in London. He formerly was Chief of Investment Arbitration in the Office of the Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State, representing the United States in investor-state and state-to-state disputes arising under U.S. international investment agreements, including NAFTA and CAFTA, and advised on the negotiation of such agreements.

Karel Daele is a partner at Mischon de Reya. He acts as counsel and arbitrator in investor-state disputes (ICSID) and commercial arbitrations (ICC, LCIA, UNCITRAL, ad hoc). He has a particular focus on Africa, from Libya to South Africa, from Guinea to Tanzania. His sector experience includes oil and gas, energy, mining and infrastructure. His work is recommended in the leading international legal directories, including the International Who's Who in Commercial Arbitration, Legal 500, IFLR1000 Energy and Chambers Global. Khawar Qureshi QC is a barrister at Serle Court, London. He specialises in public law, public international law and international commercial arbitration where he has acted as counsel under the rules of the ICC, LCIA and UNCITRAL. He regularly acts for and against governments. He is also a visiting professor in commercial law at the University of London and has lectured in international law at King's College, London.

Kwadwo Sarkodie is a partner at Mayer Brown International LLP, specialising in international arbitration and construction and engineering disputes. He regularly advises in connection with international arbitration, including under the ICC, UNCITRAL and LCIA rules. He has written extensively regarding dispute resolution and arbitration in Sub-Saharan Africa, and contributes to the chapter "International Commercial Arbitration Practice in the Sub-Saharan African Region" to the publication "International Commercial Arbitration Practice: 21st Century Perspectives" (LexisNexis 2014). Lucas Bastin is a barrister at Quadrant Chambers in London. He specialises in investment treaty arbitration and public international law. He has represented both States and investors in some of the largest-value investment treaty arbitrations to date. He publishes and speaks on those topics regularly, and was ranked by his clients and peers as one of the top barristers in London in these areas of legal practice.

Luis Gonzalez Garcia is a Member of Matrix Chambers in London. Before joining Matrix he was Deputy General Counsel at the Ministry of Economy in Mexico representing Mexico in NAFTA and BIT arbitrations. He has also worked as a consultant to UNCTAD and the Organization of American States. He has also lectured on international investment law at the World Trade Institute of the University of Bern in 2011


Matthew Coleman is a partner in Steptoe's London office practising in international arbitration and public international law. His investment treaty arbitration cases include: Border Timbers Ltd & Ors v Zimbabwe; Bernhard von Pezold & Ors v Zimbabwe; Funnekotter v Zimbabwe; TGP v Jordan; and A v Montenegro. In 2015, Mr Coleman co-authored an article entitled, “Provisional Measures During Suspension of ICSID Proceedings” which was published in the ICSID Review.

Naomi Briercliffe is an Associate at Allen & Overy. She specialises in international commercial and investment treaty arbitration and public international law. Her recent experience includes successfully defending Iran in an investment treaty case against a Turkish investor and acting for a British investor in three investment treaty disputes against Ukraine. Naomi also gives regular lectures and presentations. For example, she recently presented on investment treaty issues at a conference for African and Middle Eastern States in Casablanca organised by UNCTAD. Norah Gallagher is Academic Director at Queen Mary, University of London and Adjunct Professor at Xi'an Jiaotong University, China. She is also an arbitrator. She specialises in investment and energy disputes. She was previously Director of the Investment Treaty Forum at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law; worked in the International Arbitration Group of Herbert Smith LLP; was Adjunct Research Associate Professor at the Centre for International Law, National University of Singapore. Rachael O’Grady is a senior associate at Mayer Brown International LLP specialising in international arbitration, including investor-State and commercial arbitration. She has acted as counsel in arbitrations under the ICC, ICSID, LMAA and CAS rules. Previously, she was Deputy Counsel in the UK and Commonwealth Team at the ICC in Paris, where she managed over one hundred ICC arbitrations spanning across all industries. Prior to this, Rachael completed her training contract with a Magic Circle firm in London, United Kingdom. Robert Volterra is Founding partner of Volterra Fietta. He advises governments, international organisations and private clients on a wide range of contentious and non-contentious public international law and international dispute resolution issues. He has acted as advocate before the International Court of Justice and ad hoc international arbitration tribunals, including under the Permanent Court of Arbitration, ICSID, ICC, SCC, LCIA, UNCITRAL, WTO and UNCLOS rules. Robert is a Visiting Professor of International Law at University College, University of London (UCL). Steven Finizio is a partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. His practice focuses on international dispute resolution. He also serves as an arbitrator. Mr. Finizio has advised clients regarding disputes under most of the leading international arbitration rules, involving the laws of jurisdictions in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the US, and in investment treaty disputes. He is co-author of “A Practical Guide to International Commercial Arbitration: Assessment, Planning and Strategy” (Sweet & Maxwell).


