Loaded Dice: Multinational Oil, Due Process and the State

10.2190/csrc6 ◽  
2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Beck
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
The State

Termination of Skilled Nursing Facility Medicaid Provider Agreements: Procedural Due Process Requirements

1981 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 451-493
Author(s):  
Nancy Elizabeth Jones
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Skilled Nursing Facility ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
The State ◽  
Federal Regulations ◽  
Nursing Facility ◽  
Skilled Nursing ◽  
Medicaid Reimbursement ◽  
Emergency Situations ◽  
Procedural Due Process

AbstractWhen a state Medicaid agency terminates its provider agreement with a skilled nursing facility, federal regulations give the state the option of providing a pretermination evidentiary hearing; they do not, however, require that a state provide such a hearing. If a state chooses not to grant a pretermination hearing, as a number of states have done, federal regulations require: (1) an informal written reconsideration made by the state and submitted to the skilled nursing facility before the effective date of the termination, and (2) a posttermination evidentiary hearing.This Article argues that a skilled nursing facility has a right under the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the U. S. Constitution to an evidentiary hearing before termination of its Medicaid provider agreement. The author claims that a skilled nursing facility's interest in continued receipt of Medicaid reimbursement under its provider agreement is a property interest entitled to constitutional due process protections, and not merely an expectation of economic benefit that does not implicate constitutional due process considerations.The Article concludes that, except in emergency situations, state Medicaid agencies are constitutionally required to grant a provider a pretermination, rather than a posttermination, evidentiary hearing. This procedure would protect the provider and its patients from the severe effects of an erroneous termination, while furthering the governmental interest in ensuring the health and safety of skilled nursing facility patients. The format for such a hearing should allow for the participation, with the assistance of counsel, of both the skilled nursing facility and its patients.

Enkev Beheer BV (of the Netherlands) v. Republic of Poland

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 630-648
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
The State ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Waiting Period ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Just Compensation ◽  
Default Rules ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Almost All

630Procedure — Addition of a party — Conditional application — UNCITRAL Rules, Article 22 — UNCITRAL Rules, Article 17 — Whether the UNCITRAL Rules or lex loci arbitri allowed for applications to be made conditional on a tribunal’s future decision — Whether the application was consistent with the State’s procedural rights — Whether the amendment to a claim under Article 22 of the UNCITRAL Rules allowed for the addition of a third party as claimantJurisdiction — Investment — Shares — Whether an investor’s shares and rights derived from those shares were protected investments under the BITJurisdiction — Investment — Assets of subsidiary — Whether profits, goodwill or know-how of a local subsidiary constituted investments of the investor protected by the BITJurisdiction — Consent — Cooling-off period — Premature claims — Whether the investor had communicated its own claims rather than those of its local subsidiary — Whether the investor’s failure to comply with a waiting period of six months under the BIT required a tribunal to deny jurisdiction or admissibility — Whether the negotiation of a local subsidiary’s dispute in good faith was relevant to jurisdiction over a foreign investor’s claimsInterpretation — Cooling-off period — VCLT, Article 31 — Object and purpose — Whether the object and purpose of the BIT required a tribunal not to adopt a strict or formalistic interpretation of the waiting period of six monthsRemedies — Declaratory award — Interpretation — Just compensation — Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction under the BIT to make a declaratory award on the interpretation and application of the term “just compensation”Jurisdiction — Dispute — Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction under the BIT to advise the parties of an imminent disputeExpropriation — Direct deprivation — Shares — Rights derived from shares — Whether the State directly deprived the investor of its rights as a shareholder in its local subsidiaryExpropriation — Indirect deprivation — Shares — Rights derived from shares — Whether the shares had lost all or almost all significant commercial value — Whether the measures were adopted in the public interest — Whether due process had been followed — Whether there were any undertakings by the StateExpropriation — Interpretation — “Just compensation” — Whether there was any difference between the terms of the BIT and general international law — Whether the meaning of just compensation could be determined in the abstract631Fair and equitable treatment — Whether the impending expropriation constituted a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether the claim concerned the investor’s rights derived from sharesFull protection and security — Whether the State failed to protect an investment from expropriation by local authorities — Whether the claim concerned the investor’s rights derived from sharesUmbrella clause — Whether there was any assurance directed at the investor that created any legal obligations — Whether the claim concerned the investor’s rights derived from sharesCosts — Arbitration costs — Variation by agreement — UNCITRAL Rules — Whether the terms of the BIT varied the default rules for the allocation of arbitration costs

Deutsche Bank AG v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 446-484
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Responsibility Attribution ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Host State ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Debt Recovery

