Vicu?a, Francisco Orrego, ‘Changing Approaches to the Nationality of Claims in the Context of Diplomatic Protection and International Dispute Settlement’, 15 icsid Rev-filj 340 (2000)

end p.930

Wallace, Stephen, ‘The “Juridical Architecture” of ICSID Arbitration under International Petroleum Agreements (and in Other Complex Situations)’, 18 ICSID Rev-FILJ 413 (2003)

Williams, David, ‘Challenging Investment Treaty Arbitration Awards—Issues Concerning the Forum Arising from the Metalclad Case’, in Albert Jan van den Berg (ed), International Commercial Arbitration: Important Contemporary Questions (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2003)

Yala, Farouk, ‘The Notion of “Investment” in ICSID Case Law: A Drifting Jurisdictional Requirement? Some “Un-Conventional” Thoughts on Salini, SGS and Mihaly’, 2 J Int'l Arb 105 (2005)

Yesilirmak, Ali, ‘Jurisdiction of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Dispute over Turkish Concession Contracts’, 14 ICSID Rev-FILJ 391 (1999) Footnotes ?The author would like to acknowledge the extensive contribution of Ms Lauren Lindsay, in the preparation of this chapter and the editing assistance of Professor Christoph Schreuer, the Chair of the International Law Association Committee on Foreign Investment. 1 J Lew, L Mistelis, and S Kr?ll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration (London, Kluwer Law International, 2003) at 329 citing J Gotanda, ‘An Efficient Method for Determining Jurisdiction in International Arbitrations’ 40 Columbia J Transn L 15 (2001). 2Convention on the Settlement on Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, 18 March 1965, in force 14 October 1966, 575 UNTS 159, 4 ILM 524 (1965) (‘The ICSID Convention’). Generally see L, Reed, J Paulsson, and N Blackaby, Guide to ICSID Arbitration (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2004); Christoph Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001). 3 ICSID Annual Report 2006, 5, available at: <http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/pubs/1998ar/ICSID_AR_06_ENG_CRA2.pdf>. 4 For a discussion of the origins of investment treaty arbitration see the Sir Elihu Lauterpacht QC's foreword to Professor Schreuer's ICSID Convention: A Commentary, above n 2 and David AR Williams QC, ‘Challenging Investment Treaty Arbitration Awards—Issues Concerning the Forum Arising from the Metalclad Case’, in Albert Jan van den Berg (ed), International Commercial Arbitration: Important Contemporary Questions, ICCA International Arbitration Congress Series No. 11 (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2003) at 444. 5 Paul C Szasz, ‘The Investment Disputes Convention—Opportunities and Pitfalls (How to Submit Disputes to ICSID)’, 5 J Law & Econ Dev 23 (1970–1) at 24. 6 Schreuer, above n 2 at 89. 7 ICSID Annual Report 2004, 3. In the 2006 ICSID Annual Report, it was noted that no conciliations were referred to the Centre during the 2006 financial year. Conciliation does not result in a binding decision, but merely a recommendation to the parties which they are not obliged to follow. 8 As to the burden of proof as to jurisdiction, this question has been addressed in a number of recent investment treaty arbitrations. See eg Plama Consortium v Bulgaria , ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 February 2005; Methanex Corporation v United States of America , (NAFTA) Final Award, 9 August 2005; Soci?t? G?n?rale de Surveillance (SGS) v Republic of the Philippines , ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 January 2004. A convenient analysis of the topic was given by the distinguished tribunal (composed of Mr Albert Jan van den Berg, VV Veeder QC, and Carl F Salans) in Plama Consortium, where the tribunal cited the test of Judge Rosalyn Higgins, put forward in the Case concerning Oil Platforms ( Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America ) 1996, ICJ Reports 803, which had been followed in various investment treaty cases. At para 34 of that decision, the judge stated that ‘The Court should … see if, on the facts as alleged by [claimant] the [respondent's] actions complained of might violate the Treaty articles … Nothing in this approach puts at risk the obligation of the Court to keep separate the jurisdictional and merits phases … and to protect the integrity of the proceedings on the merits … what is for the merits, (and which remains pristine and untouched by this approach to the jurisdictional issue) is to determine what exactly the facts are, whether as finally determined they do sustain a violation of [the treaty] and if so, whether there is a defence to that violation …. In short it is at the merits that one sees “whether there really has been a breach” ’. The Plama Consortium Tribunal noted at para 120 that the burden of proof would be different for issues that did not relate to jurisdiction and went to the merits. 