- •In addition, an iia should display a commitment to flexibility for development. In this context, flexibility denotes:
- •In that the shorter the period between the governmental act that needs to be disclosed and the date of such disclosure, the greater the extent of the obligation. 108
- •In the Barcelona Traction case, Judge Jessup, in his Separate Opinion, 133 stated the following:
- •Igbokwe, vc, ‘Determination, Interpretation and Application of Substantive Law in Foreign Investment Treaty Arbitration’, 23 j Int'l Arb 267 (2006)
- •Igbokwe, vc, ‘Determination, Interpretation and Application of Substantive Law in Foreign Investment Treaty Arbitration’, 23 j Int'l Arb 267 (2006)
- •Very detailed, technical aspects such as sanitary and phytosanitary measures and intellectual property rights.
- •Interest and Public Purpose (Ottawa, cd Howe Institute, Policy Study 44, The Border Papers, 2006)
- •Van Hecke, g, ‘Contracts between States and Foreign Private Law Persons’, 1 epil 814 (1992)
- •Interest and Public Purpose (Ottawa, cd Howe Institute, Policy Study 44, The Border Papers, 2006)
- •Van Hecke, g, ‘Contracts between States and Foreign Private Law Persons’, 1 epil 814 (1992)
- •1. In the event of any inconsistency between this Agreement and the specific trade obligations set out in:
- •Investment treaty practice of the usa and Canada. 66 For example, the us-Uruguay bit of 25 October 2004 states, by Article 3(1):
- •In this respect, the wto Appellate Body and the International Court of Justice remind us of the principle of effectiveness in treaty interpretation. 21 It is not
- •Impairment” standards, when] (I) similar cases are (II) treated differently (III) and without reasonable justification’. 84
- •Vicu?a, f Orrego, ‘Regulatory Authority and Legitimate Expectations’, 5 Intl Law Forum, 188m 193 (2003)
- •Vicu?a, f Orrego, ‘Regulatory Authority and Legitimate Expectations’, 5 Intl Law Forum, 188m 193 (2003)
- •In order to avoid possible free-riding behaviour within the gatt framework, the Protocol to the 1992 us-Russia bit provides for a specific exception which reads as follows:
- •In addition, the distinction between breach of contract and expropriation has become relevant in the related jurisdictional debate about contract versus treaty
- •It is on the whole undisputed that the prohibition of expropriation of foreign property, both under customary international law and under applicable treaty law, covers
- •In addition, other investment relevant instruments speak of ‘expropriations or other measures affecting property rights’. 81
- •In the recent Occidental case, the arbitral tribunal confirmed that:
- •Is required is at least a ‘substantial loss of control or value’ 181 or ‘severe economic impact’. 182 The difficulty again lies in establishing the exact level of interference.
- •In Phelps Dodge , the Iran-us Claims Tribunal expressly stated that even acceptable motivations would not change its view that certain measures had an expropriatory effect:
- •In the doctrines of necessity and force majeure, if they view compliance with either doctrine to be essentially empty.
- •In the doctrines of necessity and force majeure, if they view compliance with either doctrine to be essentially empty.
- •In one of the early nafta cases—Metalclad Corporation V The United Mexican States84—the arbitral tribunal was required to address this issue, essentially as
- •5. Review and Appeal
- •5. Review and Appeal
- •In this kind of provision, when a dispute settlement forum is selected, this choice is made to the exclusion of any other (electa una via, non datur recursus ad alteram).
- •In a subsequent request for participation as amicus curiae, the tribunal found that it could not open up the hearings to the petitioners without the parties' consent:
- •In addition to the provisions of nafta, disputing parties are also bound by the arbitration rules that the investor selects. 64 When bringing a claim against a
- •In the Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter Eleven Provisions issued by the Free Trade Commission on 31 July 2001, the Commission declared that:
- •In determining whether to accept a written submission, the Free Trade Commission recommends in paragraph 6 that a tribunal consider the extent to which:
- •In practice, there is also no doubt whatever that users of commercial arbitration in England place much importance on privacy and confidentiality as essential features of English arbitration. 122
- •Increased transparency and public participation may impact upon the principles of confidentiality and privacy that have traditionally been respected in international
- •Is real, and experience shows that facts relating to such relationships should be disclosed even when they arise in the course of the arbitration and not at the time of appointment.
