ADF Group Inc. v. United States of America
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
Procedural Order No. 2 Concerning the Place of Arbitration in ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/1 of 1 July 2001 (2001)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
ADF Group, Inc. (ADF) (plaintiff), a Canadian steel fabrication corporation, filed a claim against the United States of America (the United States) (defendant) under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Rules of United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. Although agreeing the arbitration should occur in either Canada or the United States, the parties could not agree on the exact location of the place of arbitration. The parties therefore reached an agreement to allow the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) to determine the question of the proper place for arbitration. Both ADF and the United States asked the court to consider the factors identified in Paragraph 22 of the Notes of United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. ADF asked the tribunal to designate Montreal as the place of arbitration, arguing the law of the United States was unsuitable to resolve the issue and that Montreal was more convenient. The United States requested Washington, D.C. as the place of arbitration, asserting the law of the United States was appropriate to resolve the issue.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Feliciano, Lamm, and DeMestral, J.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.