Just my limited tradie brain thinking here............Thanks MB. I received the PM and have responded.
My interpretation is the ICC thingy is a follows [with my comments in square brackets]
Jin Cheng ICC Arbitration Proceedings
“The Arbitrator has issued Procedural Order No.1-3 ruling in favour of AVZI
[it’s procedural decision rather than any consideration of the facts of the matter in dispute. This can be more or less ignored in my view].
“…and consequently will now proceed to hear and determine AVZI’s jurisdictional challenge
(around whether AVZI’s pre-emption rights were breached)
[AVZ are stating that this is not a matter over which the ICC has authority to make a decision. AVZ could assert that the matter must be heard in a court within the DRC in line with common law or as described in a binding agreement to which AVZ is a party].
“…before dealing, if necessary, with the merits of the case.
[here they are saying they the ICC will consider whether they (the ICC) have authority (jurisdiction) to even hear the matter. If the ICC concludes that they do not have that jurisdiction, the matter will not proceed any further].
“The timetable of the arbitral proceedings are yet to be set by the arbitrator.
[as above, no timetable is set because proceeding may be halted at the previous step].
Hopefully, that makes sense. Hopefully, I’m right.
" AVZ could assert that the matter must be heard in a court within the DRC in line with common law "
Given the state of corruption within DRC , plus the extensive chinese influence that goes with that, why would AVZ take the chance of a court hearing in the DRC ?.........the chinese could simply offer a significant " snack " to the judge / tribunal to " look the other way ".......
At least the ICC is impartial and one would think............immune to the snack brigade.
The problem with the ICC is the process is soooooooo fucking slow.........but if AVZ lawyers would simply hand over the IGF report, then you would think a positive decision could be ganered alot quicker.
Just IMO.