- •Investment disputes in respect of the implementation of the provisions of this Law shall be settled in a manner to be agreed upon with the investor, or within the framework of the
- •In Ronald s Lauder V The Czech Republic , 69 the bit between the Czech Republic and the usa provided as follows: ‘At any time after six months from the date on
- •Vandevelde, kj, United States Investment Treaties: Policy and Practice (Deventer, Netherlands, Kluwer Law and Taxation, 1992)
- •Vandevelde, kj, United States Investment Treaties: Policy and Practice (Deventer, Netherlands, Kluwer Law and Taxation, 1992)
- •It will be recalled that under Article 25(2)(b) a ‘juridical’ national is:
- •In Tokios , the tribunal was faced with an objection to jurisdiction founded on the argument that the control test was the appropriate test for the purposes of Article 25.
- •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)
- •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)
- •In the end, however, the tribunal did not apply the clause and therefore it considered that there was no need to express any definitive conclusion as to whether the
- •In Eureko V Poland , 106 the Tribunal saw and addressed this problem briefly when it concluded:
- •In the cme case, the tribunal quoted the tribunal in The Mox Plant Case , 29 which stated that:
- •Identity of Parties
- •Interim or Injunctive Relief
- •Ila Committee on International Commercial Arbitration, Final Report on ‘Lis Pendens and Arbitration’(Toronto, 2006)
- •Ila Committee on International Commercial Arbitration, Final Report on ‘Lis Pendens and Arbitration’(Toronto, 2006)
- •It would be within the logic of the npv/dcf approach to disregard the fact that an investment may only be in its early stages. In these early stages, there will always
- •In conventional international law, in particular in icj jurisprudence, equitable circumstances play a role not only, for example, in boundary determinations, 231 but
- •Investor of the other party to the treaty concerning inter alia an alleged breach of the treaty itself.
- •If the award is annulled, the dispute may be decided by a new arbitration tribunal constituted in accordance with section 2 of Chapter IV of the Treaty. 40
- •Icsid Secretariat, ‘Possible Improvements of the Framework for icsid Arbitration’ (icsid Secretariat, Discussion Paper, 22 October 2004)
- •Veeder, VV, ‘The Necessary Safeguards of an Appellate System’, in f Ortino, a Sheppard, and h Warner (eds), Investment Treaty Law: Current Issues—Vol I (London, biicl, 2006)
- •Icsid Secretariat, ‘Possible Improvements of the Framework for icsid Arbitration’ (icsid Secretariat, Discussion Paper, 22 October 2004)
- •Veeder, VV, ‘The Necessary Safeguards of an Appellate System’, in f Ortino, a Sheppard, and h Warner (eds), Investment Treaty Law: Current Issues—Vol I (London, biicl, 2006)
- •Icsid Secretariat, ‘Possible Improvements of the Framework for icsid Arbitration’ (icsid Secretariat, Discussion Paper, 22 October 2004)
- •Veeder, VV, ‘The Necessary Safeguards of an Appellate System’, in f Ortino, a Sheppard, and h Warner (eds), Investment Treaty Law: Current Issues—Vol I (London, biicl, 2006)
- •Icsid Secretariat, ‘Possible Improvements of the Framework for icsid Arbitration’ (icsid Secretariat, Discussion Paper, 22 October 2004)
- •Veeder, VV, ‘The Necessary Safeguards of an Appellate System’, in f Ortino, a Sheppard, and h Warner (eds), Investment Treaty Law: Current Issues—Vol I (London, biicl, 2006)
- •Van den Berg, aj, ‘Some Recent Problems in the Practice of Enforcement under the New York and icsid Conventions’, 2 icsid Rev-filj 439 (1987)
