Foreign investment disputes: cases, materials, and commentary [2 ed.]

Table of contents :
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
Publication
Topics
Bibliographic reference
Chapter 1: Foreign Investment Disputes
§1.01 INTRODUCTION
Publication
Topics
Bibliographic reference
§1.02 A BRIEF HISTORY OF FOREIGN INVESTMENT
§1.03 THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENT TO ENCOURAGING AND PROTECTING FOREIGN INVESTMENT
§1.04 WHAT IS A FOREIGN INVESTMENT DISPUTE?
§1.05 INVESTMENT TREATIES
§1.06 INTERNATIONAL FORUMS FOR RESOLVING INVESTMENT DISPUTES
§1.07 POLITICAL RISK INSURANCE
§1.08 APPLICABLE LAW
§1.09 INTERNATIONAL CLAIMS
§1.10 PROCEDURE AND PROOF
§1.11 TRANSPARENCY AND THE ROLE OF NGOs
§1.12 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE AWARDS
§1.13 SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT FOREIGN INVESTMENT DISPUTES
[A] Selected Websites and Other On-line Resources
[B] Selected Sources for Locating Case Law
[C] Selected Authoritative Treatises
[D] Selected Journals [in alphabetical order]
Chapter 2: Treaty Arrangements for Bilateral Investment Disputes
Publication
Topics
§2.01 INTRODUCTION: WHY TREATIES HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED WITH RESPECT TO INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT
Bibliographic reference
[A] Jeswald W. Salacuse, BIT by BIT: The Growth of Bilateral Investment Treaties and Their Impact on Foreign Investment in Developing Countries, 24 Int’l Law. 655, 659-660 (1990)
[B] Comments and Questions
§2.02 PRECURSORS OF MODERN INVESTMENT TREATIES
[A] Treaties of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation
[1] John F. Coyle, The Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation in the Modern Era, 51 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 302, 303-304, 319-323 (2013) (1)
[2] Kenneth J. Vandevelde, The Bilateral Investment Treaty Program of the United States, 21 Cornell Int’l L.J. 201, 203-208 (1988)
[3] Comments and Questions
[B] Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation Between the United States of America and Israel
[1] Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation Between the United States of America and Israel (1951), 5 U.S.T. 550 (1954)
[2] Comments and Questions
§2.03 HISTORY OF ATTEMPTS TO CREATE BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES
[A] Jeswald W. Salacuse, BIT by BIT: The Growth of Bilateral Investment Treaties and Their Impact on Foreign Investment in Developing Countries, 24 Int’l Law. 655, 655-658 (1990) (3)
I. History of the BIT
[B] Alice Hadley, Do China’s BITs Matter? Assessing the Effect of China’s Investment Agreements on Foreign Direct Investment Flows, Investors’ Rights, and the Rule of Law (unpublished paper, Yale Law School 2013)
A. The Development and Spread of BITs
B. The Purposes of BITs
[C] Comments and Questions
§2.04 MODERN INVESTMENT TREATIES
[A] Bilateral Treaties
[1] Rudolf Dolzer and Margrete Stevens, Bilateral Investment Treaties, 10-11 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1995)
[2] Kenneth J. Vandevelde, United States Investment Treaties: Policy and Practice, 19-20 (Kluwer Law International 1992)
[3] US Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (2012) (5)
[4] German Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (2008) (28)
[5] United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (2004), (29) Chapter 15: Investment
[6] United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement (2005), (35) Chapter 10: Investment (2005)
[7] Comments and Questions
[B] Multilateral Treaties
[1] North American Free Trade Agreement (1992), (45) Chapter Eleven: Investment (1992)
[2] Energy Charter Treaty (1994) (46)
[3] Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (2004), (47) Chapter Ten: Investment
[4] ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (2009) (48)
[5] Agreement Among the Government of Japan, the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the People’s Republic of China for the Promotion, Facilitation and Protection of Investment (2012) (64)
§2.05 STRUCTURE OF THE TREATIES AND OBLIGATIONS UNDERTAKEN BY STATES
[A] Dispute Resolution
[1] Forums to Which Consent is Given
[2] Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. and Compagnie Générale des Eaux v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3), Award of 21 November 2000 (65) [Francisco Rezek (pres.), Thomas Buergenthal, Peter D. Trooboff]
[3] Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. and Vivendi Universal (formerly Compagnie Générale des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3), Decision on Annulment of 3 July 2002 (66) [L. Yves Fortier, C.C., Q.C. (pres.), James R. Crawford, José Carlos Fernandez Rozas]
[B] Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States [ICSID or Washington Convention] (1965), 575 U.N.T.S. 159
PREAMBLE
CHAPTER I – International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
CHAPTER II – Jurisdiction of the Centre Article 25
[C] Comments and Questions
§2.06 INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES
[A] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) 1155 U.N.T.S. 331
[B] Comments and Questions
Chapter 3: Investment Contracts and Key Clauses
§3.01 INTRODUCTION
Publication
Topics
Bibliographic reference
§3.02 INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS
[A] US Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (2012), (1) Definition of Investment Agreement
[B] Case Law
[1] Chevron Corp (USA) and Texaco Petroleum Co (USA) v. Republic of Ecuador (PCA Case No. 34877), Interim Award of 1 December 2008, (2) 59-60 [Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel (pres.), Charles N. Brower, Albert Jan van den Berg]
[2] Chevron Corp (USA) and Texaco Petroleum Co (USA) v. Republic of Ecuador (PCA Case No. 2009-23), Third Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility of 27 February 2012, (3) 10-12 [V.V. Veeder (pres.), Horacio Alberto Grigera Naón, Vaughan Lowe]
§3.03 KEY INVESTMENT CONTRACT CLAUSES
[A] Arbitration Clauses
[1] Arbitration Clauses
[2] Examples of Arbitration Clauses
[3] Comments and Questions
[B] Choice-of-Law Clauses
[1] M. Sornarajah, The Settlement of Foreign Investment Disputes, § 3.1 at 47-49 (Kluwer Law International 2000)
[2] Noah Rubins and N. Stephen Kinsella, International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide, 47-49 (Oceana Publications 2005)
[3] Examples of Choice-of-Law Clauses
[4] Case Law on Choice-of-Law Clauses
[C] Force Majeure Clauses
[1] Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Arbitration and State Enterprises: A Survey on the National and International State of Law and Practice, 37-39, 42-48 (Kluwer Law International 1984)
[2] Examples of Force Majeure Clauses
[3] Case Law on Force Majeure Clauses
[4] Comments and Questions
[D] Stabilization Clauses
[1] Stabilization Clauses
[2] Examples of Stabilization Clauses
[3] Case Law on Stabilization Clauses
[4] Comments and Questions
[E] Adaptation & Renegotiation Clauses