9 Szasz, above n 5, at 26. 10 Carolyn B Lamm, ‘Jurisdiction of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes’, 6 ICSID Rev-FILJ 462 (1992) at 464; See also, Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka (CSOB) v The Slovak Republic , ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4, Decision on Jurisdiction, 24 May 1999, 14 ICSID Rev-FILJ 251 (1999) at 274. 11 Schreuer, above n 2 at 89. 12 Stephen Wallace, ‘The “Juridical Architecture” of ICSID Arbitration under International Petroleum Agreements (and in Other Complex Situations)’, 18 ICSID Rev-FILJ 413 (2003) at 415. 13 CF Amerasinghe, ‘Jurisdiction Ratione Personae under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States’, 47 BYIl L 227 (1974–5) at 231. 14 Ibid, at 231–2. 15 Emphasis added. 16Mihaly International Corporation v Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka , ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2, Award, 15 March 2002 at para 31. 17ICJ Reports 89 (1995) at 99. 18 Schreuer, above n 2 at 102. 19 Robert Merkin, Arbitration Law (London, LLP, 2004) para 5.6. 20[2004] 1 NZLR 95 (HC). 21[1998] 2 All ER 23, 28–35 (CA). 22 Lamm, above n 10 at 474; W Michael Tupman, ‘Case Studies in the Jurisdiction of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes’, 35 ICLQ 813 (1986) at 815; Fedax NV v Republic of Venezuela , ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3, Award on Jurisdiction, 11 July 1997, excerpts in 24a YB Comm Arb 23 (1999). 23 Georges R Delaume, ‘ICSID and the Transnational Financial Community’, 1 ICSID Rev-FILJ 237 (1996) at 242. 24 Schreuer, above n 2 at 104. 25 Malcolm N Shaw, International Law (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 4th edn, 1997) at 129. 26Benvenutti & Bonfant v Congo , ICSID Case No. ARB/77/2, Award, 8 August 1980, 1 ICSID Reports 330 (1993). 27 There was no denial of the dispute being a legal one: see CSOB v The Slovak Republic , Decision on Jurisdiction, above n 10 at 272. 28 Ibid at 272. 29AES Corporation v The Argentine Republic , ICSID Case No. ARB/02/17, Decision on Jurisdiction, 26 April 2005 at para 44. 30 Ibid . 31 Walid Ben Hamida, ‘The Mihaly v Sri Linka Case: Some Thoughts relating to the Status of Pre-investment Expenditures’, in Todd Weiler (ed), International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law (London, Cameron May, 2005) at 47. 32 Noah Rubins, ‘The Notion of “Investment” in International Investment Arbitration’ in Norbert Horn and Stephen Kr?ll (eds), Arbitrating Foreign Investment Dispute (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2004) at 283, 286. 33 Ibid at 287. 34CME v Czech Republic , UNCITRAL Arbitration Proceedings, Separate Opinion at the Quantum Phase, 14 March 2003. 35 Ibid at paras 17 and 72. 36IBRD Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States—Documents Concerning the Origin and Formulation of the Convention (Washington, IBRD, 1968) at 623. 37 C F Amerasinghe, ‘The Jurisdiction of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes’, 19 Indian J Int'l L 166 (1979) at 181; CSOB v The Slovak Republic , Decision on Jurisdiction, above n 10; Fedax NV v Republic of Venezuela , Award on Jurisdiction, above n 22 at 25. 38Mihaly , above n 16. 39 Ibid at para 33. 40 Carolyn B Lamm and Abby Cohen Smutney, ‘The Implementation of ICSID Arbitration Agreements’, 11 ICSID Rev-FILJ 64 (1996) at 80. 41Art 25(4) states that: any Contracting State may, at the time of ratification, acceptance, or approval of this Convention or at any time thereafter, notify the Centre of the class or classes of disputes which it would or would not consider submitting to the jurisdiction of the Centre. Despite excluding the Centre from a particular dispute, the state can still agree on an ad hoc basis to the Centre's jurisdiction: Tupman, above n 22 at 816. 42 Ibid . 43Report of the Executive Directors of the World Bank, 1 ICSID Rep 28 (1993). 44ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4, Decision on Jurisdiction, 24 May 1999, (1999) 14 ICSID Rev-FILJ 251. 45 See also the tribunal's comments in Fedax NV v Republic of Venezuela , Award on Jurisdiction, above n 22 at paras 7–15. 46CSOB v The Slovak Republic , Decision on Jurisdiction, above n 10 at para 64. 47 Christopher M Koa, ‘The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and Dispute Resolution: Conciliation and Arbitrating with China through the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes’, 24 NYU J Int'l L & Politics 439 (1991) at 452. 48 Delaume, above n 23 at 242. 49 Ibid . 50United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Trends in International Investment Agreements: An Overview (Geneva, United Nations, 1999) at 45. 