- •Van den Berg, aj, ‘Some Recent Problems in the Practice of Enforcement under the New York and icsid Conventions’, 2 icsid Rev-filj 439 (1987)
- •Icsid Secretariat, ‘Possible Improvements of the Framework for icsid Arbitration’ (Discussion Paper, 22 October 2004)
- •Icsid Secretariat, ‘Possible Improvements of the Framework for icsid Arbitration’ (Discussion Paper, 22 October 2004)
- •In the context of investment arbitration, there is not necessarily always an arbitration agreement in
Icsid Secretariat, ‘Possible Improvements of the Framework for icsid Arbitration’ (Discussion Paper, 22 October 2004)
—— , ‘Suggested Changes to the ICSID Rules and Regulations’ (Working Paper, 12 May 2005)
Kaufmann-Kohler, G, ‘Annulment of ICSID Awards in Contract and Treaty Arbitrations: Are there Differences?’ in E Gaillard and Y Banifatemi (eds), Annulment of ICSID Awards (New York, Juris Publishing, 2004)
—— , ‘In Search of Transparency and Consistency: ICSID Reform Proposal’, 2(5) TDM (2005)
Legum, B, ‘The Introduction of an Appellate Mechanism: The U.S. Trade Act of 2002’, in Gaillard and Y Banifatemi (eds), Annulment of ICSID Awards (New York, Juris Publishing, 2004)
Paulsson, J, ‘International Arbitration and the Generation of Legal Norms: Treaty Arbitration and International Law’, 3(5) TDM (2006)
end p.1205
Prime, T, and Scanlan, G, ‘Stare Decisis under Court of Appeal Judicial Confusion and Judicial Reform’, 23 Civil Justice Quarterly 212 (2004)
Reinisch, A, ‘Necessity in International Investment Arbitration—An Unnecessary Split of Opinions in Recent ICSID Cases? Comments on CMS v Argentina and LG&E v Argentina’, 3(5) TDM (2006)
Shahabuddeen, M, Precedent in the World Court (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996) Footnotes 39 See Bala?, ‘Review of Awards’, Ch 27 above. ?Parts of this chapter have previously appeared in C Schreuer, ‘Diversity and Harmonization of Treaty Interpretation in Investment Arbitration’, 3(2) TDM (2006) and in C MacLachlan, L Shore, and M Weiniger, International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007). 1 See M L Shahabuddeen, Precedent in the World Court (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996). 2 J Hardisty, ‘Reflections on Stare Decisis’, 55 Ind LJ 41 (1980); see also T Prime and G Scanlon, ‘Stare Decisis under Court of Appeal Judicial Confusion and Judicial Reform’, Civil Justice Quarterly 212 (2004) at 215, where these English authors describe the doctrine of precedent ‘as a mechanism for promoting certainty and predictability in the law’. 3 R Bhala, ‘The Power of the Past: Towards De Jure Stare Decisis in WTO Adjudication’, 33 Geo Wash Int'l L Rev 873 (2001) at 941. 4 J Paulsson, ‘International Arbitration and the Generation of Legal Norms: Treaty Arbitration and International Law’, 3 TDM (September 2006), available at <http://transnational-dispute-management.com> (accessed 20 September 2006). 5 J Crawford, ‘The ILC's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts: A Retrospect’, 96 AJIL 874 (2002) at 886. 6 DM Price, ‘Chapter 11—Private Party v Government Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Frankenstein or Safety Valve?’, 26 Can-USLJ 107 (2000) at 111. 7North American Free Trade Agreement (adopted 17 December 1992, entered into force 1 January 1994) Can TS 1994 No. 2; (1993) 32 ILM 612 (NAFTA) Art 1136(1): ‘An award made by a Tribunal shall have no binding force except between the disputing parties and in respect of the particular case’. 8Amco v Indonesia , Decision on Annulment, 16 May 1986, 1 ICSID Reports 509. 9 Ibid at para 44; see also Amco v Indonesia , Decision on Jurisdiction, 25 September 1983, 1 ICSID Reports 395. 