[1] Thomas W. Walde and George Ndi, Stabilizing International Investment Commitments: International Law Versus Contract Interpretation, 31 Tex. Int’l L.J. 215, 265-266 (1996) (33)
[2] M. Sornarajah, The Settlement of Foreign Investment Disputes, § 3.7 at 54-55 (Kluwer Law International 2000)
[3] Piero Bernardini, Stabilization and Adaptation in Oil and Gas Investments, 1(1) J. World Energy Law & Bus. 98, 101-105 (2008)
[4] Examples of Adaptation and Renegotiation Clauses
[5] Case Law on Adaptation Clauses
[6] Comments and Questions
[F] Waiver of Sovereign Immunity Clauses
[1] Noah Rubins and N. Stephen Kinsella, International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide, 63-65 (Oceana Publications 2005)
[2] Examples of Sovereign Immunity Waiver Clauses
[3] Comments and Questions
Chapter 4: Forums for Resolving Foreign Investment Disputes
Publication
Topics
§4.01 FOREIGN INVESTMENT ARBITRATION REGIMES
Bibliographic reference
[A] International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
[1] Background – W. Michael Reisman, Systems of Control in International Adjudication and Arbitration: Breakdown and Repair, 46-47 (Duke University Press 1992)
[2] Advantages of ICSID Arbitration – Lucy Reed, Jan Paulsson and Nigel Blackaby, Freshfields Guide to ICSID Arbitration, 14-17 (2nd ed., Kluwer Law International 2011)
[3] Jurisdiction: ICSID Convention Art. 25
[4] Annulment Proceedings
[B] International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Additional Facility
[1] Andrew Newcombe and Lluís Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment, 29 (Kluwer Law International 2009)
[2] Lucy Reed, Jan Paulsson and Nigel Blackaby, Freshfields Guide to ICSID Arbitration, 17-19 (2nd ed., Kluwer Law International 2011)
[C] Iran U.S. Claims Tribunal (Algiers Accords)
[1] David D. Caron, Lee M. Caplan and Matti Pellonpää, The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules: A Commentary, 3-8 (Oxford University Press 2006) (22)
[2] David D. Caron, The Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal and Investment Arbitration: Understanding the Claims Settlement Declaration as a Retrospective BIT, in The Iran- U.S. Claims Tribunal at 25: The Cases Everyone Needs to Know for Investor-State and International Arbitration, 378-383 (Christopher R. Drahozal and Christopher S. Gibson (eds), Oxford University Press 2007)
§4.02 OTHER ARBITRAL REGIMES
[A] Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)
[1] PCA, 111th Annual Report: 2011, (23) 2, 3, 6, 8 (2012)
[2] UNCTAD, Dispute Settlement: Permanent Court of Arbitration, (24) 32-33 (United Nations Publications 2003)
[B] International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
[1] ICC, ICC Dispute Resolution: A World of Experience – A Wealth of Expertise, (25) 2-5 (2012)
[2] Jacob Grierson and Annet van Hooft, Arbitrating Under the 2012 ICC Rules: An Introductory User’s Guide, 30 (Kluwer Law International 2012)
[3] ICC, ICC Commission Report: States, State Entities and ICC Arbitration, (26) 2 (2012)
[C] London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA)
[1] Simon Nesbitt, LCIA Rules [Introductory Remarks], in Concise International Arbitration, 401 (Loukas A. Mistelis ed., Kluwer Law International 2010)
[2] Peter Turner and Reza Mohtashami, A Guide to the LCIA Arbitration Rules, 2-3 (Oxford University Press 2009) (27)
[D] Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC)
[1] Gary B. Born, International Arbitration and Forum Selection Agreements: Drafting and Enforcing, 56 (3rd ed., Kluwer Law International 2010)
[2] The SCC Experience of Investment Arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules, (28) Paper presented by Annette Magnusson, SCC Secretary General, in October 2012
[E] United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules
[1] UNCITRAL, Recommendations to Assist Arbitral Institutions and Other Interested Bodies With Regard to Arbitration Under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (as Revised in 2010) (29) (2012)
[2] David D. Caron, Lee M. Caplan, The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules: A Commentary, 7-8 (2nd ed., Oxford University Press 2013) (30)
§4.03 INTERNATIONAL COURTS
[A] Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ)
[1] UNCTAD, Dispute Settlement: International Court of Justice, (31) 5 (United Nations Publications 2003)
[2] Stephan W. Schill, Private Enforcement of International Investment Law: Why We Need Investor Standing in BIT Dispute Settlement, in The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality, 29, 37-39 (Michael Waibel, Asha Kaushal, Kyo-Hwa Liz Chung and Claire Balchin (eds), Kluwer Law International 2010)
[B] International Court of Justice (ICJ)
[1] UNCTAD, Dispute Settlement: International Court of Justice, (32) 5 (United Nations Publications 2003)
[2] Andrew Newcombe and Lluís Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment, 35-39 (Kluwer Law International 2009)
[C] Other International Courts
§4.04 NATIONAL FORUMS
[A] General Considerations
[B] Comments and Questions
Chapter 5: Political Risk Insurance
§5.01 INTRODUCTION
Publication
Topics
Bibliographic reference
§5.02 MULTILATERAL INVESTMENT GUARANTEE AGENCY (MIGA)
[A] Convention Establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (1985), 1508 U.N.T.S. 99 (1985)
Preamble
Chapter III – Operations Article 11 – Covered Risks
Article 12 – Eligible Investments
Article 13 – Eligible Investors
Article 58 – Disputes Involving Holders of a Guarantee or Reinsurance
[B] Commentary on the Convention Establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, 1 ICSID Rev. – Foreign Inv. L.J. 193, 195-202 (1986)
Introduction
I. Status, Establishment and Purposes
Scope of Covered Risks and Eligibility
[C] Comments and Questions
§5.03 NATIONAL PROGRAMS – U.S. OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION (OPIC)
[A] OPIC Program Handbook, 1-21 (OPIC 2007)
OPIC’s Mission
Environmental Impact
Other Requirements
Political Risk Insurance
General Requirements
Coverages
[B] OPIC Enabling Statute, 22 U.S.C. § 2191-2200 (1969)
Ch. 22 – International Development
[C] OPIC Agreements with Foreign Governments
[1] Model OPIC Investment Incentive Agreement, 1 B.D.I.E.L. 669 (1994)
[2] Robert C. O’Sullivan, Model OPIC Investment Incentive Agreement, 1 B.D.I.E.L. 665 (1994)
[D] Comments and Questions
§5.04 OPIC CLAIMS
[A] Expropriation Claims
[1] Governmental Nexus
[2] Repudiation of Contract
[3] Creeping Expropriation
[4] Defenses
[5] Comments and Questions
[B] Currency Inconvertibility Claims
[1] Reasonable Steps to Convert Local Currency
[2] Lack of Pre-existing Law or Regulation
[3] Comments and Questions
[C] Political Violence Claims
[1] Direct Causation
[2] Political Motivation
[3] Comments and Questions
Chapter 6: Applicable Substantive Law
§6.01 INTRODUCTION
Publication
Topics
[A] Rudolf Dolzer and Christoph H. Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law, 211, 288-289 (2nd ed., Oxford University Press 2012), Chapter X: Settling Investment Disputes (1)
Bibliographic reference
(k) Applicable Law
[B] Comments and Questions
Questions: P 439