51 This two-stage approach has been adopted by ICSID tribunals in Fedax NV v Republic of Venezuela , Award on Jurisdiction, above n 22, and CSOB v The Slovak Republic , Decision on Jurisdiction, above n 10. 52Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica v Jamaica , ICSID Case No. ARB/74/2, 4 YB Com Arb 206 (1979) at 207. 53ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3, Award on Jurisdiction, 11 July 1997, excerpts in (1999) 24a YB Com Arb 23 (‘ Fedax’). 54Fedax , ibid at para 15. 55 Ibid . 56 Ibid at para 17. 57ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4, Decision on Jurisdiction, 24 May 1999, 14 ICSID Rev-FILJ 251 (1999) (‘ CSOB v Slovak’). 58 Ibid at para 12. 59 Ibid at para 65. 60 Ibid at para 66. 61 Ibid at para 68. 62 Ibid . 63ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11, Award on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2004, available at <http://www.asil.org/ilib/JoyMining_Egypt.pdf> (‘ JoyMining’). 64 Ibid at para 44. 65 Ibid at para 53. 66 Ibid at para 56. 67 Ibid at para 58. 68 Ibid at para 62. 69Mihaly , above n 16. 70 J Michael Robinson, ‘ICSID Cases on its Jurisdiction: A Serious Problem for Public/Private Partnerships for Infrastructure in Developing Countries’, Int'l Bus Law 263 (2004). 71 BOOT projects are being used by developing states, notably Asian states, for large infrastructure projects. The projects include the buildings of highways, ports, dams, mass transit systems, power generation plants, water supply systems, and industrial estates. Their identifying feature is their connection with the economic development functions of the state, assigned to various ministries. Furthermore, legislation is usually passed to control the use of the projects. See M Sornarajah, The Settlement of Investment Disputes (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2000) at 46–8. 72Mihaly , above n 16 at para 32; emphasis in original. 73Individual Concurring Opinion by Mr David Suratgar, 17 ICSID Rev-FILJ 161 (2002). 74 Robinson, above n 70. 75 Ibid at 265. 76Individual Concurring Opinion by Mr David Suratgar, 17 ICSID Rev-FILJ 161 (2002). 77 Farouk Yala, ‘The Notion of “Investment” in ICSID Case Law: A Drifting Jurisdictional Requirement Some “Un-Conventional” Thoughts on Salini, SGS and Mihaly’, 2 J Int'l Arb 105 (2005) at 123. 78 Schreuer, above n 2 at 116. 79Fedax v Venezuela , Decision on Jurisdiction, above n 22 at para 10. 80ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Decision on Jurisdiction, 3 August 2004. 81 Amerasinghe, ‘Jurisdiction Ratione Personae’, above n 13 at 229. 82 Schreuer, above n 2 at 89. 83 Stephen Jagusch and Matthew Gearing, ‘International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)’, in J William Rowley (ed), Arbitration World: Jurisdictional Comparisons (London, The European Lawyer Ltd, 2nd edn, 2006) p lxv. 84 Schreuer, above n 2 at 89. 85 Alan Redfern and Martin Hunter, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 4th student edn, 2004) at 563–4. 86ICSID Convention Art 68. 87 See <http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/constate/c-states-en.htm>. 88ICSID Convention Art 71. 89ICSID Convention Arts 71 and 72. 90 Lamm, above n 10 at 468. 91ICSID ARB/72/1, Decision on Jurisdiction, 12 May 1974 (‘ Holiday Inns’). The decision remains unpublished but a detailed description of the decision is provided by Pierre Lalive, ‘The First World Bank Arbitration (Holiday Inns v Morocco)—Some Legal Problems’, 51 BYIL 123 (1980). 92Holiday Inns , ibid at para 20. 93 Francisco Orrego Vicu?a, ‘Changing Approaches to the Nationality of Claims in the Context of Diplomatic Protection and International Dispute Settlement’, 15 ICSID Rev-FILJ 340 (2000) at 353. 94 Ibid. 95 Anthony C Sinclair, ‘Nationality of Individual Investors in ICSID Arbitration’, 6 Int'l Arb L Rev 191 (2004). 96 There is an exception in the Canada-Venezuela BIT which excludes persons of dual nationality from the definition of ‘investors’ for the purposes of the agreement. 97 Redfern and Hunter, above n 85 at 568; Sinclair, above n 95 at 193. 98 Ibid . 99ICSID Case No. ARB/02/07, Decision on Jurisdiction, 7 July 2004, 17 World Trade and Arbitration Materials 129 (2005) (‘ Soufraki’). 100ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)99/1, Interim Decision on Preliminary Jurisdictional Issues, 6 December 2000, in 18 ICSID Rev-FILJ 469 (2003) (‘ Karpa’). 101ICSID Case No. ARB/02/09, Decision on Jurisdiction, 21 October 2003, in 19 ICSID Rev-FILJ 275 (2004) (‘ Champion Trading’). 102Bilateral Treaty for the Promotion and Protection of Investments between Italy and the United Arab Emirates, opened for signature 22 January 1995, ICSID Investment Treaties Vol 6 (entered into force 29 April 1997) (‘UAE-Italy BIT’). 103Soufraki at para 55. 104 Ibid at para 63. 