[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-detail-160176-en":3,"doc-seo-160176-105":30,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":91},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",{"doc_id":7,"user_id":8,"nickname":9,"user_avatar":10,"doc_module":4,"category_id":11,"category_name":12,"doc_title":13,"doc_description":14,"doc_content":15,"file_id":16,"file_url":17,"file_type":18,"file_size":19,"view_count":4,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":20,"is_downloadable":20,"audit_status":20,"page_count":21,"language":22,"language_code":23,"site_id":24,"html_lang":23,"table_of_contents":25,"faqs":26,"seo_title":27,"seo_description":14,"update_tm":28,"read_time":29},160176,962085570644,"Melati","https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d",8,"Research & Report","Ballantine and Ballantine v. Dominican Republic - Final Award","Final Award in an arbitration under the Dominican Republic–Central America–United States Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) applying the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (as adopted in 2013). The proceeding involves Michael Ballantine and Lisa Ballantine as claimants against the Dominican Republic as respondent, with the tribunal and registry identified through the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The contents address the parties, procedural history, factual background concerning approvals and permits for project phases, jurisdiction arguments, objections to admissibility, and the merits for resolution.","PCA Case No. 2016-17  \nIN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE DOMINICAN REPUBLICCENTRAL AMERICA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT, SIGNED ON AUGUST 5, 2004 (the “DR-CAFTA”)  \n-and  \nTHE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES (AS ADOPTED IN 2013)  \n(the “UNCITRAL Rules”)  \n-between  \nMICHAEL BALLANTINE AND LISA BALLANTINE  \n(the “Claimants”)  \n-and  \nTHE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC  \n(the “Respondent”, and together with the Claimants, the “Parties”)  \nFINAL AWARD  \nTribunal:  \nProf. Ricardo Ramírez Hernández (Presiding Arbitrator) Ms. Marney L. Cheek Prof. Raúl Emilio Vinuesa  \nSecretary to the Tribunal: Mr. Julian Bordaçahar  \nRegistry:  \nPermanent Court of Arbitration  \n3 September 2019  \npage left intentionally blank  \nTABLE OF CONTENTS  \nI. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................1  \nA. PARTIES TO THE ARBITRATION..........................................................................................1  \nB. OVERVIEW OF THE DISPUTE ..............................................................................................2  \nII. PROCEDURAL HISTORY.........................................................................................................3  \nA. INITIATION OF THE DISPUTE..............................................................................................3  \nB. CONSTITUTION OF THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL..................................................................3  \nC. THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT .......................................................................................4  \nD. LANGUAGE AND PLACE OF ARBITRATION ........................................................................5  \nE. REGISTRY............................................................................................................................5  \nF. TRANSPARENCY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ............................................................................5  \nG. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS .............................................................................6  \nH. THE HEARING.....................................................................................................................8  \nI. POST-HEARING DEVELOPMENTS ....................................................................................12  \nIII. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................13  \nA. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................13  \nB. SEEKING APPROVAL FROM THE MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PHASE 1.........................................................16  \nC. THE CLAIMANTS’ALLEGED COMMERCIAL SUCCESS OF PHASE 1 OF THE PROJECT ..19  \nD. THE CLAIMANTS’ PLANS FOR PHASE 2 OF THE PROJECT..............................................20  \nE. ISSUES WITH THE ROAD ..................................................................................................22  \nF. THE CLAIMANTS’ REQUEST TO THE MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES FOR A PERMIT FOR PHASE 2 .......................................................................24  \n The First Phase 2 Inspection by the MMA..........................................................24  \n Imposition of the Fine and Meetings between the Parties .................................26  \n First Reconsideration by the MMA at the Claimants’ Request.........................29  \n Subsequent Reconsiderations by the MMA of Jamaca de Dios’ Environmental Permit Request.......................................................................................................32  \nIV. RELIEF SOUGHT.....................................................................................................................40  \nA. THE CLAIMANTS’ RELIEF .........................................................................................","cbCaipK4ubqBUknq","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaipK4ubqBUknq","pdf",2432410,1,215,"English","en",105,"# Introduction\n## Parties to the Arbitration\n## Overview of the Dispute\n# Procedural History\n## Initiation of the Dispute\n## Constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal\n## The Arbitration Agreement\n## Language and Place of Arbitration\n## Registry\n## Transparency