ADVISORY BOARD Christopher Bayo Ojo SAN, FCIArb is Senior Partner at Bayo Ojo & Co. He also sits as an arbitrator. He is the founder of the International Centre for Arbitration and Mediation (ICAMA) Abuja, Nigeria; current President of the Africa Users’ Council of the LCIA and a member of the ICSID Panel of Arbitrators and of the PCA. He is a former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice of Nigeria. Charles Nairac, a partner at White & Case, in Paris, specialises in international arbitration, particularly in the sectors of construction and energy. He is involved in international arbitrations relating to trade and investment governed by the rules of the major arbitral institutions and through ad hoc arbitrations, in English and French. Charles is listed in the main legal reference publications such as Legal 500 2013, the International Who's Who of Construction Lawyers, 2013, 2012 and GAR 100 PLC. David D Caron is Dean and Professor of Law of The Dickson Poon School of Law at King’s College London. He practices at 20 Essex Street Chambers focusing on public and private international dispute resolution. He has served as arbitrator, lead counsel and expert in both private and public international arbitral proceedings. He is specialised in construction, maritime, ocean boundaries and environmental matters. Presently, David is President of the ICSID Tribunal in the Vladislav Kim v. Uzbekistan dispute. Hon. Justice E. Torgbor, a former judge of the High Court of Kenya is a Chartered Arbitrator, Professor of Mercantile Law, and an International Legal Consultant. Prior to his appointment as High Court judge he practiced as Barrister in England. He is an expert in Law and Development with experience in Africa and Europe. He also teaches at University level.

Francis Botchway is Associate Dean of Research at the College of Law, Qatar University where he teaches International Investment Law, International Trade, Anglo-American Legal Systems, and Arbitration and Negotiations. He has also taught at the University of Warwick Law School and Hull University in the UK. Formerly, he was Adjunct Professor at Leuven University in Belgium, Warwick, KNUST and Visiting Professor at the University of Puerto Rico. He is consulted on International Investment, Natural Resources and Environmental Law matters. ‘Funke Adekoya SAN is a partner at AELEX in Lagos, Nigeria. Her practice focuses on litigation and arbitration. She is also an arbitrator. She is a member of the LCIA African Users Council and the Nigeria’s ICC National Committee; and is listed on the ICDR Energy Arbitrators List, the panel of neutrals of the Lagos Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration and the Nigerian Communications Commission. She is an approved by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Tutor at the Associate to Fellowship Course level.


L Yves Fortier CC OC CQ is recognized as one of the top arbitrators in the world and is listed as a leading expert in international arbitration. He is a former member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague and former President of the LCIA.

Laurence Boisson de Chazournes is Professor of international law at the University of Geneva specialising in the law of international organizations, international economic law and international environmental law, and is recognised for her practical work as Senior Counsel to the World Bank and advisor to international organisations. She is a consultant and a member of groups of experts with various international organizations. She has served as chairperson of WTO arbitration panels and has pleaded before the ICJ. Matthew Weiniger is a Partner at Herbert Smith Freehills, London. He specialises in international arbitration and public and private international law. He has experience in arbitrations under the auspices of the ICC, LCIA, ICSID, and Zurich Chamber of Commerce and ad hoc under the UNCITRAL Rules and the English Arbitration Act. Many of his arbitrations involve state parties. He regularly lectures on arbitration and public international law.