105Karpa at para 11(e). 106 Ibid at para 30. 107 Ibid at paras 34–5. 1081982 Treaty between the United States of America and the Arab Republic of Egypt Concerning the Reciprocal Encouragement and Protection of Investments (entered into force 1992) (USA-Egypt BIT). 109Nottebohm Case (Second Phase) [6 April 1955] International Court of Justice <http:// www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/ilgsummary550406.htm> (at 14 August 2006). (‘Nottebohm’). 110Declaration of the Government of the Democratic Popular Republic of Algeria concerning the Settlement of Claims by the government of the United States of America and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 111Case No. A/18 Concerning the Question of Jurisdiction over Claims of Persons with Dual Nationality, 5 Iran-US CTR 252 (1984 I). 112Champion Trading , above n 101 at 288. 113 Ibid at 290. 114 Lalive above n 91 at 140. 115 Schreuer, above n 2 at 276. 116 Ibid . 117 Aron Broches, ‘The Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States’, 136 Receuil des Cours 331 (1972-II) at 361. 118 Schreuer, above n 2 at 277. 119 Ibid at 278. 120 Ibid at 281. 121ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 April 2004, (‘ Tokios’). For another decision which has dealt with the issue of corporate nationality see eg AES Corporation v The Argentine Republic , ICSID Case No. ARB/02/17, Decision on Jurisdiction, 26 April 2005. 122Agreement between the Government of Ukraine and the Government of the Republic of Lithuania for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, 8 February 1994. (entered into force 27 February 1995) (‘Ukraine-Lithuania BIT’). 123Tokios , above n 121 at para 30. 124 Ibid at para 46. 125 Ibid at para 50. 1261970 ICJ 3 (5 February). 127Dissenting Opinion of Professor Prosper Weil (‘Tokios Dissent’). 128Tokios Dissent, ibid at para 19. 129 Christoph Schreuer, ‘Commentary on the ICSID Convention’, 12 ICSID Rev-FILJ 59 (1997) at 94. 130Wena Hotels Limited v Arab Republic of Egypt , ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 in [2002] 41 ILM 881, 888 (‘Wena Hotels’). As to the annulment proceedings, see: Wena Hotel Limited v Arab Republic of Egypt , 5 February 2002 in 41 ILM 933 (2002). For a commentary on the decision on application for annulment see Eric A Schwartz, ‘Finality at What Cost? The Decisions of the Ad Hoc Committee in Wena Hotels v Egypt’, in Emmanuel Gaillard and Yas Banifatemi (eds), Annulment of ICSID Awards (Huntington, NY, Juris Publishing Inc & IAI, 2004) at 43. 131Wena Hotels , above n 130 at 888. 132ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3, Decision on Respondent's Objections to Jurisdiction, 21 October 2005, available at < http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/AguasdelTunari-jurisdiction-eng_000.pdf> (at 17 August 2006) (‘ Aguas’). For another decision which has dealt with the issue of corporate nationality, see eg AES Corporation v The Argentine Republic , ICSID Case No. ARB/02/17, Decision on Jurisdiction, 26 April 2005. 133 The Agreement between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (entered into force on 24 February 1976). 134Wena Hotels above n 130 at 889. 135ICSID Case No. ARB/72/1, Decision on Jurisdiction, 12 May 1974. 136Holiday Inns , above n 91 at 15, referred to in Tupman, above n 22 at 819. 137ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on Jurisdiction, 25 September 1983, in 23 ILM 351 (1984) at para 14 (iii) (‘ Amco’). 138ICSID Case No. ARB/81/2, Award, 21 October 1983, 10 YB of Com Arb 71 (1985). This decision was then annulled by an Ad Hoc ICSID Committee on 3 May 1985, see 1 ICSID Rev-FILJ 89 (1986) and subsequently resubmitted to arbitration. The second Award on 26 January 2008 was also the subject of annulment proceedings; however they were unsuccessful. 139 Tupman, above n 22 at 835. 140Amco , above n 137 at para 14(ii). 141 Ibid at para 14(iii). 142 Ibid at para 14(ii). 143ICSID Case No. ARB/82/1, Decision on Jurisdiction, 1 August 1984, excerpts in 17 YB Com Arb 42 (1992) at 46–8 (‘ SOABI’). 144 Ibid at 48. 145Amco , above n 137 at para 14(iii). 146 Antonio Parra, ‘Provisions on the Settlement of Investment Disputes in Modern Investment Law’, ICSID Rev-FILJ 287 (1997) at 299. 147 The new restructure can be described as follows: the 55% owner of the Claimant was IW SARL (Luxembourg) which was 100% owned by International Water (Tunari) BV (Netherlands), in turn 100% owned by International Water Holdings BV (Netherlands), which was 50% owned by Baywater Holdings (Netherlands), which was 100% owned by Bechtel (USA). See Aguas , above n 132, at para 71 for a diagram showing the complicated ownership structure of the claimant. 148Aguas at para 165. 149Aguas at para 174. 150Aguas at para 91. 151Aguas at paras 225–48 and 264–323. 152Aguas at para 245. 