Originally from Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law – Preview Page

DR. TODD WEILER: I’m very happy to welcome Andrea. Andrea and I have known each other for a long time, since we worked on the earliest NAFTA cases. Andrea has had an illustrious professional and now academic career. I think you all know Andrea. She’s obviously a leading light in our field, as an academic in investment arbitration. She’s the L. Yves Fortier Chair in International Arbitration and International Commercial Law at McGill University. We are very, very lucky that she was able to come down because travel was problematic yesterday. Please let me welcome Andrea and hear what she has to say. 

MS. ANDREA BJORKLUND: Thank you, Todd. Good afternoon, everyone. Go Blue Jays. I’m so pleased to be here. I’m a little bit less pleased to be standing between you and lunch, which no doubt you’re looking forward to, but let’s hope we have a very good lunch in a few minutes, and I’ll try to keep your attention for the next 30 to 45 minutes or so.  

First, I’d like to thank Todd, Kabir, and Camilla for the invitation to join you, and I thank Ian as co-chair Emeritus, and especially for the honor of giving a keynote lecture. I thank David and JURIS for this warm welcome. At the risk of dating myself, I was one of the panelists at the very first JURIS Conference. I was on the panel debating the necessity of a necessity defense for investment law. It seems that even then I was too old to be one of the writers—one of the young people—which is a little alarming. Nonetheless, it is an exceptional pleasure to be here with you, albeit in an even more senior capacity.  

In fact, on the senior note, and Todd was just mentioning this, I think Todd and I were first on a panel together in 2001. It was called “Moderating the Rhetoric: A Balanced View of NAFTA Chapter 11.” It was held at the Boston Bar Association in Massachusetts. It was in Boston and Massachusetts was interested because of the Mondev case, in which a Canadian Montreal-based developer was challenging a decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The title of that panel was “Moderating the Rhetoric.” Even in 2001 there was already rhetoric around NAFTA Chapter 11, especially in North America, of course. But there was starting to be more rhetoric about investment arbitration more generally. I guess I’m feeling a bit nostalgic these days.