Talk:CME/Lauder v. Czech Republic

Opening section: noun verb agreement problem

The CME v. Czech Republic and Lauder v. Czech Republic were cases decided by two different arbitral tribunals in 2001. It is a prime example of conflicting decisions in international arbitration and the subject of many treatises, with some authors going as far as calling it "the ultimate fiasco in investment arbitration".[1]

The first sentence talks about cases (plural) and uses a plural verb (were). Then the next sentence calls the same things a singular "it."

I see two possible solutions. Make the second sentence plural. Something like "these are prime examples of conflicting decisions in international arbitration and the subject of many treatises, with some authors going as far as calling the divergence between the two cases "....

Or replace the first "it" with something. Maybe: "The difference in the two cases outcomes is a prime example of" .... Cloveapple (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the second solution with the "difference". It is close to what I had in mind when writing it. Thank you for working on this article. Could you please copy-editing my other legal article Legal clinic? Especially the "background part" might need it (the rest is more or less written according to English language sources).Cimmerian praetor (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be glad to take a look at the Legal Clinic article. I've probably got a little more editing to do on this arbitration case article. I've been cautious with my edits here because it's a subject that's completely unknown to me and I haven't wanted to change the meaning. Plus I'm pretty new at Wikipedia so I'm still figuring out how everything works. It's a really interesting article though. I'll probably have some more questions for you to make sure I understand the meaning and don't mess up your intent while I'm trying to make the English smoother.

I'm thinking I should work on a copy of this article on a page in my user space so I can put questions next to the actual text. I've never done that on Wikipedia yet though. Is it ok to just make a page in my user space and just put a copy of the article there? Or do I need to do any additional steps? Cloveapple (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have never tried that. I know that there exists Wikipedia:About the Sandbox, perhaps this might help you. This article also needs more about the damages stage of CME v CR, and about the stage before the Swedish courts, where the CR unsuccessfully tried to set the award aside. However, I don't really have time to do it now :( Thank you for help with the article.

This article is thoroughly sourced, basically all that is written here comes from the awards. Perhaps reading the awards might help you understand it better. Anyway I will gladly help you with whatever issue, don't hesitate to ask!Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

a few possible rephrasings

• The CME v. Czech Republic and Lauder v. Czech Republic were cases decided by two different arbitral tribunals in 2001.

My thoughts: An adjective in front of cases would be good. Would "parallel" or "related" fit? Something to say they weren't just two random cases from 2001, but had a connection (and therefore make sense as the subject of an article).

Parallel seems fine. Maybe even an adjective showing more strong connection would be better fitting. As it is pointed out later: "Effectively dealing with the same facts"

• During the same year a new Media law was passed, under which the Media Council was created in order to grant broadcasting licences.

Is there a reason for capitalizing media in "Media law"?

Perhaps it shoudl be Media Act.

• The key person Vladimír Železný became chief of both CET21 and ČNTS. The newly established TV station nova immediately became popular and very profitable.

I'm really not sure about "The key person" but I can't articulate what's off about it so maybe it's fine. Does chief = chief executive officer? Otherwise how about "head of both"?

Head of both is fine.

• However in 1999 Železný was fired from his function within ČNTS.

"from his function" is a little awkward. Can we just say "was fired from ČNTS"? Or it might be an even better sentence if it didn't use passive voice. Is there somebody who fired him? Then it could be worded "However in 1999 ____ fired Železný from ČNTS."

"I wrote it this way to make it clear, that the investor put Železný into the position of head of ČNTS and had him there all the time, despite the fact the fact that Železný's interest was completely within the other company. I don't know who exactly fired Železný. So perhaps "was fired from ČNTS" will be best.

• "The Media Council played a role in the making of relations between the CET21 and ČNTS...."

"making of relations" is a little off but I'm not sure what to suggest since I'm not sure of the exact meaning you're aiming at here. Maybe "shaping the relationship"? Or "defining the relationship"?

The thing is, that the Council played some very limited role (in the end it was entirely to the parties how they shape their relationship, they were not bound by the MC's views). So perhaps something like "MC influenced the shaping of relationship"?

• On the other hand the Stockholm arbitration stressed that "a party may seek its legal protection under any scheme provided by the laws of the host country ... (and that the both bilateral investment treaties) are part of the laws of the Czech Republic and neither of the treaties supersedes the other.

Does the quote really say "the both"?? "and that both bilateral investment treaties" would make sense and so would "and that the bilateral investment treaties"

The sentence in the brackets is not direct quote, I summarized it to make it more readable. Your correction is fine.

• Subsequently the Media Council requested expert opinion regarding the ČNTS' authority to operate television broadcasting. Dr. Jan Bárta of the State and Law Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic rendered a legal opinion within one week after the request, which concluded that CET21 does not operate broadcasting and never did, whereas ČNTS was broadcasting without authority.

''I'm not sure about "operate television broadcasting" and "does not operate broadcasting" How about "engages in television broadcasting" and "does not engage in broadcasting"?

Here the words "operate broadcasting" should stay. It is somewhat bad translation of Czech, however it is used in the arbitration.

• The companies set forward to modify the arrangement in order to appeal the concerns expressed by the expert opinion.

not sure I understand "to appeal the concerns" but I think it might be "address the concerns" or "satisfy the concerns"

Yup, your way sounds much better

• In November, the agreement between the companies was further amended, so that ČNTS was granted the unconditional, irrevocable, and exclusive right to use and maintain the know-how and make it a source of profit for the company, in connection with the License, its maintenance and protection.

I'm not sure about "use and maintain the know-how" but I don't have a suggestion.

What I tried to say is that the company was running the show for the license holder. I believe it is also a sentence directly from the arbi. award.

• Arbitrator Jaroslav Hándl did not sign the partial CME award and made a dissenting opinion with reservations partially to facts and especially to the legal conclusions.

is "reservations partially to facts" a legal phrase?? Or a Britishism?? Otherwise: "with reservations partially about facts and especially about the legal conclusions" Cloveapple (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup, please change it.

Thank you very much for help with this article!Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I did some of the changes. If "parallel" isn't a strong enough adjective you could use "overlapping" or "almost identical." If we use "Media Act" the capitalization suggests it is a proper noun, a formal name. Is that what you want to suggest? Otherwise if if it's one of many media laws and you aren't using it's exact name then I'd suggest lower case. I think I expressed the meaning you wanted about how the Media Council tried to influence the relationship. If I didn't quite get it let me know and I'll try to come up with other wording. Cloveapple (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)