Igbokwe, vc, ‘Determination, Interpretation and Application of Substantive Law in Foreign Investment Treaty Arbitration’, 23 j Int'l Arb 267 (2006)

Jennings, RY, ‘State Contracts in International Law’, 37 BYIL 156 (1961)

Kojanec, G (ed), Les accords de commerce international (Leiden, 1969)

Kreindler, RH, ‘The Law Applicable to International Investment Disputes’, in N Horn and S Kr?ll (eds), Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2004)

Kurkela, M, ‘Jura Novit Curia and the Burden of Education in International Arbitration: A Nordic Perspective’, ASA Bulletin 486 (2003)

Lalive, P, ‘Concluding Remarks’, in E Gaillard and Y Banifatemi (eds), Annulment of ICSID Awards (Huntington, NY, Juris Publishing, 2004)

__, L'Etat en taut que partie ? des contrats de concession ou d'investissements conclus avec des soci?ti?s priv?e ?trang?res, in UNIDROIT, New Directions in International Trade Law (vol 1, Dobbs Ferry, NY, 1977)

Lauterpacht, E, ‘The World Bank Convention on the Settlement of International Investment Disputes’, in Recueil d'?tudes de droit international en hommage ? Paul Guggenheim (Gen?ve, Facult? de Droit, l'Universit? de Gen?ve, Institut Universitaire des Hautes Etudes Internationales, 1968)

Leben, C, ‘La Th?orie du contrat d'?tat et l'?volution du droit international des investissements’, 302 Recueil des Cours 197 (2003)

Leboulanger, P, ‘Rapport introductif’, Revue de l'arbitrage 617 (2003)

Lillich, RB, ‘The Law Governing Disputes under Economic Development Agreements: Reexamining the Concept of “Internationalization” ’, in RB Lillich and CN Brower (eds), International Arbitration in the 21st Century: Towards ‘Judicialization’ and Uniformity? (Irvington, NY, Transnational Publishers, 1994)

Manciaux, S, Investissements ?trangers et arbitrage entre Etats et ressortissants d'autres Etats (Dijon, Litec, 2004)

McLachlan, C, Shore, L, and Weiniger, M, International Investment Arbitration Substantive Principles (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007)

end p.117

McNair, Lord, ‘The General Principles of Law Recognized by Civilized Nations’, 33 BYIL 1 (1957)

Poudret, J-F, and Besson, S, Droit compar? de l'arbitrage international (Zurich, Schulthess, 2002)

Reisman, WM, ‘The Regime for Lacunae in the ICSID Choice of Law Provision and the Question of Threshold’, 15 ICSID Rev-FILJ 362 (2000)

Sacerdoti, G, ‘Investment Arbitration: Under ICSID and UNCITRAL Rules: Prerequisites, Applicable Law, Review of Awards’, 19 ICSID Rev-FILJ 1 (2004)

Schreuer, C, ‘Failure to Apply the Governing Law in International Investment Arbitration’, 7 Austrian Rev Int'l and European L 147 (2002)

__, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2001)

Shihata, IFI, and Parra, AR, ‘Applicable Substantive Law in Disputes between States and Private Foreign Parties: The Case of Arbitration under the ICSID Convention’, 9 ICSID Rev-FILJ 183 (1994)

Sohn, LB, and Baxter, RR, ‘Responsibility of States for Injuries to the Economic Interests of Aliens’, 55 AJIL 545 (1961)

Spiermann, O, ‘Individual Rights, State Interests and the Power to Waive ICSID Jurisdiction under Bilateral Investment Treaties’, 20 Arb Int'l 179 (2004)

__, International Legal Argument in the Permanent Court of international Justice (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

__, ‘“Who Attempts too Much Does Nothing Well”: The 1920 Advisory Committee and the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice’, 73 BYIL 187 (2002)

Veeder, VV, ‘The Lena Goldfields Arbitration: The Historical Roots of Three Ideas’, 47 ICLQ 747 (1998)

Verdross, A, ‘The Status of Foreign Private Interests Stemming from Economic Development Agreements with Arbitration Clauses’, 9 ?sterreichische Zeitschrift f?r ?ffentliches Recht und V?lkerrecht 449 (1958–9)