153Aguas at para 246. 154Aguas at para 247. On this point, there was a dissent in which the dissentient disagreed with the majority's conclusion on the meaning of control, concluding that it required actual control. Therefore, given that no evidence of actual control had been submitted by the claimant, it did not meet the BIT criteria and was outside of ICSID's jurisdiction. 155Aguas at paras 266–314. 156 Alexandre de Gramont, ‘After the Water War: The Battle for Jurisdiction in Aguas del Tunari SA v Republic of Bolivia’, 3 TDM (2006). 157Aguas at para 330. 158 De Gramont, above n 156. 159 ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 April 2004. 160 UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 17 March 2006. 161 De Gramont, above n 156. 162 For a comprehensive discussion on the protection of shareholders in international investment law, see Christoph Schreuer, ‘Shareholder Protection in International Investment Law’, 2 TDM (2005). The text relies heavily on Professor Schreuer's lucid exposition of the topic. 163Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited ( Belgium v Spain ), 5 February 1970 (1970) ICJ 3 (‘Barcelona Traction’). 164 See, eg Ian A Laird, ‘A Community of Destiny: The Barcelona Traction Case and the Development of Shareholder Rights to Bring Investment Claims’, in Todd Weiler (ed), International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law (London, Cameron & May, 2005) 77; Yoram Dinstein, ‘Diplomatic Protection of Companies under International Law’, in Karel Wellens (ed), International Law: Theory and Practice, Essays in Honour of Eric Suy (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 1998) at 505. 165 As Professor Schreuer says: ‘the limited applicability of a doctrine denying rights to shareholders under international law is demonstrated by another judgment of the ICF in the subsequent ELSI case. That case concerned claims against Italy on behalf of the United States shareholders in a company incorporated in Italy. In that case, the ICJ took it for granted, without discussion in the judgment, that the United States was entitled to protect its shareholders in the Italian company.’ see Schreuer, above n 162. 166 Schreuer above n 2 at 91. 167 Ibid at 149. 168 Amerasinghe, above n 13 at 234. 169 Koa, above n 47 at 453. 170 Schreuer, above n 2 at 154. 171 Amerasinghe, above n 13 at 233. 172 Schreuer above n 2 at 151. 173 Amerasinghe, above n 13 at 233. 174 Ibid at 234. 175 Schreuer above n 2 at 151. 176 See eg New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 s 3. 177 Paul Rishworth, Grant Huscroft, Scott Optican, and Richard Mahoney, The New Zealand Bill of Rights (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003) at 89. 178 Schreuer above n 2 at 151. 179 Amerasinghe, above n 13 at 234. 180 Ibid . 181 See, ibid ; Schreuer, above n 2 at 152. 182 Ibid . 183 Ibid at 155. 184 Ibid at 156. 185 Ibid at 157. 186 See eg Lamm, above n 10 at 469; Amerasinghe, above n 13 at 235; Schreuer, above n 2 at 153. 187 See eg Amerasinghe, above n 13 at 235; Schreuer, above n 2 at 153. 188 Amerasinghe, above n 13 at 235. 189 Schreuer, above n 2 at 154. 190 Ali Yesilirmak, ‘Jurisdiction of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Dispute over Turkish Concession Contracts’, 14 ICSID Rev-FILJ 391 (1999) at 409. 191 Amerasinghe, above n 13 at 235. 192 See eg Schreuer, above n 2 at 153; Amerasinghe, above n 13 at 235. 193ICSID Case No. ARB/95/2, Award, 16 December 1996, 13 ICSID Rev-FILJ 328 (1998) (‘ Cable Television’). 194 Ibid, at para 2.04. 195 Ibid, at para 2.05. 196 Schreuer above n 2 at 153; Amerasinghe, above n 13 at 335. 197Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States: Analysis of Documents Concerning the Origin and the Formulation of the Convention (1970) Vol 2, 860. 198 Amerasinghe, above n 13 at 236. 199 Ibid . 200 Ibid, at 237. 201 Schreuer, above n 2 at 336. But see Amerasinghe, above n 13 at 237–8. His approach is similar to an estoppel argument. He argues that an approval only becomes irrevocable ‘when one or both of the parties to the investment agreement have acted or changed their positions in reliance on it’. He does not refer to the prohibition on the unilateral withdrawal of consent found in Art 25(1). 202 The Additional Facility Rules were adopted 27 September 1978. 203ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, Award, 30 August 2000 (‘ Metalclad’). For a commentary on the case see Williams, above n 4 at 444. 204 Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, ‘Arbitration between States and Foreign Investors: Retrospect and Prospect’, in Julian DM Lew and Loukas A Mistelis (eds), Arbitration Insights: Twenty Years of the Annual Lecture of the School of International Arbitration (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2007) at 307, 323. 