caa a22 4500 388045884 CHVBK 20180307125037.0 cr unu---uuuuu 161130e199810 xx s 000 0 eng 10.1017/S0020589300062527 doi S0020589300062527 pii (NATIONALLICENCE)cambridge-10.1017/S0020589300062527 Veeder V. V. The Lena Goldfields Arbitration: The Historical Roots of Three Ideas [Elektronische Daten] [V. V. Veeder] On 12 February 1930 a near-insolvent English company began arbitration proceedings against a large and hostile foreign State under an ad hoc arbitration clause contained in a written concession agreement signed by both parties. This concession had been granted by the Soviet Union in 1925 in respect of gold mining and other properties previously operated by the English company's Russian subsidiaries until their dispossession by the Soviet Russian government in 1918, following the October 1917 Revolution. In May 1930, after three months, the Soviet Union abruptly withdrew from the arbitration proceedings, abandoning both its defence and counterclaim and instructing its appointed arbitrator to take no further part in the proceedings. Four months later, on 2 September 1930, the English company obtained a massive monetary award in its favour, signed in London by two arbitrators only. Yet the financial result of Lena Gold-fields Limited v. USSR was to benefit David little and cost Goliath less. Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1998 International and Comparative Law Quarterly Cambridge University Press 47/4(1998-10), 747-792 0020-5893 47:4<747 1998 47 ILQ https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589300062527 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI 1 research-article jats NATIONALLICENCE 856 40 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589300062527 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI NATIONALLICENCE 100 1- Veeder V. V. NATIONALLICENCE 773 0- International and Comparative Law Quarterly Cambridge University Press 47/4(1998-10), 747-792 0020-5893 47:4<747 1998 47 ILQ CC0 http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0 nationallicence BK010053 XK010053 XK010000 NATIONALLICENCE NATIONALLICENCE NL-cambridge