Weil, Prosper, ‘Probl?mes relatifs aux contrats pass?s entre un Etat et un particulier’, 128 Recueil des Cours 95 (1969) Footnotes 1 See eg J-F Poudret and S Besson, Droit compar? de l'arbitrage international (Zurich, Schulthess, 2002) 521–2, 783–5, and 789–90 and also F Perret, ‘Les Conclusions et les chefs de demande dans l'arbitrage international’ ASA Bulletin 7 (1996) and M Kurkela, ‘Jura Novit Curia and the Burden of Education in International Arbitration: A Nordic Perspective’ ASA Bulletin 486 (2003). 2Kl?ckner v Cameroon , Decision on Annulment, 3 May 1985, 2 ICSID Reports 95 at para 91. See also Encana v Ecuador , Award, 3 February 2006, at para 156 available at <http://ita.law.unic.ca/ documents/EncanaAwardEnglish.pdf>. 3Wena v Egypt , Annulment Decision, 5 February 2002, 6 ICSID Reports 129 at para 69 n 24. 4CAA and Vivendi v Argentina , Annulment Decision, 3 July 2002, 6 ICSID Reports 340 at paras 84–5. 5Mitchell v Congo , Annulment Decision, 1 November 2006, at para 57, available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/mitchellannulment.pdf>. 6 On the occasion of the respondent defaulting, different approaches were taken in the Libyan oil arbitrations, see BP v Libya , Award, 10 October 1973, 53 ILR 300 at 313, Texaco v. Libya , Award, 19 January 1977, 53 ILR 420 at para 53 and Liamco v Libya , Award, 12 April 1977, 62 ILR 145 at 151 and 181. The first award might have been going too far. Claimant filed an application for the tribunal to reopen the proceedings, which ultimately was declined under the applicable procedural law, cf BP v Libya , Decision on Competence, 1 August 1974, 53 ILR 375. 7CME v Czech Republic , Final Award, 14 March 2003, 9 ICSID Reports 264 at para 400 and see paras 407 and 411. The tribunal's view is questioned in C Schreuer, ‘Failure to Apply the Governing Law in International Investment Arbitration’ 7 Austrian Rev Int'l and European Law 147 (2002) at 189–92 and Taida Begic, Applicable Law in International Investment Disputes (Utrecht, Eleven International Publishing, 2005) 45'6 and 201. In its Judgment of 15 May 2003, the Svea Court of Appeal found that the arbitral tribunal had not exceeded its mandate by failing to apply the applicable law, its review being far less strict than that exercised by the ad hoc committees in Kl?ckner v Cameroon and Amco v Indonesia , see 9 ICSID Reports 441 at 497–9. 8CME v Czech Republic , Final Award, 14 March 2003, above n 7, at para 403. 9 See CSOB v Slovak Republic , Award, 29 December 2004, at para 52, available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/Cesk-Slovakia-AwardDec2004.pdf>. 10Saudi Arabia v Aramco , Award, 23 August 1958, 27 ILR 117 at 154–6 and 162. The tribunal was presided over by Georges Sauser-Hall, who had served as rapporteur when, in 1957, the Institut de droit international had adopted a resolution to the effect that ‘[t]he rules of choice of law in force in the state of the seat of the arbitral tribunal must be followed to settle the law applicable to the substance of the dispute’: see Annuaire de l'Institut de droit international (vol 47-II, 1957) 496 and also (vol 44-I, 1952) 571-2 and (vol 48-II, 1959) 264. 11 See eg Sapphire v NIOC , Award, 15 March 1963, 35 ILR 136 at 170, BP v Libya , Award, 10 October 1973, 53 ILR 300 at 326 and Liamco v Libya , Award, 12 April 1977, 62 ILR 145 at 171. 12Annuaire de l'Institut de droit international (vol 63-I, 1989) 38 and 44. 13Lena Goldfields Arbitration, 5 Annual Digest 3 (1930) at 3; see also (1950) 36 Cornell L Q 42 at para 22. 14 VV Veeder, ‘The Lena Goldfields Arbitration: The Historical Roots of Three Ideas' 47 ICLQ 747 at 772 (1998). 15 See eg M Bourquin, ‘Arbitration and Economic Development Agreements’ 15 Bus Law 860 (1959–60) at 867; Schmitthoff in G Kojanec (ed), Les accords de commerce international, (Leiden, 1969) 366; and P Lalive, ‘L'?tat en tant que partie ? des contrats de concession ou d'investissements conclus avec des soci?t?s priv?es ?trang?res’, in UNIDROIT, New Directions in International Trade Law (vol 1, Dobbs Ferry, NY, 1977) 317 at 340. 16ICSID, History of the ICSID Convention—Documents Concerning the Origin and the Formulation of the Convention (vol 2, Washington, ICSID, 1968) 268 and 330. 17 HLA Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 1994) 193. 18Case concerning the Payment in Gold of Brazilian Federal Loans contracted in France, PCIJ Series A No. 21 (1929) at 116, and see also ibid 111–12, 114–15, 118, and 120, referring to the bondholders ‘that as individuals … were powerless as against the Brazilian Government’. This pronouncement points to certain inadequacies in the traditional reading of the parallel judgment in Case concerning the Payment of Various Serbian Loans issued in France, PCIJ Series A No. 20 (1929) at 41–2. 19 LL El-Zein, Les Contrats d‘Etat ? l‘?preuve du droit international (Brussels, Bruyant, 2001) 113 and also 126. See also P Leboulanger, ‘Rapport introductif’ Revue de l'arbitrage 617 (2003) at 625. 20 See SPP v Egypt , Award, 20 May 1992, 3 ICSID Reports 189 at 211–12, 215, and 222. 21 LB Sohn and RR Baxter, ‘Responsibility of States for Injuries to the Economic Interests of Aliens’ 55 AJIL 545 (1961) at 569. See also eg RY Jennings, ‘State Contracts in International Law’ 37 BYIL 156 (1961) at 175–6, Prosper Weil, ‘Probl?mes relatifs aux contrats pass?s entre un Etat et un particulier’ 128 Recueil des Cours 95 (1969) at 199 and Derek William Bowett, ‘State Contracts with Aliens: Contemporary Developments on Compensation for Termination or Breach’ 59 BYIL 49 (1988) at 55 (‘such a level of generality as to be misleading and even erroneous’). 