446Jurisdiction — Investment — Derivative transactions — Interpretation — Claims to money used to create an economic value — Claims to money associated with an investment — Whether a hedging agreement constituted an investment under the BITJurisdiction — Investment — Territorial requirement — Derivative transactions — Whether a hedging agreement satisfied the condition of territorial nexus to the host StateJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Derivative transactions — Salini test — Contribution to economic development — Regularity of profit and return — Whether a hedging agreement constituted an investment — Whether all five elements of the Salini test were legal criteria for an investment under ICSID jurisdictionJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Derivative transactions — Ordinary commercial transaction — Contingent liability — Whether a hedging agreement was an ordinary commercial transaction or a contingent liabilityJurisdiction — Contract — State-owned entity — Municipal law — Whether a hedging agreement was void because the transaction was outside a State-owned entity’s statutory authorityState responsibility — Attribution — Judicial acts — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — Whether a superior court was an organ of the host StateState responsibility — Attribution — Central bank — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — Whether a central bank was an organ of the host StateState responsibility — Attribution — State-owned entity — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 — Whether a State-owned entity was an organ of the State — Whether actions of a State-owned entity were attributable to the State as an exercise of governmental authority — Whether a State-owned entity was acting under instructions or the direction and control of the StateFair and equitable treatment — Judicial acts — Due process — Interim order — Political motive — Whether court orders violated the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether public statements of a senior judge evidenced the political motive of court ordersFair and equitable treatment — Autonomous standard — Interpretation — Minimum standard of treatment — Whether the standard of fair and equitable treatment was materially different from customary international law447Fair and equitable treatment — Government investigation — Due process — Bad faith — Transparency — Whether a central bank’s investigation violated the standard of fair and equitable treatmentExpropriation — Indirect expropriation — Contract — Derivative transaction — Substantial deprivation — Debt recovery — Municipal law — Whether the subsistence of a contractual debt and the possibility to claim under the chosen law of a third State prevented a finding of expropriation — Whether the possibility of recovery in a third State was to be assessed as a prerequisite in the cause of action of expropriation or as a matter of causation and quantumExpropriation — Indirect expropriation — Contract — Substantial deprivation — Legitimate regulatory authority — Proportionality — Whether an interference with contractual rights was an exercise of the host State’s legitimate regulatory authority — Whether the regulatory measures were proportionateRemedies — Damages — Causation — Contract — Debt recovery — Whether the claimant suffered damages if it had the possibility to recover a contractual debt in the courts of a third StateCosts — Indemnity — Egregious breach — Bad faith — Whether the egregious nature of the host State’s breaches of its international obligations meant the claimant was entitled to full recovery of its costs, legal fees and expenses

scholarly journals STATE PROTECTION UPON ADOLESCENT VICTIM OF INCEST RAPE THROUGH GENDER LENS

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 372
Author(s):  
Elita Rahmi ◽  
Elly Sudarti
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
The State ◽  
Female Victim ◽  
Legal Process ◽  
State Obligations ◽  
Substantive Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
Post Abortion ◽  
Gender Lens ◽  
State Protection

The state obligations to fulfill and protect the rights of adolescent victim of incest rape post-abortion and other rights have not been exercised during the legal process of investigation until court verdict as it is indicated that the adolescent victim is unfairly detained without due process for illegally practicing abortion. This occasion indicates that the law is being unfair towards the adolescent victim without considering the precondition which inevitably forces the abortion. This article scrutinizes such case of Muara Bulian county in which the local court’s verdict No. 5/Pid.Sus.Anak/2018/PN.Mbn did not accommodate the substantive justice which take stand of the rights of adolescent victim of incest rape. The verdict indicates that such court verdict does not express gender sensitivity to the right of adolescent female victim of incest rape to which the state is obliged to fulfil and protect.

Young Russians are increasingly prepared to protest

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
The State ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Content Type ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
Speaking Out ◽  
The People ◽  
Political Events ◽  
Younger Age ◽  
Do So

Significance Although Ustinov, 23, says he was not even part of the demonstration, his case became a cause celebre pointing to a gulf between the Kremlin and the people, particularly a younger generation that seems less fearful of speaking out. The court's unusual step reflects concerns that the case against Ustinov is fabricated, and that tough action against protesters compounded with indifference to due process risks a loss of legitimacy for the state. Impacts Russians, including the young, are losing trust in state institutions across the board. Many in the younger age-group are considering emigration, and have the personal and other resources to do so. Environmental protests are more likely to be given official authorisation than political events.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document