Different Aspects of the Applicable Law
[C] Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards [New York Convention] (1958), 330 U.N.T.S. 38 (1959), Article V
[D] Comments and Questions
§6.02 THE CHOICE OF LAW PROCESS IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION
[A] Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (2012), (7) Article 21
Article 21 – Applicable Rules of Law
[B] Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States [ICSID or Washington Convention] (1965), 575 U.N.T.S. 159 (1965), Article 42
Article 42
[C] UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, amended 2006), (8) Article 28
[D] UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (1976, revised 2010), (9) Article 35
[E] Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome I), OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, 6, Articles 3 and 4
Article 3 – Freedom of Choice
Article 4 – Applicable law in the absence of choice
[F] Comments and Questions
§6.03 OPTIONS FOR THE APPLICABLE LAW
[A] National Law
[1] Responsibility of the State for Injuries Caused in Its Territory to the Person or Property of Aliens – Measures Affecting Acquired Rights: Fourth Report by F. V. García Amador, [1959] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 1, 26, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/119
[2] Comments and Questions
[B] National Law with International Guarantees
[1] AGIP S.p.A. v. People’s Republic of the Congo (ICSID Case No. ARB/77/1), Award of 30 November 1979, 1 ICSID Rep. 306, 67 I.L.R. 318 (1979) [ Jørgen Trolle (pres.), René-Jean Dupuy, Fuad Rouhani]
[2] Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH and others v. United Republic of Cameroon and Société Camerounaise des Engrais (ICSID Case No. ARB/81/2), Decision on Annulment of 3 May 1985, 2 ICSID Rep. 95 (1994) [Pierre Lalive (pres.), Ahmed Sadek El-Kosheri, Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern]
[3] Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia (ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1), Decision on the Application for Annulment of 16 May 1986, 1 ICSID Rep. 509 (1993) [Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern (pres.), Florentino P. Feliciano, Andrea Giardina]
[4] W. Michael Reisman, The Regime for Lacunae in the ICSID Choice of Law Provision and the Question of Its Threshold, 15 ICSID Rev. – Foreign Inv. L.J. 362, 366-380 (2000) (14)
[5] Wena Hotels Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4), Decision on Annulment of 5 February 2002, (15) [Konstantinos D. Kerameus (pres.), Andreas Bucher, Francisco Orrego Vicuña]
[6] Azurix Corp. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12), Decision on the Application for Annulment of 1 September 2009 (16) [Gavan Griffith QC (pres.), Bola Ajibola, Michael Hwang]
[7] Comments and Questions
[C] Internationalization
[1] Petroleum Development (Trucial Coast) Ltd. v. Sheikh of Abu Dhabi, Award of September 1951, 18 I.L.R. 144, 148-150 (1951) [Lord Asquith (sole arbitrator)]
[2] Comments and Questions
[3] Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company and Californian Asiatic Oil Company v. The Government of the Libyan Arab Republic, Award on the Merits of 19 January 1977, 53 I.L.R. 420, 457-462 (1977) [René-Jean Dupuy (sole arbitrator)]
[4] Comments and Questions
[5] Italian Enterprise v. Syrian Enterprise (ICC Case No. 3380), Award of 29 November 1980, 108 Journal du Droit International (Clunet, No. 4) 928, 928-930 (1981)
[6] Comments and Questions
[7] Government of Kuwait v. American Independent Oil Co. (AMINOIL), Award of 24 March 1982, 66 Int’l L. Rep. 518, 559-562 (1982) (17) [Paul Reuter (pres.), Hamed Sultan, Gerald Fitzmaurice]
[8] Comments and Questions
[9] United States v. Iran (IUSCT Case No. B36), Award of 23 March 1997 (18) [Krzysztof Skubiszewski (pres.), George H. Aldrich, Koorosh H. Ameli]
[10] James R. Crawford, Treaty and Contract in Investment Arbitration, 24 Arb. Int’l 351, 352-353, 360-361, 367-370, 373-374 (2008) (19)
[11] Wintershall A.G., et al. v. Government of Qatar, Partial Award on Liability of 5 February 1988, 28 I.L.M. 795, 802 (1989) [ John R. Stevenson (pres.), Ian Brownlie, Bernardo M. Cremades]
[12] Comments and Questions
[D] Direct Claims under Treaties
[1] Jan Paulsson, Arbitration Without Privity, 10(2) ICSID Rev. – Foreign Inv. L.J. 232, 232-234, 254-257 (1995) (20)
[2] Comments and Questions
[3] Asian Agricultural Products Limited v. Republic of Sri Lanka (ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3), Award of 27 June 1990, 4 ICSID Rep. 250, 256-257 (1997) [Ahmed Sadek El-Kosheri (pres.), Samuel K.B. Asante, Berthold Goldman]
[4] Comments and Questions
[5] Compañia de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3), Decision on Annulment of 3 July 2002, 19(1) ICSID Rev. – Foreign Inv. L.J. 89, 117, 127-131 (2004) [L. Yves Fortier (pres.), James R. Crawford, José Carlos Fernández Rozas]
[6] Comments and Questions
[7] ADC Affiliate Limited and ADC & ADMC Management Limited v. The Republic of Hungary (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/16), Award of 2 October 2006 (26) [Charles N. Brower (pres.), Albert Jan van den Berg, Neil Kaplan]
§6.04 APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL LAW
[A] The Sources of International Law
[1] Statute of the International Court of Justice (1945), (27) Article 38
[2] Comments and Questions
[B] Applicable Treaty Standards
[1] North American Free Trade Agreement (1994), 32 I.L.M 289 (1993), Chapter 11: Investment
[2] France – Argentina, Treaty Concerning the Treatment and Protection of Investments (1991), 1728 U.N.T.S. 298
[C] Other Sources of International Law
[1] Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company and Californian Asiatic Oil Company v. The Government of the Libyan Arab Republic, Award on the Merits of 19 January 1977, 53 I.L.R. 420, 484-485, 490-495 (1979) [René-Jean Dupuy (sole arbitrator)]
[2] Comments and Questions
[3] Libyan American Oil Company (LIAMCO) v. Government of the Libyan Arab Republic, Award of 12 April 1977, 62 I.L.R. 140, 187-189 (1982) [Sobhi Mahmassani (sole arbitrator)]
[4] SEDCO Inc v. National Iranian Oil Company and Islamic Republic of Iran (IUSCT Case No. 129), Interlocutory Award of 27 March 1986 (28) [Nils Mangard (pres.), Charles N. Brower, Parviz Ansari Moin]
[5] Comments and Questions
§6.05 SOURCES OF “NON-NATIONAL” LAW: THE LEX MERCATORIA
[A] Michael J. Mustill, The New Lex Mercatoria: The First Twenty-five Years, in Maarten Bos and Ian Brownlie, Liber Amicorum for the Rt. Hon. Lord Wilberforce, 149, 162-166 (Clarendon Press, 1987) (30)
[B] State party (State X) v. Private contractor (United Kingdom) (ICC Case No. 7110), First Partial Award of June 1995, 10(2) ICC Bulletin 39, 39-40 (1999)
[C] Watkins-Johnson Company and Watkins-Johnson Limited v. Islamic Republic of Iran and Bank Saderat Iran (IUSCT Case No. 370), Award of 28 July 1989 (31) [Karl- Heinz Bockstiegel (pres.), Assadollah Noori]
[D] Seller v. Buyer (ICC Case No. 5713), Final Award of 1989, 15 Y.B. Comm’l Arb. 70, 70-73 (1990)