22 Eg, Administration of Posts and Telegraphs of Czechoslovakia v Radio Corporation of America , Award, 1932, 30 AJIL 523 (1936) at 530–1, Alsing Trading Company Ltd v Greece , Award, 22 December 1954, 23 ILR 633 at 637–8, 641–3, 645, 649–51, and 656, and Monsieur Y c. l'Etat Y , Award, 1968, 1 ICC Awards 218 at 220 and ICC Award No. 3327, 1981, 1 ICC Awards 433 at 434. See also AGIP v Congo , Award, 30 November 1979, 1 ICSID Reports 306 at 323. 23Soci?t? Rialet v Ethiopia , Award, 15 January 1929, 8 Recueil des d?cisions des Tribunaux Arbitraux Mixtes 742 at 748 (also referring to party autonomy), Petroleum Development Ltd v Sheikh of Abu Dhabi , Award, September 1951, 18 ILR 144 at 149, Ruler of Qatar v International Marine Oil Company Ltd. , Award, June 1953, 20 ILR 534 at 544–5 and Saudi Arabia v Aramco , Award, 23 August 1958, 27 ILR 117 at 163 and 168–9. As for more recent examples, see Amco v Indonesia , Award No. 2, 31 May 1990, 1 ICSID Reports 569 at 599 and 604–5, and SPP v Egypt , Award, 20 May 1992, 3 ICSID Reports 189 at 207 and 234–5. 24Saudi Arabia v Aramco , Award, 23 August 1958, 27 ILR 117 at 165–71 and see also Sapphire v NIOC , Award, 15 March 1963, 35 ILR 136 at 171. 25 As for this latter embodiment of Zeitgeist, see, in particular, Lord McNair, ‘The General Principles of Law Recognized by Civilized Nations’ 33 BYIL 1 (1957) at 6, 10 and 19 and also M Bourquin, above n 15 at 869. Mention should also be made of A Verdross, ‘The Status of Foreign Private Interests Stemming from Economic Development Agreements with Arbitration Clauses’ 9 sterreichische Zeitschrift f?r ffentliches Recht und V?lkerrecht 449 (1958–9) at 455. Of course, general principles of law are also known to the list of sources in the archaic Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, mainly due to the spectre of a non liquet, see O Spiermann, ‘ “Who Attempts too Much Does Nothing Well”: The 1920 Advisory Committee and the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice’ 73 BYIL 187 (2002) at 215–18. 26Elf Aquitaine Iran v National Iranian Oil Company , Preliminary Award, 14 January 1982, 96 ILR 254 at para 19 and see also para 15 according to which ‘[t]he law chosen in the Agreement as the competent law coincides with the law that, in the absence of the choice of law clause, would have been the proper law of the Agreement’ (this time referring to Sapphire v NIOC ). 27Company Z and others v State Organization ABC , Award, April 1982, (1983) 8 Yearbook of Commercial Arbitration 94 at 114. 28 Ibid 108–9. 29 See E Gaillard, La Jurisprudence du CIRDI (Paris, Pedone, 2004) 383 and S Manciaux, Investissements ?trangers et arbitrage entre Etats et ressortissants d‘autres Etats (Dijon, Litec, 2004) 287–8 and 290. See also eg Soci?t? des Grands Travaux de Marseille v East Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation , Award 1972, 1 ICC Awards 40 at 44–5 and 47. 30 eg Deutsche Schachtban- und Tiefbohrgesellschaft v United Arab Emirates , Award, 2 ICC Reports 154 at para 18 and Mobil Oil Iran v Iran , Award, 14 July 1984, 16 Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports 3 at para 81. 31 It also naturally leads to acceptance of the individual as a subject of public international law, see O Spiermann, ‘Individual Rights, State Interests and the Power to Waive ICSID Jurisdiction under Bilateral Investment Treaties’ 20 Arb Int'l 179 (2004) at 183–6. 32ICSID, History of the ICSID Convention—Documents Concerning the Origin and the Formulation of the Convention (vol. 2, Washington, ICSID, 1968) 41, 157, 214, 259, 322, and 330; see also ibid 630–1. 33 Ibid 804. As for the subsidiary role of international law, see also ibid 800, 984, and 986. In an attempt to play down further the significance of international law, Aron Broches, who as General Counsel of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development was the principal architect of the ICSID Convention, said that ‘the reference to international law in Article 42 … , in reality, comprised (apart from treaty law) only such principles as that of good faith and the principle that one ought to abide by agreements voluntarily made and ought to carry them out in good faith’, ibid 985. 34Amoco v Iran , Award, 14 July 1987, 15 Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports 189 at para 177. 35Texaco v Libya , Award, 19 January 1977, 53 ILR 420 at paras 26, 35, 41–2, and see R-J Dupuy, The Law of the Sea (Leiden, Sijthoff, 1974) at 153–6. The approach was broadly followed in Revere Copper and Brass Inc v Overseas Private Investment Corporation , Award, 24 August 1978, 56 ILR 261 at 271–2. 36 Ibid paras 29 and 50. 37 Weil, above n 21 at 118–19, 158, 173, 184–8, and 191–5. 38 See BP v Libya , Award, 10 October 1973, 53 ILR 300 at 328–9, 348–9, and 354 and Liamco v Libya , Award, 12 April 1977, 62 ILR 145 at 175–6. Out of the three awards, it was Texaco v Libya that was most creative, or incorrect, in applying international law, see 53 ILR 420 at paras 71, 73, and 93–109 as to the effect of a stabilization clause. 39 The general principle of separability of arbitration clauses reflects the same rationale, the termination of the arbitration agreement not being subject to the discretion of only one of the parties, see eg Texaco v Libya , Preliminary Award, 27 November 1975, 53 ILR 393 at paras 16–19 and Liamco v Libya , Award, 12 April 1977, 62 ILR 145 at 178. 40 RB Lillich, ‘The Law Governing Disputes under Economic Development Agreements: Reexamining the Concept of “Internationalization” ’, in RB Lillich and CN Brower (eds), International Arbitration in the 21st Century: Towards ‘Judicialization’ and Uniformity? (Irvington, NY, Transnational Publishers, 1994) 61 at 92. 