10LETCO v Liberia , Award, 31 March 1986, 2 ICSID Reports 346. 11 Ibid at 352. 12Feldman v Mexico , Award, 16 December 2002, 7 ICSID Reports 341. 13 Ibid at para 107. 14EnCana v Ecuador , Award, 3 February 2006, para 189; El Paso v Argentina , Decision on Jurisdiction, 27 April 2006, para 39; Suez v Argentina , Decision on Jurisdiction, 16 May 2006, paras 26, 31, 60–5; Jan de Nul & Dredging International v Egypt , Decision on Jurisdiction, 16 June 2006, paras 63, 64; Azurix v Argentina, Award, 14 July 2006, para 391; Pan American Energy v Argentina , Decision on Preliminary Objections, 27 July 2006, para 42; Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd v United States , Decision on Jurisdiction, 20 July 2006, para 36; ADC v Hungary , Award, 2 October 2006, para 293; World Duty Free v Kenya , Award, 4 October 2006, para 16. 15Compa??a de Aguas del Aconquija, SA & Vivendi Universal (formerly Compagnie G?n?rale des Eaux) v Argentine Republic , Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005. 16 Ibid at para 94. 17Gas Natural SDG, SA v The Argentine Republic , ICSID Case No. ARB/03/10, Decision of the Tribunal on Preliminary Question on Jurisdiction, 17 June 2005 (footnote in original). 18Enron v Argentina , Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 January 2004. 19 Ibid at para 40. 20Enron v Argentina , Decision on Jurisdiction (Ancillary Claim), 2 August 2004 at para 25. 21AES Corp v Argentina , Decision on Jurisdiction, 26 April 2005 at paras 17–33. 22 Ibid at para 22. 23The MOX Plant Case ( Ireland v United Kingdom ) (Provisional Measure, Order of 3 December 2001) 126 ILR 260 (2005) at 273–4; Dispute Concerning Access to Information under Article 9 of the OSPAR Convention ( Ireland v United Kingdom ) 126 ILR 334 (2005). 24Art 53 of the ICSID Convention (footnote in original). 25SGS Soci?t? Gen?rale de Surveillance SA v Islamic Republic of Pakistan , ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13 and SGS Soci?t? Gen?rale de Surveillance SA v Republic of the Philippines , ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6 (footnote in original). 26AES v Argentina , Decision on Jurisdiction at paras 24–5. 27 Ibid at para 26. 28 Ibid at para 27. 29 Ibid at para 28. 30 Ibid at paras 30–1. 31 Ibid at paras 51–9, 70, 73, 86, 89, 95–7. 32Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi AS v Islamic Republic of Pakistan , Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005. 33 Ibid at para 76. 34Gas Natural SDG, SA v Argentina , Decision on Jurisdiction, 17 June 2005. 35 Ibid at paras 20–35. 36 Ibid at para 36. 37 Ibid at paras 37–51. 38 Ibid at para 52. 39SGS v Philippines , Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 January 2004. 40SGS v Pakistan , Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2003, 8 ICSID Reports 383. 41SGS v Philippines , at para 97 (original footnotes omitted). 42 In addition to conflicting answers to similar questions in different cases, there is the occasional problem of conflicting outcomes of parallel proceedings concerning the same dispute. See especially Ronald S Lauder v The Czech Republic , Final Award, 3 September 2001, 9 ICSID Reports 66 and CME v The Czech Republic , Partial Award, 13 September 2001, 9 ICSID Reports 121. 43Salini Costruttori SpA et Italstrade SpA c/Royaume du Maroc , Decision on Jurisdiction, 23 July 2001, Journal de Droit International 196 (2002), 6 ICSID Reports 400, para 61; Compa??a de Aguas del Aconquija, SA & Vivendi Universal (formerly Compagnie G?n?rale des Eaux) v Argentine Republic , Decision on Annulment, 3 July 2002, 6 ICSID Reports 340, para 55; SGS v Pakistan , Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2003, 8 ICSID Reports 383, para 55; SGS v Philippines , Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 January 2004, 8 ICSID Reports 518, paras 131–5. 