Applicable Law
[E] Comments and Questions
[F] James Crawford and Anthony Sinclair, The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts and their Application to State Contracts, ICC Bulletin – Special Supplement 57, 57-75 (2002) (33)
II. Choice of the UNIDROIT Principles in State Contract Arbitration
[G] Joseph C. Lemire v. Ukraine (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18), Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability of 21 January 2010 (34) [ Juan Fernández-Armesto (pres.), Jan Paulsson, Jürgen Voss]
VI.1. Applicable Law
[H] Comments and Questions
Chapter 7: International Responsibility: General Principles
Publication
§7.01 DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY
Topics
Bibliographic reference
[A] The Concept of Diplomatic Protection
[1] Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. United Kingdom), Decision on Jurisdiction of 30 August 1924, [1924] P.C.I.J. Series A – No. 2, 5, 12 (1924)
[2] Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway (Estonia v. Lithuania), Judgment of 28 February 1939, [1939] P.C.I.J. Series A/B – No. 76, 5, 6, 16 (1939)
[3] Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), Second Phase, Judgment of 6 April 1955, [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 4, 16-17, 20-24, 26 (1955)
[4] Comments and Questions
[5] Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain) (New Application: 1962), Second Phase, Judgment of 5 February 1970, [1970] I.C.J. Rep. 3, 41-51 (1970)
[6] Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy), Judgment of 20 July 1989, [1989] I.C.J. Rep. 15, 89-93 (1989)
[7] LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment of 27 June 2001, [2001] I.C.J. Rep. 466, 480-483, 492-494 (2001)
[8] Comments and Questions
[9] The Loewen Group Inc. and Raymond L. Loewen v. United States of America (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3), Award of 26 June 2003, 7 ICSID Rep. 442, 484-490 (2005) [Anthony Mason (pres.), Abner J. Mikva, Michael Mustill]
[10] Comments and Questions
[11] International Law Commission, Articles on Diplomatic Protection, Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-first Session, Supplement No. 10 (UN Doc. A/61/10)
[12] Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 24 May 2007, [2007] I.C.J. Rep. 582, 601602, 605-606, 610, 614-616 (2001)
[B] The General Character of State Responsibility Principles
[1] International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, General Commentary, [2001] 2(2) Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 30, 31-32 (2001)
[2] Mohammad Ammar Al-Bahloul v. Tajikistan (SCC Case No. V 064/2008), Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Liability of 2 September 2009 (3) [Jeffrey M. Hertzfeld (pres.), Richard Happ, Ivan S. Zykin]
[C] Delictual and Treaty Responsibility
[1] Rainbow Warrior (New Zealand v. France), Award of 30 April 1990, 20 R.I.A.A. 215, 251 (1990) [Eduardo Jimenez de Aréchaga (pres.), Kenneth Keith, Eduardo Jimenez de Aréchaga]
[2] Comments and Questions
[3] International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Article 12 and Commentary, [2001] 2(2) Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 30, 54-55 (2001)
[D] Responsibility under International and Internal Law
[1] Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy), Judgment of 20 July 1989, [1989] I.C.J. Rep. 15, 51, 74 (1989)
[2] International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Article 3 and Commentary, [2001] 2(2) Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 30, 36-38 (2001)
[E] The Lex Specialis Issue
[1] International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Article 55 and Commentary, [2001] 2(2) Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 30, 54-55 (2001)
[2] International Law Commission, Conclusions of the work of the Study Group on the Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, [2006] 2(2) Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 175, 178-179 (2006)
§7.02 ATTRIBUTION OF CONDUCT TO THE STATE
[A] Organs of the State or of Political Subdivisions
[1] International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Article 4 and Commentary, [2001] 2(2) Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 30, 40-42 (2001)
[2] Restatement (Third) Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 207, 96-98 (American Law Institute 1987) (4)
[3] Compañia de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. and Compagnie Générale des Eaux v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3), Award of 21 November 2000, 16 ICSID Rev. – Foreign Inv. L.J. 641 (2001) [Francisco Rezek (pres.), Thomas Buergenthal, Peter D. Trooboff]
[4] Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, [2007] I.C.J. Rep. 43, 203, 205-206 (2007)
[5] Jan de Nul NV and Dredging International NV v. Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13), Award of 6 November 2008 (5) [Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler (pres.), Pierre Mayer, Brigitte Stern]
[6] Comments and Questions
[B] State Enterprises
[1] Wintershall A.G., et al. v. Government of Qatar, Partial Award on Liability of 5 February 1988, 28 I.L.M. 795, 811-812 (1989) [John R. Stevenson (pres.), Ian Brownlie, Bernardo M. Cremades]
[2] International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Article 5 and Commentary, [2001] 2(2) Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 30, 42-43 (2001)
[3] Jan de Nul NV and Dredging International NV v. Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13), Award of 6 November 2008 (6) [Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler (pres.), Pierre Mayer, Brigitte Stern]
[4] Toto Construzioni Generali S.p.A. v. Lebanon (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12), Decision on Jurisdiction of 11 September 2009 (7) [Hans van Houtte (pres.), Alberto Feliciani, Alberto Feliciani]
[C] Conduct of Private Parties
[1] Tradex Hellas S.A. (Greece) v. Republic of Albania (ICSID Case No. ARB 94/2), Award of 29 April 1999, 14 ICSID Rev. – Foreign Inv. L.J. 197, 233, 235-240, 244-245 (1999) [Karl-Heinz Bockstiegel (pres.), Fred F. Fielding, Andrea Giardina]
[2] International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Article 9 and Commentary, [2001] 2(2) Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 30, 49 (2001)
[3] International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Article 10 and Commentary, [2001] 2(2) Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 30, 50 (2001)
[4] Comments and Questions
[D] Succession to Responsibility
[1] Tinoco Case (Great Britain v. Costa Rica), Award of 18 October 1923, 1 R.I.A.A. 375, 381-384 (1923) [William H. Taft (sole arbitrator)]
[2] Arbitration of Lighthouses (France v. Greece), Claims No. 11 and 4 (PCA), Award of 24 July 1956, 23 I.L.R. 81, 88-93 (1956) [Jan Hendrik Willem Verzijl (pres.), Achille Mestre, Georges Charbouris]
[3] Comments and Questions
§7.03 BREACH OF AN INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATION
[A] The Concept of Due Diligence and the Role of Fault