41 E Lauterpacht, ‘The World Bank Convention on the Settlement of International Investment Disputes’ in Recueil d‘?tudes de droit international en hommage ? Paul Guggenheim (Gen?ve, Faculte de Droit, l'Universit? de Gen?ve, Institut Universitaire des Hautes Etudes Internationales, 1968) 642 at 658 and 660–1, P Feuerle, ‘International Arbitration and Choice of Law under Article 42 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes’ 4 Yale Studies in World Public Order 89 (1977) at 105–13, A Broches, ‘Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States of 1965: Explanatory Notes and Survey of its Application’ 18 YB Com Arb 627 (1993) at 669, R Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1994) 141, C Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001) 588, and C Leben, ‘La Th?orie du contrat d'?tat et l'?volution du droit international des investissements’ 302 Recueil des Cours 197 (2003) at 283–4. 42Amco v Indonesia , Annulment Decision, 16 May 1986, 1 ICSID Reports 509 at para 21. 43SPP v Egypt , Award, 20 May 1992, 3 ICSID Reports 189 at 207. See also Letco v Liberia , Award, 31 March 1986, 2 ICSID Reports 346 at 358 and CDC v Seychelles , Award, 17 December 2003, 11 ICSID Reports 211 at paras 32 and 43 and CDC v Seychelles , Annulment Decision, 29 June 2005, 11 ICSID Reports 237 at paras 26 and 45. 44Company Z and others v State Organization ABC , Award, April 1982, 8 YB Com Arbi 94 (1983) at 108. 45 P Bernardini, ‘International Arbitration and A-National Rules of Law’ 15-2 ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin 58 (2004) at 61. 46BP v Libya , Award, 10 October 1973, 53 ILR 300 at 331; see also Texaco v Libya , Award, 19 January 1977, 53 ILR 420 at para 49. 47 Cf IFI Shihata and AR Parra, ‘Applicable Substantive Law in Disputes between States and Private Foreign Parties: The Case of Arbitration under the ICSID Convention’ 9 ICSID Rev-FILJ 183 (1994) at 205. 48 K-H B?ckstiegel, Der Staat als Vertragspartner ausl?ndischer Privatunternehmen (Frankfurt am Main, Athen?um Verlay, 1971) 106–10 and 115–19. 49 Kuwait v Aminoil, Award, 24 March 1982, 66 ILR 529 at para 2. 50BP v Libya , Award, 10 October 1973, 53 ILR 300 at 326–7, Texaco v Libya , Award, 19 January 1977, 53 ILR 420 at paras 25–35 (cf ibid para 11) and Liamco v Libya , Award, 12 April 1977, 62 ILR 145 at 171–3. 51Annuaire d'Institut de droit international (vol 58-II, 1979) 192–5 and also 72, 82, and 84. 52 Cf Elf Aquitaine Iran v National Iranian Oil Company , Preliminary Award, 14 January 1982, 96 ILR 254 at paras 15 and 17. 53 P Lalive, ‘Concluding Remarks’, in E Gaillard and Y Banifatemi (eds), Annulment of ICSID Awards (Hunnington, NY, Juris Publishing, 2004) 297 at 313. 54 See Broches, above n 39 at 668 and Schreuer, above n 39 at 627–31. For early academic contributions pointing in the same direction, see A Broches, ‘The Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States’ (1972) 136 Recueil des Cours 331 at 390 and 392, Lauterpacht, above n 39 at 659–60 and B Goldman, ‘Le Droit applicable selon la Convention de la B.I.R.D., du 18 mars 1965, pour le r?glement des diff?rends relatifs aux investissements entre Etats et ressortissants d'autres Etats', in Investissements ?trangers et arbitrage entre Etats et Personnes Priv?es: La Convention B.I.R.D. du 18 mars 1965 (Paris, 1969) 133 at 151. 55 The ad hoc committee also found that the arbitral tribunal had failed to deal with questions submitted to it and to state reasons, see Kl?ckner v Cameroon , Decision on Annulment, 3 May 1985, 2 ICSID Reports 95 at paras 144, 151, 157, 164, 171, and 176. 56 See Kl?ckner v Cameroon , Award, 21 October 1983, 2 ICSID Reports 9 at 59 and Decision on Annulment, 3 May 1985, 2 ICSID Reports 95 at paras 121–2. 57 See Kl?ckner v Cameroon , Decision on Annulment, 3 May 1985, 2 ICSID Reports 95 at paras 122–5, 156, and 159. 58 Ibid para 122. 59 See Amco v Indonesia , Annulment Decision, 16 May 1986, 1 ICSID Reports 509 at paras 20–2. 60 E Gaillard and Y Banifatemi, ‘The Meaning of “and” in Article 42(1), Second Sentence, of the Washington Convention: The Role of International Law in the ICSID Choice of Law Process’ 18 ICSID Rev-FILJ 375 (2003) at 398. See previously Emmanuel Gaillard's case notes in (1987) 114 Journal du droit international 135 at 157 and (1991) Journal du droit international 165 at 182–3 and also Rudolf Dolzer and Christoph Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008) 265–71. 61Amco v Indonesia , Award No. 2, 31 May 1990, 1 ICSID Reports 569 at 580. This observation takes much away from the analysis in WM Reisman, ‘The Regime for Lacunae in the ICSID Choice of Law Provision and the Question of Threshold’ 15 ICSID Rev-FILJ 362 (2000) at 371 and 375. 62 See Aucoven v Venezuela , Award, 23 September 2003, at para 102 available at <http://www.world bank.org/icsid/cases/Award_Total.pdf>. 63CME v Czech Republic , Final Award, 14 March 2003, n 7 above at para 410. 64CAA and CGE v Argentina , Award, 21 November 2000, 5 ICSID Reports 299 at para 55, SGS v Pakistan , Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2003, 8 ICSID Reports 406 at para 161, LESI Dipenta v Algeria , Award, 19 ICSID Rev-FILJ 426 (2005), at para 25; and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v Ecuador , Award, 1 July 2004, at paras 52–7 available at <http://ita.law.unic.ca/documents/oxy-EcuadorFinalAward_001.pdf>. 65SGS v Pakistan , Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2003, 8 ICSID Reports 406 at paras 167–73. 