205 The decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia United Mexican States v Metalclad Corporation (2001) BCSC 664 is available at: <http://www.naftaclaims.com>. 206 Lauterpacht, above n 204 at 323. 207 A full discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of this chapter and reference should be made to the commentaries on the case for an intensive review of the subject. See eg Lauterpacht, above n 204 at 307; Guillermo Aguilar Alvarez and William W Park, ‘The New Face of Investment Arbitration: NAFTA Chapter 11’, 28 Yale J Int'l L 365 (2003) at 377 and Williams, above n 4 at 444. 208 Alvarez and Park, above 207 at 377. 209 Canada signed the ICSID Convention in December 2006 and ratified it in March 2008. 210 Investor-state arbitration under NAFTA can potentially take place under three sets of rules. First, the ICSID Convention if both the disputing state and the state of the investor are parties to the Convention. Neither Canada nor Mexico is a party to the ICSID Convention; therefore at this stage, ICSID arbitration is unavailable. Secondly, the ICSID Additional Facility Rules—as long as either the disputing state or the investor state but not both is a party to the ICSID Convention. Finally, the arbitration can take place under the UNCITRAL rules: Art 1120. 211Art 1138 NAFTA. 212 Alvarez and Park, above n 207 at 372. 213 Gillian Turner, ‘Investment Protection through Arbitration: The Dispute Resolution Provisions of the Energy Charter Treaty’, 5 Int'l Arb L Rev 166 (1998). 214 The SCC has been described as the ‘more generally available form of institutional arbitration for ECT cases’ compared to the other two forms: Antonio Parra, ‘Investments and Investors covered by the ECT and other Investment Protection Treaties’, in Clarisse Ribeiro (ed), Investment Arbitration and the Energy Charter Treaty (Huntington, NY, JurisNet LLC, 2006) at 54. 215 Stephen Jagush and Anthony Sinclair, ‘The Limits of Protection for Investments and Investors under the Energy Charter Treaty’, in Clarisse Ribeiro (ed), Investment Arbitration and the Energy Charter Treaty (Huntington, NY, JurisNet LLC, 2006) at 76. 216Energy Charter Secretariat, ‘The Energy Charter Treaty and Related Documents: A Legal Framework for International Energy Cooperation’ (2004) 26. 217Jagush and Sinclair, above n 215 at 81. 218 Ibid at 88. 219 27 ILM 612. The ASEAN Agreement is in force among the members of the Association of South East Asian Nations, namely, Brunei, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, The Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. 220 Emmanuel Gaillard, ‘Investments and Investors Covered by the Energy Charter Treaty’, presentation given at Stockhom, 9 June 2005. 221 Ibid. 222ARB No. 126/2003 (SCC), Award, 29 March 2005 (‘Petrobart’). 223 Ibid at 62–3. 224 Ibid at 71. 225Fedax NV v Republic of Venezuela , Award on Jurisdiction, above n 22. 226Salini Construttori SpA and Italstrade SpA v Kingdom of Morocco , ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction, 23 July 2001, 6 ICSID Rep 400 (2004). 227Soci?t? G?n?rale de Surveillance (SGS) v Republic of the Philippines , ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 January 2004. 228Petrobart, above n 222 at 72. 229Jagush and Sinclair, above n 215 at 86–7. 230 Ibid. 231 Ibid at 87. 232 Leading NAFTA cases decided under UNCITRAL Rules: GAMI Investments, Inc v the United Mexican States , Final Award, 15 November 2004; International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v the United Mexican States , Final Award, 26 January 2006 with a dissenting opinion; Ethyl Corporation v Canada , Final Award, 24 June 1998; Methanex Corporation v United States of America , Final Award delivered on 9 August 2005. 233 Parra, above n 146 296. 234 Giorgio Sacerdoti, ‘Investment Arbitration Under ICSID and UNCITRAL Rules: Prerequisites, Applicable Law, Review of Awards’, 19 ICSID Rev-FILJ 1 (2004). 235 1991 BIT between Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and the Netherlands. 236 There were four grounds to the challenge: the exclusion of one of the arbitrators from the arbitrators' deliberations, non-application of applicable law, issues of lis pendens and res judicata, and finally excess of the arbitrators' mandate. The Court dismissed the challenge on all four grounds. Regarding the claim that the dissenting arbitrator had been excluded, the Court found that this allegation was not proved and had been close to groundless, a finding which has met with some controversy: see Stanislaw Soltysinski and Marcin Olechowski, ‘Observations’, in Sigvard Jarvin and Annette Magnusson, International Arbitration Court Decisions (Huntington, NY, Juris Net LLC, 2006) at 722. Also see eg Hans Bagner, ‘Swedish Appeals Court Strikes Delicate Balance in Czech Republic v CME’, 18(6) Mealey's Int'l Arb Rep 34 (2003). The text of the judgment of the SVEA Court of Appeal can be found in: Jarvin and Magnusson, International Arbitration Court Decisions above at 663 and in 18(6) Mealey's Int'l Arb Rep s A-1 (2003). 