[1] Alabama Arbitration, Award of 14 September 1872, in J.B. Moore, History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to which the United States has been a Party, Vol. 1, 495, 550, 572-573 (US Government Printing Office 1898) [Charles Francis Adams, Alexander James Edmund Cockburn, Frederick Sclopis, James Stämpfli, Marcos Antonio d’Araujó]
[2] James R. Crawford, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries, 13-14 (Cambridge University Press 2002) (10)
[B] Obligations of Conduct and Result
[1] International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Commentary to Article 12, [2001] 2(2) Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 30, 56 (2001)
[2] James R. Crawford, State Responsibility: The General Part, 220-223 (Cambridge University Press 2013) (11)
[C] Irrelevance of Sovereign/Commercial Act Distinction
[1] Swedish Engine Drivers’ Union v. Sweden (Application No. 5614/72), 6 February 1976, [1976] ECHR Rep., Series A – No. 20 (1976)
[2] Comments and Questions
Chapter 8: Violations of Investor Rights Under Customary International Law
Publication
Topics
Bibliographic reference
§8.01 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW REGIME
[A] José E. Alvarez, The Public International Law Regime Governing International Investment, 94, 105-108, 114-117 (Hague Academy of International Law 2011) (1)
[B] Stephen M. Schwebel, Investor-State Disputes and the Development of International Law: The Influence of Bilateral Investment Treaties on Customary International Law, 98 Am. Soc’y Int’l L. Proc. 27, 27-30 (2004) (2)
[C] Patrick Dumberry, Are BITs Representing the “New” Customary International Law in International Investment Law?, 28 Penn St. Int’l L. Rev. 675, 701 (2010) (6)
§8.02 EXPROPRIATION
[A] Introduction
[1] Responsibility of the State for Injuries Caused in Its Territory to the Person or Property of Aliens – Measures Affecting Acquired Rights: Fourth Report by F. V. García Amador, [1959] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 1, 11-12, 14-16, U.N. Doc. A/ CN.4/119
[B] General Distinction
[1] Direct – De Jure
[2] Indirect – de facto – Creeping
[C] Initial Precepts – Government is not a Guarantor or Insurer of the Investment
[a] United Kingdom v. Belgium (The Oscar Chinn case), Judgment of 12 December 1934, 3 World Court Reports 416, 436, 439 (1932-1935) (Manley O. Hudson (ed.) with the collaboration of Ruth E. Bacon, By the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Rumford Press, 1938)
[b] Wena Hotels Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4), Award of 8 December 2000 (15) [Monroe Leigh (pres.), Ibrahim Fadlallah, Don. Wallace, Jr.]
[D] Property Expropriated
[1] Tangible Property
[2] Real Property
[3] Stocks and Shares
[4] Bank Accounts
[5] Dividends
[6] Bonds
[7] Management of Business
[8] Contractual Rights
[9] Intangible Property (e.g., Intellectual Property, Goodwill)
[10] Use of Property
[E] Expropriatory Intent
[1] Question of the Necessity of Expropriatory Intent
[2] Effect of Act on Interests
[F] Standards
[1] Direct Expropriation: the Government Acquires Title and Benefits from It
[2] Indirect Expropriation
[3] Legitimate Expectations of Investor
[G] Governmental Acts
[1] Laws and Decrees Explicitly Expropriating
[2] Appointment of Managers
[3] Seizure of Premises and Impoundment of Property
[4] Announcement of Intended Expropriation without Further Acts
[5] Unilateral Reduction of Concession Area
[6] Use Restrictions
[7] Forced Sales
[8] Cessation of Project Work Due to Governmental Interference
[9] Setting Product Price at Loss by Governmental Decree
[H] Legality
[1] Form of Expropriation (e.g., Due Process)
[2] Purpose
[I] Date of Expropriation
[1] Vance R. Koven, Expropriation and the “Jurisprudence” of OPIC, 22 Harv. J. Int’l L. 269, 277, 311-314 (1981) (70)
[2] W. Michael Reisman and Robert D. Sloane, Indirect Expropriation and Its Valuation in the BIT Generation, 74 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 115, 148, 150 (2004) (71)
[3] Cases
[J] Defenses Argued by Governments
[1] U.N. Resolutions
[2] Cases
[3] Administrative Contracts
[4] Force Majeure/Impossibility/Frustration
[5] Implied Termination or Waiver
[6] Changed Circumstances
§8.03 DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT: WHAT IS THE CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW STANDARD?
[A] BP Exploration Company (Libya) Limited v. The Government of the Libyan Arab Republic, Award of 10 October 1973 and 1 August 1974, 53 Int’l L. Rep. 297, 329, 346-348, 353-354 (1979) (85) [Gunnar Lagergren (sole arbitrator)]
[B] A.F.M. Maniruzzaman, Expropriation of Alien Property and the Principle of Non-Discrimination in International Law of Foreign Investment: An Overview, 8 J. Transnat’l L. & Pol’y 57-59, 67-70 (1998) (86)
[C] Comments and Questions
§8.04 ARBITRARY CONDUCT
[A] Responsibility of the State for Injuries Caused in Its Territory to the Person or Property of Aliens – Measures Affecting Acquired Rights: Fourth Report by F. V. García Amador, [1959] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 1, 7-9, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/119
[B] Glamis Gold, Ltd. v. United States of America (ad hoc arbitration under the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules), Award of 8 June 2009 (87) [Michael K. Young, (pres.), David D. Caron, Kenneth D. Hubbard]
[C] Comments and Questions
§8.05 DENIAL OF JUSTICE
[A] The Loewen Group, Inc. and Raymond L. Loewen v. United States of America (ICSID Case No. ARB/(AF)/98/3), Award of 26 June 2003 (88) [Anthony Mason (pres.), Abner J. Mikva, Michael Mustill]
[B] Mondev International Ltd. v. United States of America (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2), Award of 11 October 2002 (89) [Ninian Stephen (pres.), James Crawford, Stephen M. Schwebel]
[C] Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia (ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1), Award of 5 June 1990, 1 ICSID Rep. 569, 602-605 (1993) (90) [Rosalyn Higgins (pres.), Marc Lalonde, Per Magid]
[D] Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland, Judgment of European Court of Human Rights of 6 April 2000, Application No. 27644/95, ECHR 2000-IV (91)
[E] Robert Azinian, Kenneth Davitian and Ellen Baca v. The United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/2), Award of 1 November 1999 (92) [Jan Paulsson (pres.), Benjamin R. Civiletti, Claus von Wobeser]
[F] Comments and Questions
§8.06 ABUSE OF RIGHTS
[A] Responsibility of the State for Injuries Caused in Its Territory to the Person or Property of Aliens – Measures Affecting Acquired Rights: Fourth Report by F.V. García Amador, [1959] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 1, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/119
[B] Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Arbitration and State Enterprises: A Survey on the National and Internatioanl State of Law and Practice, 45-46 (Kluwer Law International 1984)
[C] International Law Commission (ILC) Articles on State Responsibility (2001) [See supra p. 579 ff.]