of the Proceedings\n## Development of the Proceedings\n## The Hearing\n## Post-Hearing Developments\n# Factual Background\n## Seeking Approval for Phase 1 Development\n## Alleged Commercial Success of Phase 1\n## Plans for Phase 2\n## Issues With the Road\n## Permit Request for Phase 2\n## First Phase 2 Inspection by the MMA\n## Imposition of the Fine and Meetings\n## First Reconsideration by the MMA\n## Subsequent Reconsiderations of Environmental Permit Request\n# Relief Sought\n## The Claimants’ Relief\n## The Respondent’s Relief\n# The Parties’ Arguments on Jurisdiction\n## The Respondent’s Arguments\n## The Claimants’ Arguments\n## The United States Non-Disputing Party Submission\n# The Objections to Admissibility\n## The Respondent’s Arguments\n## The Claimants’ Arguments\n## Non-Disputing Parties’ Submissions\n# Merits\n## The Relation Under DR","[{\"question\":\"Who are the parties in this arbitration and what is the role of each party?\",\"answer\":\"Michael Ballantine and Lisa Ballantine act as the Claimants, and the Dominican Republic acts as the Respondent. The dispute is resolved through an arbitral tribunal under the specified arbitration rules and framework.\"},{\"question\":\"What key issues are addressed in the procedural history and factual background?\",\"answer\":\"The document outlines initiation, tribunal constitution, arbitration agreement, language/place, registry, transparency, and developments including the hearing and post-hearing steps. It also details project approvals and permit-related events across phase 1 and phase 2, including inspections, reconsiderations, and imposition of fines.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the document structure the evaluation before reaching the merits?\",\"answer\":\"It first sets out the Relief Sought, then presents the Parties’ arguments on jurisdiction. After that, it covers objections to admissibility before proceeding to the Merits section for substantive determination.\"}]","Ballantine and Ballantine v. Dominican Republic - Final Award | PDF",1788051267,542,{"code":4,"msg":31,"data":32},"ok",{"site_id":24,"language":23,"slug":33,"title":13,"keywords":34,"description":14,"schema_data":35,"social_meta":86,"head_meta":88,"extra_data":90,"updated_unix":28},"ballantine-and-ballantine-v-dominican-republic-final-award","",{"@graph":36,"@context":85},[37,54,68],{"@type":38,"itemListElement":39},"BreadcrumbList",[40,44,48,51],{"item":41,"name":42,"@type":43,"position":20},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":45,"name":46,"@type":43,"position":47},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":49,"name":12,"@type":43,"position":50},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":52,"name":13,"@type":43,"position":53},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/ballantine-and-ballantine-v-dominican-republic-final-award/160176/",4,{"url":52,"name":13,"@type":55,"author":56,"headline":13,"publisher":58,"fileFormat":61,"inLanguage":23,"description":14,"dateModified":62,"datePublished":62,"encodingFormat":61,"isAccessibleForFree":63,"interactionStatistic":64},"DigitalDocument",{"name":9,"@type":57},"Person",{"url":41,"name":59,"@type":60},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-08-30",true,{"@type":65,"interactionType":66,"userInteractionCount":4},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":67},"ViewAction",{"@type":69,"mainEntity":70},"FAQPage",[71,77,81],{"name":72,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":74},"Who are the parties in this arbitration and what is the role of each party?","Question",{"text":75,"@type":76},"Michael Ballantine and Lisa Ballantine act as the Claimants, and the Dominican Republic acts as the Respondent. The dispute is resolved through an arbitral tribunal under the specified arbitration rules and framework.","Answer",{"name":78,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":79},"What key issues are addressed in the procedural history and factual background?",{"text":80,"@type":76},"The document outlines initiation, tribunal constitution, arbitration agreement, language/place, registry, transparency, and developments including the hearing and post-hearing steps. It also details project approvals and permit-related events across phase 1 and phase 2, including inspections, reconsiderations, and imposition of fines.",{"name":82,"@type":73,"acceptedAnswer":83},"How does the document structure the evaluation before reaching the merits?",{"text":84,"@type":76},"It first sets out the Relief Sought, then presents the Parties’ arguments on jurisdiction. After that, it covers objections to admissibility before proceeding to the Merits section for substantive determination.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":52,"og:type":87,"og:title":13,"og:site_name":59,"og:description":14},"article",{"robots":89,"canonical":52},"index,follow",{"doc_id":7,"site_id":24},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":92},[93,97,101,105,110,115,120,123,128,131,135],{"id":20,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":94,"show_sort_weight":95,"slug":96},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":47,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":53,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":112,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":11,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":12,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},30,"research-report",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":126,"slug":127},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":126,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":126,"slug":130},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":132,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":133,"show_sort_weight":132,"slug":134},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":136,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":137,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":138},19,"General","general"]