Muhammad Mustaqeem De Gama heads the International Trade and Investment Directorate at the Department of Trade and Industry in South Africa. He is responsible for international investment policy and is currently chief legal counsel for all investment disputes. He is also a Professor at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. He holds a LLM (KU Leuven, Belgium) and LLD (University of Pretoria). Philip Alliker is a barrister at Tanfield Chambers. He is a Chartered Arbitrator and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. He is also an accredited mediator and is admitted to the Roll of Advocates in Uganda, the Dubai International Financial Court and in the State of New York as Foreign Legal Consultant.

Thierry Mutombo Kalonji is the Director of Investment Promotion & Private Sector Development Division at the COMESA Secretariat. Before joining COMESA, he was respectively State Finance Inspector, Investment Promotion Manager at the National Investment Promotion Agency and Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Finance in the Democratic Republic of Congo. UchĂŠ Ewelukwa Ofodile, professor of law at the University of Arkansas School of Law in Fayetteville, Arkansas, teaches International Trade Law, International Investment Law, Intellectual Property Law, Law & Development, and Business and Human Rights. She is a member of the American Bar Association Section on International Law and currently serves as the Co-Chair of the Committee on Investment & Development and the Vice-Chair of the Committee on Corporate Social Responsibility. 19

Yaouza OURO-SAMA is holder of a Phd in law and several postgraduated degrees in international law, Finance and Economics. He is a Barrister at Paris Bar. Former Lecture at the University of Sorbonne in Paris, he worked with the International Chamber of Commerce, the International Court of Arbitration before joining the international law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in 2002. Since 2006, Yaouza has been working with the Commission of the Economic Community of West African States as a Legal Advser of the President of the Commission. Yas Banifatemi is a partner at Shearman & Sterling’s International Arbitration Group and leads the firm’s Public International Law Practice. She advises and represents States, State-owned entities and corporations on both public international law and international arbitration issues.


BOARD OF DIRECTORS Rukia Baruti is founder and Managing Director of AILA and a PhD Candidate on Investment Law in Africa at the University of Geneva. Prior to founding AILA, Rukia practised law at SJ Berwin’s International Arbitration Group in London. She also sits as arbitrator. She is a former Vice-President of the LCIA Africa Users’ Council. She has been listed in The Lawyer magazine’s ‘Hot 100’, in recognition of her pro-bono work.

Dr Emilia Onyema is a senior lecturer in International Commercial Law, and Associate Dean at SOAS, University of London. Her teaching and research covers international sales law, law and development in Africa and international commercial arbitration. She was formerly a Research Fellow at the School of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London, and the Alternate Tribunal Secretary of the Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal in London. She is qualified to practice law in Nigeria and in England & Wales. Dr Tunde Ogowewo is a Senior Lecturer at The Dickson Poon School of Law, Kings College London. He teaches Corporate Finance Law, Corporate Governance, and Mergers and Acquisitions Law at postgraduate level. He is also a Joint Global Hauser Professor of Law at NYU Law School, New York and Visiting Professor of Corporate Governance at the National University of Singapore. He is a qualified Barrister and Solicitor (England and Wales) and a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. He also sits as arbitrator.


TAILOR-MADE PROGRAMMES AILA also delivers tailor-made programmes designed to meet a party's specific needs in their home country. AILA recognises that different countries have different needs in terms of legal training. Accordingly, AILA is prepared to travel to you with a team of its faculty members to deliver whatever training you need in your time and in your country. AILA is able to design, develop, and deliver tailor-made training to meet your needs wherever you are. To discuss this possibility, please contact us at

CERTIFICATION Upon completion of a training programme each participant will be presented with a Certificate of Completion. Successful completion requires that a participant attend all sessions. If a participant misses a number of sessions, AILA reserves the right to withhold certification.

FEEDBACK To help improve our services and their delivery, we receive and encourage feedback from our participants, members, faculty and advisory board. This ensures that the training programmes and other services we provide to ours members and participants are relevant, cost effective, efficient and consistent with current best practice. This not only instils in members of AILA, and potential users of its services, confidence in AILA’s services but also ensures that satisfied users feel happy to recommend AILA’s services. Our most valuable feedback comes from the participants themselves. Each participant completes an evaluation form for each session. The evaluations provide a basis for improvement and the result is a constant update of the programmes and the sessions to ensure that we are addressing your needs.


Africa International Legal Awareness

AILA 2015 Programme Guide  
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you