66 See eg Soci?t? des Grands Travaux de Marseille v East Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation , Award, 1972, 1 ICC Awards 40 at 43, SPP v Egypt , Award of 16 February 1983, 1 ICC Awards 124 at para 49 and Wintershall AG, et al v Qatar , Partial Award, 5 February 1988, (1989) 28 ILM 795 at 802. It is not only unlikely, but impossible, for the most closely related legal system to be a ‘neutral’ system of a third state, cf RH Kreindler, ‘The Law Applicable to International Investment Diputes’, in N Horn and S Kr?ll (eds), Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2004) 401 at 404. 67 For purposes of illustration, see Eureko v Poland, Partial Award, 19 August 2005, 12 ICSID Reports 335 at paras 91, 126, and 247. 68 It is difficult to subscribe to the judgment of 2 May 2001 of the Supreme Court of British Columbia partially annulling the award of the NAFTA tribunal in Mexico v Metalclad on the ground that the tribunal had interpreted Chapter 11 in the light of provisions in different chapters, cf 5 ICSID Reports 238 at paras 68–76. 69CAA and Vivendi v Argentina , Annulment Decision, 3 July 2002, 6 ICSID Reports 340 at para 96. 70 Ibid para 102, quoted with approval in Azurix v Argentina , Award, 14 July 2006 at paras 667, available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/AzurixAwardJuly2006.pdf>. 71MTD and MTD v Chile , Annulment Decision, 21 March 2007, at para 72 and see also para 61, available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/MTD-Chile_Ad_Hoc_Committee_Decision.pdf>. 72 Broches, above n 52 at 392. See also G Sacerdoti, ‘Investment Arbitration: Under ICSID and UNCITRAL Rules: Prerequisites, Applicable Law, Review of Awards’ 19 ICSID Rev-FILJ 1 (2004) at 25, Virtus Chitoo Igbokwe, ‘Determination, Interpretation and Application of Substantive Law in Foreign Investment Treaty Arbitration’ 23 J Int'l Arb 267 (2006) at 277–80 and Campell McLachlan, Laurence Shore, and Matthew Weiniger, International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007) 6–7. 73 See CAA and Vivendi v Argentina , Annulment Decision, 3 July 2002, 6 ICSID Reports 340 at paras 102, 110, and 112, annulling CAA and CGE v Argentina , Award, 21 November 2000, 5 ICSID Reports 299 at paras 78–81. 74AAP v Sri Lanka , Award, 27 June 1990, 4 ICSID Reports 250 at paras 20 and 38 (cf the Dissenting Opinion appended by Dr Asante, ibid 297–9). 75Wena v Egypt , Award, 8 December 2000, 6 ICSID Reports 89 at para 78, MTD and MTD v Chile , Award, 25 May 2004, 12 ICSID 6 at para 87 and ADC and ADC v Hungary , Award, 2 October 2006, at para 290 available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/ADCvHungaryAward.pdf> and also MCI Power and New Turbine v Ecuador , Award, 31 July 2007, at paras 217–18 and 252 available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/MCIEcuador.pdf>. In CAA and Vivendi v Argentina , the second arbitral tribunal took it that all provisions of the bilateral investment treaty had been agreed to by the parties for purposes of Article 42(1) of the ICSID Convention, see Award, 20 August 2007, at para 8.2.2 available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/VivendiAwardEnglish.pdf>. The ad hoc committee deciding on annulment in Wena v Egypt based itself on the argument that the treaty was not in derogation or contradiction of Egyptian law, see Annulment Decision, 5 February 2002, 6 ICSID Reports 129 at paras 36 and 45. 76 See above n 60. 77Wena v Egypt , Annulment Decision, 5 February 2002, 6 ICSID Reports 129 at paras 39–41; see also LG&E v Argentina , Decision on Liability, 3 October 2006, available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/ARB021_LGE-Decision-on-Liability-en.pdf> at para 96 and Siemens v Argentina , Award, 6 February 2007, available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/Siemens-Argentina-Award.pdf> at para 77. 78CMS v Argentina , Award, 12 May 2005, 44 ILM 1205 (2005) at para 116. 79 Ibid paras 117–18. 80Enron v Argentina , Award, 22 May 2007, available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/Enron-Award.pdf> at para 207 and Sempra v Argentina , Award, 28 September 2007, at paras 235–6 available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/SempraAward.pdf>. 81 cf Enron v Argentina , Award, 22 May 2007, above n 80, at paras 210–32, 269–77, and Sempra v Argentina , Award, 28 September 2007, above n 80, at paras 241–69, 311–14, 325–32, and 398. 82Wena v Egypt , Annulment Decision, 5 February 2002, 6 ICSID Reports 129 at paras 52–3 and see also ibid paras 91 and 96. See also Wena v Egypt , Award, 8 December 2000, 6 ICSID Reports 89 at para 118 as well as eg AAP v Sri Lanka , Award, 27 June 1990, 4 ICSID Reports 250 at para 114, Santa Elena v Costa Rica , Award, 17 Feburary 2000, 5 ICSID Reports 157 at para 104, Metalclad v Mexico , Award, 30 August 2000, 5 ICSID Reports 212 at para 128, Middle East Cement v Egypt , Award, 12 April 2002, 7 ICSID Reports 178 at para 174, and Siemens v Argentina , Award, 6 February 2007, above n 77 at paras 395–6. 83 See previously CDSE v Costa Rica , Award, 17 February 2000, 5 ICSID Reports 157 at paras 65–7. This author is aware of only a single decision in which the misconception prevailed, namely the award of the UNCITRAL tribunal in SwemBalt AB v Latvia , Award, 23 October 2000, at paras 45–6 available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/Swembalt-Latvia-Award-23Oct2000.pdf>. In CAA and Vivendi v Argentina , the second arbitral tribunal found that it could award interest ‘[a]bsent treaty terms or provisions in the governing law to the Contrary’; see Award, 20 August 2007, above n 77, at para 9.2.1. 84Aucoven v Venezuela , Award, 23 September 2003, above n 60 at para 102. Cf Goetz v Burundi , Award, 10 February 1999, 6 ICSID Reports 5 at para 69. 