§8.07 UNJUST ENRICHMENT
[A] Christoph H. Schreuer, Unjustified Enrichment in International Law, 22 Am. J. Comp. L. 281, 281, 284-285, 289, 300-301(1974)
[B] International Law Commission (ILC) Articles on State Responsibility (2001)
[C] Factory at Chorzow (Germany v. Poland), Claim No. 13 (PCA), Judgment on the Merits of 13 September 1928, [1928] P.C.I.J. Series A – No. 17, 47 (1928)
[D] Arthur Nussbaum, The Arbitration Between the Lena Goldfields, Ltd. and the Soviet Government, 36 Cornell L. Q. 31, 50-51 (1950-1951) (93)
[E] Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran and Ports and Shipping Organization of Iran (IUSCT Case No. 33), Award No. 135-33-1 of 22 June 1984 (94) [Gunnar Lagergren (pres.), Mahmoud M. Kashani, Howard M. Holtzmann]
(v) The prohibition of unjust enrichment
B. The enrichment
i) The use of the facility
ii) Damages claimed by Sea-Land in respect of moveable property
[F] Flexi-Van Leasing, Inc. v. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IUSCT Case No. 36), Award No. 259-36-1 of 13 October 1986 (95) [Gunnar Lagergren (pres.), Koorosh-Hossein Ameli, Howard M. Holtzmann]
e) Unjust enrichment
[G] Schlegel Corporation on behalf of Schlegal Linign Technology GmbH v. National Iranian Copper Industries Company (IUSCT Case No. 834), Award No. 295-834-2 of 27 March 1987 (96) [Robert Briner (pres.), George H. Aldrich, Hamid Bahrami-Ahmadi]
[H] Lockheed Corporation v. The Government of Iran, The Ministry of War & The Iranian Air Force (IUSCT Case No. 829), Award No. 367-829-2 of 9 June 1988 (98) [Robert Briner (pres.), George H. Aldrich, Seyed K. Khalilian]
[I] Beyeler v. Italy, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 5 January 2000, Application No. 33202/96, ECHR 2000-I 57
5. Conclusion
[J] Mobil Oil Iran Inc., et al. v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran & National Iranian Oil Company (IUSCT Case Nos. 74, 76, 81, 150), Award No. 31174/76/81/150-3 of 14 July 1987 (99) [Michel Virally (pres.), Charles N. Brower, Parviz Ansari Moin]
[K] Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia (ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1), Award of 5 June 1990, 1 ICSID Rep. 569, 607-608 (1993) (100) [Rosalyn Higgins (pres.), Marc Lalonde, Per Magid]
[L] Charles N. Brower and Jason D. Brueschke, The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal 427-430 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1998) (101)
[M] Comments and Questions
§8.08 UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE
[A] Eastman Kodak Company and others v. The Government of Iran and others (IUSCT Case No. 227) and Eastman Kodak International Capital Company, Incorporated, a claim of less than U.S. $250,000 presented by the Government of the United States of America v. The Islamic Republic of Iran (IUSCT Case No. 12384), Award No. 329-227/12384-3 of 11 November 1987 (102) [Michel Virally (pres.), Charles N. Brower, Parviz Ansari Moin]
[B] Comments and Questions
Chapter 9: Violation of Investor Rights under Investment Treaties
Publication
§9.01 INTRODUCTION
Topics
Bibliographic reference
§9.02 ABSOLUTE STANDARDS
[A] Fair & Equitable Treatment
[1] US Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (2012), (1) Article 2(2)(a)
[2] North American Free Trade Agreement (1993), (2) Article 1105(1)
[3] Energy Charter Treaty (1994), (3) Article 10(1)
[4] Rudolf Dolzer and Christoph H. Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law, 132, 134, 136-17, 139-140 (2nd ed., Oxford University Press 2012)
[5] BIT Cases
[6] NAFTA Cases
[7] Comments and Questions
[B] Full Protection & Security
[1] Rudolf Dolzer and Christoph H. Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law, 160-162 (2nd ed., Oxford University Press 2012)
[2] Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy), Judgment of 20 July 1989, [1989] I.C.J. Rep. 15, 89-93 (1989), ¶¶ 104-105, 107-108
[3] Asian Agricultural Products Ltd. v. Republic of Sri Lanka (ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3), Final Award of 27 June 1990, 4 ICSID Rep. 246 (1997), ¶¶ 45-49, 53, 72-73, 75-77, 85-86 [Ahmed Sadek El-Kosheri (pres.), Berthold Goldman, Samuel K.B. Asante]
[4] Azurix Corp. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12), Award of 14 July 2006, (15) ¶¶ 406-408 [Andrés Rigo Sureda (pres.), Marc Lalonde, Daniel Hugo Martins]
[5] Comments and Questions
[C] Treatment No Less Favorable than that Required by International Law
[1] Kenneth J. Vandevelde, United States Investment Treaties: Policy and Practice, 77-78 (Kluwer Law International 1992)
[2] L. F. H. Neer and Pauline E. Neer v. Mexico (General Claims Commission – United States and Mexico), Opinion Rendered 15 October 1926, 21 Am. J. Int’l L. 555, 556, 559-560 (1927) [General Claims Commission; Concurring Opinion by Fred K. Nielsen]
[3] Mondev International Ltd. v. United States of America (ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/99/2), Award of 11 October 2002, (16) ¶¶ 110-117, 119-125 [Ninian Stephen (pres.), James R. Crawford, Stephen M. Schwebel]
[4] Comments and Questions
[D] Arbitrary Treatment
[1] US Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (2012), (17) Article 2(2)(b)
[2] Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy), Judgment of 20 July 1989, [1989] I.C.J. Rep. 15, 89-93 (1989), ¶¶ 120-121, 123-124, 127-130
[3] Ronald S. Lauder v. The Czech Republic (ad hoc arbitration under the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules), Final Award of 3 September 2001, (18) ¶¶ 214, 219, 221-222, 225-228, 229-230, 232 [Robert Briner (pres.), Lloyd Cutler, Bohuslav Klein]
[4] Azurix Corp. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12), Award of 14 July 2006, (19) ¶¶ 390-393 [Andrés Rigo Sureda (pres.), Marc Lalonde, Daniel Hugo Martins]
[5] Comments and Questions
[E] Discrimination
[1] North American Free Trade Agreement (1993), (20) Article 1104
[2] A.F.M. Maniruzzaman, Expropriation of Alien Property and the Principle of Non-Discrimination in International Law of Foreign Investment: An Overview, 8 J. Transnat’l L. & Pol’y 57, 58-59, 61-65, 67-70, 72, 77 (1998)
[3] Amoco International Finance Corporation v. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IUSCT Case No. 56), Partial Award of 14 July 1987 (21) [Michel Virally (pres.), Charles N. Brower, Parviz Ansari Moin]