237UNCITRAL Rules, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, available at <http://www.pcacpa.org/ENGLISH/RPC/SAL-CZ%20Partial%20Award%20170306.pdf> (at 17 August 2006). 238 Parra, above n 146 at 296. 239 W Laurence Craig, William W Park, and Jan Paulsson, International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration (New York, Oceana Publications Inc, 3rd edn, 2000) at 155. 240 Ibid. 241 For a full analysis of jurisdictional aspects under the ICC Rules, see ibid. 242Case No. 9058/FMS/KGA, 21 October 1999. 243 The order to vacate the Award was issued by the US CA for the 5th Circuit on 21 April 2006, Case No. 04-20842. See commentary in 21(4) Mealey's Int'l Arb Rep 5 (2006). For a copy of the full text, see 21(4) Mealey's Int'l Arb Rep s A (2006) and <http://www.caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0420842cv0p.pdf>. 244Art 23(2) of the LCIA Rules. 245Case No. UN 348n1, Award dated 3 February 2006. 246Case No. UN 3467, Award dated 1 July 2004. 247ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 February 2005 (‘Plama Consortium’). 248 Ibid at paras 155–8. 249 Ibid at paras 161–2. 250 Ibid at para 170. 251ICSID Case No. ARB/98/7, Award, 1 September 2000, excerpts available at 17 ICSID Rev-FILJ 362 (2002) (‘Banro’). 252 Ibid at 391. 253 See eg Eureko BV v Republic of Poland , Partial Award and Dissenting Opinion, 19 August 2005, paras 92; ff Antoine Goetz et consorts c R?publique du Burundi , Award, 10 February 1999, paras 86 ff; Sempra Energy International v The Argentine Republic , ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 11 May 2005 at para 109. 254 Ian A Laird, ‘A Distinction without a Difference An Examination of the Concepts of Admissibility and Jurisdiction in Salini v Jordan and Methanex v USA’ in Todd Weiler (ed), International Investment Law and Arbitration (London, Cameron May, 2005) at 201. 255 Gerald Fitzmaurice, The Law and Practice of the International Court of Justice (Cambridge, Grotius, 2006) at 438–9. 256 Laird above n 254 at 203. 257 Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 5th edn, 1998) at 479. 258Methanex v United States , UNCITRAL, Partial Award on Jurisdiction, 7 August 2002 (‘Methanex’), at para 109. 259ICSID Case No. ARB/02/13 Decision on Jurisdiction, 15 November 2004 (‘Salini’). 260 Methanex, above n 258 at paras 123–4. 261Laird, above n 254 at 215. 262 Ibid at 211. 263 Salini, above n 259 at para 151. 264Laird, above n 254 at 215. 265 Ibid. 266ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 January 2004 (‘SGS v Philippines’). 267 Ibid. 268 Ibid, at para 154. 269 They contracted twice in 1986 and a third time in 1991. 270 Signed 31 March 1997, entered into force 23 April 1999. 271 This was the approach adopted in Lanco International Inc v Argentine Republic , 5 ICSID Reports 367 (1998). 272SGS v Philippines , above n 266 at paras 153–4. 273Impregilo SpA v Islamic Republic of Pakistan , ICSID Case No. ARB/03/03, Decision on Jurisdiction, 22 April 2005 (‘Impregilo’). 274 For a detailed treatment of this topic, see Jacomijn J van Haersolte-van Hof and Anne K Hoffmann, ‘The Relationship between International Tribunals and Domestic Courts’, ch 24 below and Katia Yannaca-Small ‘Parallel Proceedings’ ch 25 below. 275Impregilo , above n 273 at para 17. 276 Ibid at para 188. 277 Ibid at para 189. 278 Ibid at para 109. 279 Ibid at para 289. 280 Ibid at para 290. 281 Ibid at para 291. 282 For a full discussion of issues surrounding lis pendens or parallel proceedings, see Katia Yannaca-Small, ch 25 below. 283 Craig et al, above n 239 at 60. 284 For example, see CMS Gas Transmission Company v The Republic of Argentina , ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision on Jurisdiction, 17 July 2003, in 42 ILM 2003 788, 793 where an objection based on the claimant's locus standi was framed in terms of the ‘inadmissibility of the claim’ when it should more appropriately have been submitted in terms of whether or not the tribunal had jurisdiction over a person with disputable standing. 285Redfern and Hunter, above n 85 at 163. 286 Ibid at 164. 287 Although see the Mitsubishi Motors Corp v Soler Chrysler Plymouth Inc , 473 US 614, where an antitrust issue was held to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act despite the existence of public policy considerations to the contrary. 288 For a more detailed analysis of each category, please see Redfern and Hunter, above n 85 at 165–72. 289SGS v Philippines , above n 266 at para 154. Select Bibliography