85Waste Management v Mexico , Award No. 2, 30 April 2004, 11 ICSID Reports 362, at para 73. 86MTD and MTD v Chile , Award, 25 May 2004, above n 73 at para 204. 87 Ibid paras 187 and 204, respectively. 88MTD and MTD v Chile , Annulment Decision, 21 March 2007, above n 69 at para 72. 89 Cf Inceysa Vallisoletana v El Salvador , ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26 Award, 2 August 2006, at para 203 available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/Inceysa_Vallisoletana_sp_001.pdf> (in Spanish) and World Duty Free Company v Kenya , ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7 Award, 4 October 2006, at paras 158–9 and 180–1 (concerning clauses explicitly referring to national laws) available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/WDFv.KenyaAward.pdf>. A different question is the definition of investment, which is a matter of treaty interpretation governed by international law, see Salini v Morocco , Decision on Jurisdiction, 23 July 2001, 6 ICSID Reports 400 at para 46 and also Bayindir v Pakistan , Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005, at paras 105–10 available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/Bayindr-jurisdiction.pdf>. See also Z Douglas, ‘The Hybrid Foundations of Investment Treaty Arbitration’ 74 BYIL 151 (2003) at 205–7 and 269, criticizing the decision of the ad hoc committee in Wena v Egypt ; but see Wena v Egypt , Annulment Decision, 5 February 2002, 6 ICSID Reports 129 at paras 33 and also 49, 86, 105, and 108. 90Maffezini v Spain , Award, 13 November 2000, 5 ICSID Reports 419 at paras 89–90. 91Wena v Egypt , Annulment Decision, 5 February 2002, 6 ICSID Reports 129 at para 33 and Azurix v Argentina , Award, 14 July 2006 at para 258. 92Olguin v Paraguay , Award, 26 July 2001, 6 ICSID Reports 164 at para 65, Kardassopoulos v Georgia , Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 July 2007, at paras 145–6 available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/kardassopoulos-jurisdiction.pdf>, and Fraport v Philippines , Award, 16 August 2007, at para 394 (referring to ‘a renvoi to national law’) available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documentsFraportAward.pdf>. 93MTD and MTD v Chile , Annulment Decision, 21 March 2007, above n 69 at para 75. 94 LESI-Dipenta v Algeria, Decision on Jurisdiction, 10 January 2005, above n 62 above at para 39. 95Maffezini v Spain , Award, 13 November 2000, 5 ICSID Reports 419 at paras 66–71 (also referring to obligations under EU law and international law). 96MTD and MTD v Chile , Award, 25 May 2004, above n 73 at paras 205 and 214 and Generation Ukraine v Ukraine , Award, 16 September 2003, 10 ICSID Reports 240 at para 20.33. 97Occidental Exploration and Production Company v Ecuador , Award, 1 July 2004, 12 ICSID Reports 59 at para 93. 98Channel Tunnel Group and France-Manche v United Kingdom and France , Partial Award, 30 January 2007, at para 338 available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/Eurotunnel-partialaward-eng.pdf>. 99CMS v Argentina , Award, 12 May 2005, above n 78 at paras 127–44 and also eg ibid, paras 198–9 regarding the duration of the licence. 100 See, in relation to Art 1416 of NAFTA, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v Mexico , Decision on Jurisdiction, 17 July 2003, 10 ICSID Reports 214 at paras 81–91. In the absence of clear indications to this effect, a presumption against the importance of national law may be based on Art 31(4) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, see also ADC and ADC v Hungary , Award, 2 October 2006, above n 75 at paras 290 and 482–3 and Saipem v Bangladesh , Decision on Jurisdiction, 21 March 2007, at para 82 available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/Saipem-Bangladesh-Jurisdiction.pdf>. 101 Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 6th edn, 2003) 40. 102 Cf Soufraki v United Arab Emirates , Decision on Annulment, 5 June 2007, at para 28 available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/SoufrakiAnnulment.pdf>. 103Occidental Exploration and Production Company v Ecuador , Award, 1 July 2004, above n 97, at paras 93–152. 104EnCana v Ecuador , Award, 3 February 2006, above n 2, at para 187. 105 Ibid paras 194–5. 106 Ibid para. 200 n 138 responding to the partial dissenting opinion appended by Dr Na?n. In the context of diplomatic protection, exhaustion of local remedies is a procedural condition for exercising diplomatic protection, as opposed to a substantive condition for incurring state responsibility, see Phosphates in Morocco Case, PCIJ Series A/B No. 74 (1938) at 28 (the administrative decision in question was ‘a definitive act which would, by itself, directly involve international responsibility’), James Crawford, The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002) 23 and Ole Spiermann, International Legal Argument in the Permanent Court of International Justice (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005) 377–8. 107EnCana v Ecuador , Award, 3 February 2006, above n 2, at para 200 n 138 (cf ibid, para 93 on the notion of binding precedent under Ecuadorian law). The tribunal summarized its argument by stating that it was not ‘a court of appeal in Ecuadorian tax matters’, see ibid paras 142, 145 and 200 n 138. Similarly, albeit in a different context, the International Court of Justice has recalled that its function ‘is to resolve international legal disputes between States … and not to act as a court of criminal appeal’, see Case concerning the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, ICJ Reports [1998] 248 at para 38 and also eg LaGrand, ICJ Reports [2001] 466 at para 52. 