44SGS v Pakistan , Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2003, 8 ICSID Reports 383 at paras 163–73; SGS v Philippines , Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 January 2004, 8 ICSID Reports 518, paras 125, 128; Joy Mining v Egypt , Award, 6 August 2004, para 81; CMS v Argentina , Award, 12 May 2005, paras 296–303; Eureko v Poland , Partial Award, 19 August 2005, paras 244–60; Noble Ventures v Romania , Award, 12 October 2005, paras 42–62; El Paso v Argentina , Decision on Jurisdiction, 27 April 2006, paras 66–86; Pan American Energy v Argentina , Decision on Preliminary Objections, 27 July 2006, paras 92–115. 45Ethyl Corp v Canada , Decision on Jurisdiction, 24 June 1998, Decision on Jurisdiction, 7 ICSID Reports 12 at paras 76–88 and in Ronald S Lauder v The Czech Republic , Final Award, 3 September 2001; Wena Hotels v Egypt , Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 June 1999, 6 ICSID Reports 74, at para 87; SGS v Pakistan , Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2003, 8 ICSID Reports 383, at para 184. 46Enron Corp and Ponderosa Assets, LP v Argentina , Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 January 2004, at para 88. See also A Goetz v Burundi , Award, 10 February 1999, 6 ICSID Reports 5, at paras 90–3. 47Maffezini v Spain , Decision on Jurisdiction, 25 January 2000, 5 ICSID Reports 396, at paras 38–64; Siemens v Argentina , Decision on Jurisdiction, 3 August 2004, at paras 32–110; Salini v Jordan , Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 November 2004, at paras 115, 119; Plama v Bulgaria , Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 February 2005, at paras 216–26; Gas Natural v Argentina , Decision on Jurisdiction, 17 June 2005, at paras 24–31, 41–9. 48Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona SA and Vivendi Universal SA v Argentina , Decision on Jurisdiction, 3 August 2006. 49 Ibid at para 65. 50 Ibid at paras 65 and 66. 51 Ibid at para 99. 52Art 25 of the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility. See J Crawford, The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002) at 178 ff. 53CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentina , Award, 12 May 2005, 44 ILM 1205 (2005). 54LG&E Energy Corp, LG&E Capital Corp, LG&E International Inc v The Argentine Republic , Decision on Liability, 3 October 2006. 55 For an incisive analysis of the differences between the two cases see A Reinisch, ‘Necessity in International Investment Arbitration—An Unnecessary Split of Opinions in Recent ICSID Cases? Comments on CMS v Argentinaand LG&E v Argentina’, 3(5) TDM (December 2006). 56CME v The Czech Republic , Final Award, 14 March 2003, 9 ICSID Reports 264. 57 Ibid at paras 87–93. 58 Ibid at paras 437, 504. 59Aguas del Tunari v Bolivia , Decision on Jurisdiction, 21 October 2005. 60 Ibid at paras 249–57. 61 Ibid at paras 47, 258–9. 62 Ibid at paras 260–3. 63 Ibid at para 262. 64SGS v Pakistan , Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2003. 65 See SA Alexandrov, ‘Breaches of Contract and Breaches of Treaty’, 5 JWIT 555 (2004) at 570–1; E Gaillard, ‘Investment Treaty Arbitration and Jurisdiction over Contract Claims—The SGS Cases considered’, in T Weiler (ed), International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law (London, Cameron May, 2005) at 325, 341–2. 66NAFTA Art 2001(1): ‘The Parties hereby establish the Free Trade Commission, comprising cabinet-level representatives of the Parties or their designees’. NAFTA Art 1131(2): ‘An interpretation by the Commission of a provision of this Agreement shall be binding on a Tribunal established under this Section’. 