[4] Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding AB v. The Republic of Latvia (SCC Case No. 118/2001), Award of 16 December 2003, [2003] IIC 182, § 4.3.2(1) at 34 (2003)
[5] Comments and Questions
[F] Umbrella Clause
[1] US Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (2012), (22) Article 2(2)(c)
[2] Anthony C. Sinclair, The Origins of the Umbrella Clause in the International Law of Investment Protection, 20(4) Arb. Int’l 411, 411-434 (2004)
[3] OECD, Working Paper No. 2006/3: Interpretation of the Umbrella Clause in Investment Agreements, 7-9 (OECD, 2006) (23)
[4] James R. Crawford, Treaty and Contract in Investment Arbitration: The 22nd Freshfields Lecture on International Arbitration, London (29 November 2007), 6(1) Transnational Dispute Management 18-21 (2009)
[5] Eureko B.V. v. Republic of Poland (ad hoc arbitration under the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules), Partial Award of 19 August 2005, (24) ¶¶ 246 [L. Yves Fortier (pres.), Stephen M. Schwebel, Jerzy Rajski]
[6] SGS Société Générale de Surveillance v. Republic of the Philippines (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6), Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction of 29 January 2004, (25) ¶¶ 113, 115-128, 130-131, 134-135, 137-138, 141, 143, 154 [Ahmed S. El-Kosheri (pres.), James R. Crawford, Antonio Crivellaro]
[7] LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp. and LG&E International Inc. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1), Decision on Liability of 3 October 2006, (26) ¶¶ 171-172, 174-175 [Tatiana B. de Maekelt (pres.), Francisco Rezek, Albert Jan van den Berg]
[8] El Paso Energy International Company v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15), Decision on Jurisdiction of 27 April 2006, (27) ¶¶ 70, 79, 81-82, 84 [Lucius Caflisch (pres.), Brigitte Stern, Piero Bernardini]
[9] Burlington Resources Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5 (formerly Burlington Resources Inc. and others v. Republic of Ecuador and Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (PetroEcuador)) (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5), Decision on Liability of 14 December 2012, (28) ¶¶ 211, 214-218, 220 [Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler (pres.), Brigitte Stern, Francisco Orrego Vicuña]
[10] Comments and Questions
[G] Expropriation
[1] US Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (2012), (29) Article 3
[2] North American Free Trade Agreement (1993), (30) Article 1110
[3] Energy Charter Treaty (1994), (31) Article 13
[4] OECD, Working Paper No. 2004/4: ‘Indirect Expropriation’ and the ‘Right to Regulate’ in International Investment Law, 3-5, 22 (OECD 2004) (32)
[5] Ursula Kriebaum, Partial Expropriation, 8(1) J. of World Inv. and Trade 69, 83-84 (2007)
[6] Phillips Petroleum Company Iran v. The Islamic Republic of Iran & The National Iranian Oil Company (IUSCT Case No. 39), Award of 29 June 1989 (33) [Robert Briner (pres.), Seyed K. Khalilian, George H. Aldrich]
[7] Pope & Talbot Inc. v. The Government of Canada (ad hoc arbitration under the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules), Interim Award of 26 June 2000, (35) ¶¶ 96-105 [Lord Dervaird (pres.), Benjamin J. Greenberg, Murray J. Belman]
[8] Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States (‘Number 2') (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3), Award of 25 June 2003, (36) ¶¶ 143-145, 159-162, 177 [James R. Crawford (pres.), Benjamin R. Civilette, Eduardo Magallón Gómez]
[9] GAMI Investments, Inc. v. The Government of the United Mexican States (ad hoc arbitration under the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules), Final Award of 12 November 2004, (37) ¶¶ 116, 123, 126-133 [W. Michael Reisman, Julio Lacarte Muró, Jan Paulsson]
[10] Compañia de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal (formerly Compagnie Générale Des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3), Award of 20 August 2007, (38) ¶¶ 7.5.3-7.5.4, 7.5.8, 7.5.10-7.5.11, 7.5.17-7.5.21, 7.5.247.5.30, 7.5.31, 7.5.33-7.5.34 [J. William Rowley (pres.), Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Carlos Bernal Verea]
[11] Burlington Resources Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5 (formerly Burlington Resources Inc. and others v. Republic of Ecuador and Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (PetroEcuador)) (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5), Decision on Liability of 14 December 2012, (39) ¶¶ 344-345, 391-404, 429-430, 448-449, 454-456, 537-540 [Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler (pres.), Brigitte Stern, Francisco Orrego Vicuña]
[12] Comments and Questions
[H] Effective Means of Enforcing Rights
[1] Chevron Corporation (USA) and Texaco Petroleum Company (USA) v. The Republic of Ecuador (PCA Case No. 34877), Partial Award on the Merits of 30 March 2010, (40) ¶¶ 241-248, 250-257, 262-264, 268-270 [Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel (pres.), Charles N. Brower, Albert Jan van den Berg]
[2] Questions and Comments
§9.03 RELATIVE STANDARDS
[A] National Treatment
[1] US Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (2012), (41) Article 3
[2] North American Free Trade Agreement (1993), (42) Article 1102
[3] Energy Charter Treaty (1994), (43) Articles 10(2), 10(3), 10(7) and 10(10) Article 10 – Promotion, Protection and Treatment of Investments
[4] UNCTAD, National Treatment, UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements, 1-2, 12, 25-26, 33 (United Nations Publications 1999)
[5] S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada (ad hoc arbitration under the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules), Partial Award of 13 November 2000, (44) ¶¶ 238, 240-256 [Bryan P. Schwartz, Edward C. Chiasson, J. Martin Hunter]
[6] Archer Daniels Midland Company and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc. v. The United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/04/05), Award of 21 November 2007, (45) ¶¶ 197-213 [Bernardo M. Cremades (pres.), Arthur W. Rovine, Eduardo Siqueiros T.]