108Soufraki v United Arab Emirates , Decision on Annulment, 5 June 2007, above n 102, at para 96, referring to Case concerning the Payment of Various Serbian Loans issued in France, above n 18, at 36 and 46–7 and Case concerning the Payment in Gold of Brazilian Federal Loans contracted in France, above n 18, at 124. See also Spiermann, above n 106, 279–82 and Elettronica Sicula SpA, ICJ Reports [1989] 15 at para 62. 109ICC Award No. 3327, 1981, 1 ICC Awards 433 at 433–4, Amco v Indonesia , Award, 20 November 1984, 1 ICSID Reports 413 at paras 150, 177, and 262, Azinian v Mexico , Award, 1 November 1998, 5 ICSID Reports 272 at para 86, CSOB v Slovakia , Decision, 1 December 2000, 5 ICSID Reports 358 at para 35, Occidental Exploration and Production Company v Ecuador , Award, 1 July 2004, above n 97, at paras 58 and 137 and Fraport v Philippines , Award, 16 August 2007, above n 92, at para 391. Regarding state organs other than courts, see eg SPP v Egypt , Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 April 1988, 3 ICSID Reports 131 at para 60 and Soufraki v United Arab Emirates , Decision on Annulment, 5 June 2007, above n 102, at para 59. 110Industria National de Alimentos v Peru , Decision on Annulment, 5 September 2007, at para 88 available at <http://ita.law.unic.ca/documents/LucchettiAnnulment.pdf>. See also Inceysa Vallisoletana v El Salvador , Award, 2 August 2006, above n 89, at paras 214–17. 111 Eg CAA and Vivendi v Argentina , Annulment Decision, 3 July 2002, above n 4, at para 110 and CAA and Vivendi v Argentina , Award, 20 August 2007, at paras 7.3.8-7.3.10 available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/VivendiAwardEnglish.pdf>. Cf Parkerings-Compagniet v Lithuania , Award, 11 September 2007, at para 316 available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/Pakerings.pdf>. 112CME v Czech Republic , Preliminary Award, 13 September 2001, above n 7 at para 467; see also the judgment of 15 May 2003 by the Svea Court of Appeal according to which the tribunal had ‘applied relevant sources of law, primarily international law’, 9 ICSID Reports 441 at 499. 113Siemens v Argentina , Award, 6 February 2007, above n 75 at para 267. 114Kardassopoulos v Georgia , Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 July 2007, available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/kardassopoulos-jurisdiction.pdf> at para 182 and also paras 191–4 referring to SPP v Egypt , Award, 29 May 1992, above n 20, at paras 81–5. See also about this estoppel argument Fraport v Philippines , Award, 16 August 2007, above n 12, at para 346 and the diccenting opinion of Professor Cremodes. 115Wena v Egypt , Award, 8 December 2000, 6 ICSID Reports 89 at para 107. As for statutory limitation, see also Maffezini v Spain , Award, 13 November 2000, 5 ICSID Reports 419 (2000) at para 93. 116Middle East Cement v Egypt , Award, 12 April 2002, 7 ICSID Reports 178 at para 174, Wena v Egypt , Annulment Decision, 5 February 2002, 6 ICSID Reports 129 at para 52 and see also ibid paras 91 and 96. See also Wena v Egypt , Award, 8 December 2000, 6 ICSID Reports 89 at para 118 as well as eg AAP v Sri Lanka , Award, 27 June 1990, 4 ICSID Reports 250 at para 114 and Siemens v Argentina , Award, 6 February 2007, above n 75 at paras 395–6. 117Santa Elena v Costa Rica , Award, 17 February 2000, 5 ICSID Reports 157 at para 104, Metalclad v Mexico , Award, 30 August 2000, 5 ICSID Reports 212 at para 128, Wena v Egypt , Annulment Decision, 5 February 2002, 6 ICSID Reports 129 at paras 52–3, and Siemens v Argentina , Award, 6 February 2007, at paras 349–52 available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/Siemes-Argentina-Award.pdf>. 118 See eg CMS Gas Transmission v Argentina , Decision on Jurisdiction, 17 July 2003, 7 ICSID Reports 494 at para 88, Azurix Corp v Argentina , Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 December 2003, above n 68 at paras 48–50, Camuzzi International v Argentina , Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 May 2005, at para 17, available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/camuzzi-en.pdf>, Saipem v Bangladesh , Decision on Jurisdiction, 21 March 2007, above n 96 at para 68, and CMS Gas Transmission v Argentina , Decision on Annulment, 25 September 2007, at para 68 available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/CMSAnnulmentDecision.pdf>. See also CSOB v Slovakia , Decision on Jurisdiction, 24 May 1999, 5 ICSID Reports 335 at para 35, National Grid v Argentina , Decision on Jurisdiction, 20 June 2006, at para 51 available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/NationalGrid-Jurisdiction-En.pdf> and Malaysian Historical Salvors v Malaysia , Award, 17 May 2007, at para 65, available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/MHS-jurisdiction.pdf>. Cf Wena v Egypt , Annulment Decision, 5 February 2002, 6 ICSID Reports 129 at paras 40–1. Art 42(1) is clearly relevant in deciding whether an arbitration agreement has been breached (this being a contract claim), see Aucoven v Venezuela , Award, 23 September 2003, above n 60 at para 207. 119 In CSOB v Slovak Republic , the tribunal found that Arbitration Rule 34(1), according to which the tribunal shall be the judge of the admissibility of any evidence adduced and of its probative value, prevailed over the standard of proof laid down by Czech law (chosen by the parties), see CSOB v Slovak Republic , Award, 29 December 2004, above n 9 at para 226. See also Soufraki v United Arab Emirates , Decision on Annulment, 5 June 2007, above n 102, at paras 105–14. Select Bibliography