Alvarez, Guillermo A, and Park, William W, ‘The New Face of Investment Arbitration: NAFTA Chapter 11’, 28 Yale J Int'l L 365 (2003)

end p.928

Amerasinghe, CF, ‘Jurisdiction Ratione Personae under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States’, 47 BYIL 227 (1974–5)

__, ‘The Jurisdiction of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes’, 19 Indian J Int'l L 166 (1979)

Bagner, Hans, ‘Swedish Appeals Court “Strikes Delicate Balance” in Czech Republic v CME’, 18(6) Mealey's Int'l Arb Rep 34 (2003)

Ben Hamida, Walid, ‘The Mihaly v Sri Linka Case: Some Thoughts relating to the Status of Pre-investment Expenditures’, in Todd Weiler (ed), International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law (London, Cameron May, 2005)

Broches, Aron, ‘The Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States’, 136 Receuil des Cours 331 (1972-II)

Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public International Law (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 5th edn, 1998)

Craig, W Laurence, and Park, William W, and Paulsson, Jan, International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration (New York, Oceana Publications Inc, 3rd edn, 2000)

Delaume, Georges R, ‘ICSID and the Transnational Financial Community’, 1 ICSID Rev-FILJ 237 (1996)

Dinstein, Yoram, ‘Diplomatic Protection of Companies under International Law’, in Karel Wellens (ed), International Law: Theory and Practice: Essays in Honour of Eric Suy (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 1998)

Fitzmaurice, Gerald, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice (Cambridge, Grotius, 2006)

Gramont, Alexandre de, ‘After the Water War: The Battle for Jurisdiction in Aguas del Tunari SA v Republic of Bolivia’, 3 TDM (2006)

Jagusch, Stephen, and Gearing, Matthew, ‘International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)’, in JW Rowley (ed), Arbitration World: Jurisdictional Comparisons (London, The European Lawyer Ltd, 2nd edn, 2006)

__, and Sinclair, Anthony, ‘The Limits of Protection for Investments and Investors under the Energy Charter Treaty’, in Clarisse Ribeiro (ed), Investment Arbitration and the Energy Charter Treaty (Huntington, NY, JurisNet, 2006)

Jarvin, Sigvard, and Magnusson, Annette, International Arbitration Court Decisions (Huntington, NY, JurisNet, 2006)

Koa, Christopher M, ‘The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and Dispute Resolution: Conciliation and Arbitrating with China through the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes’, 24 NYU J Int'l L & Politics 439 (1991)

Laird, Ian A, ‘A Community of Destiny: The Barcelona Traction Case and the Development of Shareholder Rights to Bring Investment Claims’, in Todd Weiler (ed), International Investment Law and Arbitration (London, Cameron May, 2005)

__, ‘A Distinction without a Difference? An Examination of the Concepts of Admissibility and Jurisdiction in Salini v Jordan and Methanex v USA’, in Todd Weiler (ed), International Investment Law and Arbitration (London, Cameron May, 2005)

Lalive, Pierre, ‘The First World Bank Arbitration (Holiday Inns v Morocco)—Some Legal Problems’, 51 BYIL 123 (1980)

Lamm, Carolyn B, ‘Jurisdiction of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes’, ICSID Rev-FILJ 462 (1992)

end p.929

Lamm, Carolyn B, and Smutney, Abby C, ‘The Implementation of ICSID Arbitration Agreements’, 11 ICSID Rev-FILJ 64 (1996)

Lauterpacht, Elihu, ‘Arbitration between States and Foreign Investors: Retrospect and Prospect’, in Julian DM Lew and Loukas A Mistelis (eds), Arbitration Insights: Twenty Years of the Annual Lecture of the School of International Arbitration (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2007)

Lew, J, Mistelis, L and Kr?ll, S, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration (London, Kluwer Law International, 2003)

Parra, Antonio, ‘Provisions on the Settlement of Investment Disputes in Modern Investment Law’, ICSID Rev-FILJ 287 (1997)

Redfern, Alan, and Hunter, Martin, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 4th student edn, 2004)

Reed, L, Paulsson, J, and Blackaby N, Guide to ICSID Arbitration (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2004)

Rishworth, Paul, Huscroft, Grant, Optican, Scott, and Mahoney, Richard, The New Zealand Bill of Rights (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003)

Robinson, J Michael, ‘ICSID Cases on its Jurisdiction: A Serious Problem for Public/Private Partnerships for Infrastructure in Developing Countries’, Int'l Bus Law 263 (2004)

Rubins, Noah, ‘The Notion of “Investment” in International Investment Arbitration’, in Norbert Horn and Stephen Kr?ll (eds), Arbitrating Foreign Investment Dispute (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2004)

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

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

Schreuer, Christoph, ‘Shareholder Protection in International Investment Law’, 2 TDM (2005)

Schwartz, Eric A, ‘Finality at What Cost? The Decisions of the Ad Hoc Committee in Wena Hotels v Egypt’, in E Gaillard and Y Banifatemi (eds), Annulment of ICSID Awards (Huntington, NY, Juris Publishing Inc & IAI, 2004)

Shaw, Malcolm N, International Law (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 4th edn, 1997)

Sinclair, Anthony C, ‘Nationality of Individual Investors in ICSID Arbitration’, 6 Int'l Arb L Rev 191 (2004)

Sornarajah, M, The Settlement of Investment Disputes (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2000)

Szasz, Paul C, ‘The Investment Disputes Convention—Opportunities and Pitfalls (How to Submit Disputes to ICSID)’, 5 JL & Econ Dev 23 (1970–71)

Tupman, W Michael, ‘Case Studies in the Jurisdiction of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes’, 35 ICLQ 813 (1986)

Turner, Gillian, ‘Investment Protection through Arbitration: The Dispute Resolution Provisions of the Energy Charter Treaty’, 5 Int'l Arb L Rev 166 (1998)

UNCTAD, Trends in International Investment Agreements: An Overview (New York, United Nations, 1999)