67 FTC Note of Interpretation of 31 July 2001. 68 See Mondev International Ltd v United States of America , Award, 11 October 2002, 6 ICSID Reports 192, at paras 100 ff; United Parcel Service of America, Inc v Canada , Award, 22 November 2002, 7 ICSID Reports 288 at para 97; ADF Group, Inc v United States of America , Award, 9 January 2003, 6 ICSID Reports 470, at paras 175–8; Loewen Group, Inc. and Raymond L Loewen v United States of America , Award, 26 June 2003, 7 ICSID Reports 442, at paras 124–8; Waste Management, Inc v United Mexican States , Award, 30 April 2004, at paras 90–1. See also United Mexican States v Metalclad Corp , Judgment, Supreme Court of British Columbia, 2 May 2001, 5 ICSID Reports 236, at paras 61–65. 69Methanex v United States , Award, 3 August 2005. 70 Ibid, part II, ch H, at para 23. 71 Generally see B Legum, ‘The Introduction of an Appellate Mechanism: The U.S. Trade Act of 2002’, in E Gaillard and Y Banifatemi (eds), Annulment of ICSID Awards (New York, Juris Publishing, 2004) at 289 ff. 72 See Uruguay-US BIT, 25 October 2004, Annex E, 44 ILM 268 (2005) at 296. 73Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement, 5 August 2004, Art 10.20(10). 74Singapore-US FTA, 1 January 2004, Art 15.19(10). 75Chile-US FTA, 1 January 2004. 76 Ibid, Art 10.19(10). 77ICSID Secretariat, ‘Possible Improvements of the Framework for ICSID Arbitration’ (Discussion Paper, 22 October 2004). 78ICSID Secretariat, ‘Suggested Changes to the ICSID Rules and Regulations’ (Working Paper, 12 May 2005). 79 For a fuller discussion, see Qureshi, ‘An Appellate System in International Investment Arbitration?’ ch 28 above. 80 The idea has been put forward before: see G Kaufmann-Kohler, ‘Annulment of ICSID Awards in Contract and Treaty Arbitrations: Are there Differences?’ in Gaillard and Banifatemi, above n 72. See also G Kaufmann-Kohler, ‘In Search of Transparency and Consistency: ICSID Reform Proposal’, 2(5) TDM (2005) at 8. 81Treaty Establishing the European Community, Article 234:
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning:
(a) the interpretation of this Treaty;
(b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions of the Community and of the ECB;
(c) the interpretation of the statutes of bodies established by an act of the Council, where those statutes so provide.
Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court of Justice to give a ruling thereon.
Where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court of Justice. Select Bibliography
Alexandrov, SA, ‘Breaches of Contract and Breaches of Treaty’, 5 JWIT 555 (2004)
Andenas, M (ed), Article 177 References to the European Court—Policy and Practice (London, Butterworths, 1994)
Anderson, D, References to the European Court (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1995)
Bhala, R, ‘The Power of the Past: Towards De Jure Stare Decisis in WTO Adjudication’, 33 Geo Wash Int'l L Rev 873 (2001)
Crawford, J, The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002)
Dashwood, A, and Johnston, A (eds), The Future of the Judicial System of the European Union (Oxford, Hart, 2001)
De B?rca, G, and Weiler, JHH (eds), The European Court of Justice (Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press, 2001)
Gaillard, E, ‘Investment Treaty Arbitration and Jurisdiction over Contract Claims— The SGS Cases Considered’, in T Weiler (ed), International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law (London, Cameron May, 2005)
Hardisty, J, ‘Reflections on Stare Decisis’, 55 Ind LJ 41 (1980)