Begic, T, Applicable Law in International Investment Disputes (Utrecht, Eleven International Publishing, 2005)

Bernardini, P, ‘International Arbitration and A-National Rules of Law’, 15-2 ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin 58 (2004)

B?ckstiegel, K-H, Der Staat als Vertragspartner ausl?ndischer Privatunternehmen (Frankfurt am Main, Athen?um Verlag, 1971)

Bourquin, M, ‘Arbitration and Economic Development Agreements’, 15 Bus Law 860 (1959–60)

Bowett, DW, ‘State Contracts with Aliens: Contemporary Developments on Compensation for Termination or Breach’, 59 BYIL 49 (1988)

Broches, A, ‘Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States of 1965: Explanatory Notes and Survey of its Application’, 18 YB Comm Arb 627 (1993)

__, ‘The Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States’, 136 Recueil des Cours 331 (1972)

Brownlie, I, Principles of Public International Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 6th edn, 2003)

Crawford, J, The International Commission's Articles on State Responsibility (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002)

Dupuy, RJ, The Law of the Sea (Leiden, Sijthoff, 1974)

end p.116

El-Zein, LL, Les Contrats d'Etat ? l'?preuve du droit international (Brussells, Bruyant, 2001)

Feuerle, P, ‘International Arbitration and Choice of Law under Article 42 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes’, 4 Yale Studies in World Public Order 89 (1977)

Gaillard, E, La Jurisprudence du CIRDI (Paris, Pedone, 2004)

__, and Banifatemi, Y, ‘The Meaning of “and” in Article 42(1), Second Sentence, of the Washington Convention The Role of International Law in the ICSID Choice of Law Process’, 18 ICSID Rev-FILJ 375 (2003)

Goldman, B, ‘Le Droit applicable selon la Convention de la B.I.R.D., du 18 mars 1965, pour le n?glement des d?fferends relatifs aux investissements entire Etats et ressortissants d'autres Etats’, in Investissements ?trangers et arbitrage entre Etats et Personnes Priv?es: La Convention B.I.R.D. du 18 mars 1965 (Paris, 1969)

Hart, HLA, The Concept of Law (Offord, Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 1994)

Higgins, R, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1994)

History of the ICSID Convention—Documents concerning the origin and the Formulation of the Convention, (vol 2, Washington, ICSID, 1968)