[7] Merrill & Ring Forestry L.P. v. Canada (ICSID Administered Case), Award of 31 March 2010, (46) ¶¶ 86-94 [Francisco Orrego Vicuña (pres.), Kenneth W. Dam, J. William Rowley]
[8] Comments and Questions
[B] Most-Favored-Nation Treatment
[1] US Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (2012), (47) Article 4
[2] North American Free Trade Agreement (1993), (48) Article 1103
[3] UNCTAD, Bilateral Investment Treaties in the Mid-1990s, 58, 61-62 (United Nations Publications 1998)
[4] Rudolf Dolzer and Margrete Stevens, Bilateral Investment Treaties, 66 (Kluwer Law International 1995)
[5] Emilio Agustín Maffezini v. The Kingdom of Spain (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7), Decision on Jurisdiction of 25 January 2000, 16 ICSID Rev. – Foreign Int’l L.J. 212, 225-236 (2001) [Francisco Orrego Vicuña (pres.), Thomas Buergenthal, Maurice Wolf]
[6] Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24), Decision on Jurisdiction of 8 February 2005, (50) ¶¶ 184, 186-187, 189-192, 198200, 203-210, 212, 218-219, 222-224, 227 [Carl F. Salans (pres.), Albert Jan van den Berg, V.V. Veeder]
[7] Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17), Final Award of 21 June 2011 – Prof. Bridgette Stern’s Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, (51) ¶¶ 16-17, 45, 47-53, 57-58, 61, 67, 70, 78-80 [Hans Danelius (pres.), Charles N. Brower, Brigette Stern]
[8] UNCTAD, Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment, UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II, 66-67, 82-85 (United Nations Publications 2010)
[9] Comments and Questions
Chapter 10: Defenses
§10.01 INTRODUCTION
Publication
Topics
Bibliographic reference
§10.02 FORCE MAJEURE
[A] National Oil Corporation (Libya) v. Libyan Sun Oil Company (USA) (ICC Case No. 4462/A5), First Award of 31 May 1985, 29 I.L.M. 565, 584-588 (1990) [Edmund Muskie, Hein Kotz, Robert Schmelck]
The Issue of Force Majeure
[B] Comments and Questions
[C] Gould Marketing, Inc. v. Ministry of National Defense of Iran (IUSCT Case No. 49), Interlocutory Award of 27 July 1983 (1) [Pierre Bellet (pres.), George H. Aldrich, Shafie Shafeiei]
III. Reasons for Award
[D] Amoco International Finance Corporation v. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IUSCT Case No. 56), Partial Award of 14 July 1987 (2) [Michel Virally (pres.), Charles N. Brower, Parviz Ansari Moin]
2. Frustration by Force Majeure
[E] Comments and Questions
[F] Phillips Petroleum Company Iran v. The Islamic Republic of Iran & The National Iranian Oil Company (IUSCT Case No. 39), Award of 29 June 1989 (3) [Robert Briner (pres.), Seyed K. Khalilian, George H. Aldrich]
[G] Comments and Questions
[H] International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, November 2001, Article 23 and Commentary, [2001] 2(2) Y. B. Int’l L. Comm’n 30, 76–78
Article 23 – Force Majeure
[I] Comments and Questions
[J] UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (2010), (4) Article 7.1.7 (5)
Chapter 7 – Non-Performance
[K] James R. Crawford and Anthony Sinclair, The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts and their Application to State Contracts, ICC Bulletin – Special Supplement 57, 57-75 (2002) (6)
B. Termination and variation of contracts in the purported exercise of public power
[L] Comments and Questions
§10.03 COERCION AND DURESS
[A] Detlev F. Vagts, Coercion and Foreign Investment Rearrangements, 72 Am. J. Int’l. L. 17, 17-19, 33-36 (1978) (7)
I. Context
V. Conclusions
[B] Comments and Questions
[C] International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Article 18 and Commentary, [2001] 2(2) Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 30, 69-70 (2001)
Article 18 – Coercion of another State
[D] Comments and Questions
[E] UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (2004), (8) Article 3.9 (9)
Article 3.9 – Threat
[F] Government of Kuwait v. American Independent Oil Company (AMINOIL), Award of 24 March 1982, 66 Int’l L. Rep. 518, 569-571, 615-616 (1982) (10) [Paul Reuter (pres.), Hamed Sultan, Gerald Fitzmaurice]
(b) The complaint of duress
Separate Opinion of Sir G. Fitzmaurice
[G] Comments and Questions
§10.04 NECESSITY
[A] Case Concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997, [1997] ICJ Rep. 7, 39-46, 58, 63 (1997)
[B] International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Article 25 and Commentary, [2001] 2(2) Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 30, 80-84 (2001)
Article 25 – Necessity
[C] Comments and Questions
[D] LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp. & LG&E International, Inc. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1), Decision on Liability of 3 October 2006, 21 ICSID Rev. – Foreign Int’l L.J. 269 (2006) [Tatiana B. de Maekelt (pres.), Francisco Rezek, Albert Jan van den Berg]
[E] CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8), Decision on Annulment of 25 September 2007, 14 ICSID Rep. 251, 270-271, 274-277 (2009) [Gilbert Guillaume (pres.), Nabil Elaraby, James R. Crawford]
(d) The Committee’s view
[F] National Grid PLC v. Argentine Republic, Award of 3 November 2008 (11) [Alejandro Miguel Garro (pres.), Judd L. Kessler, Andrés Rigo Sureda]
§10.05 CORRUPTION
[A] OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (1997), 37 I.L.M. 1 (1998)
Preamble
Article 1– The Offence of Bribery of Foreign Public Officials
Article 2 – Responsibility of Legal Persons
Article 3 – Sanctions
Article 4 – Jurisdiction
Article 5 – Enforcement
Article 6 – Statute of Limitations
Article 7 – Money Laundering
Article 8 – Accounting
Article 9 – Mutual Legal Assistance
Article 10 – Extradition
[B] Argentine Engineer v. British Company (ICC Case No. 1110), Award of 1963, 21 Y.B. Comm’l Arb. 47, 50-51 (1996) [Gunnar Lagergren (sole arbitrator)]
[C] J. Gillis Wetter, Issues of Corruption before International Arbitral Tribunals: The Authentic Text and True Meaning of Judge Gunnar Lagergren’s 1963 Award in ICC Case No. 1110, 10 Arb. Int’l 277, 277-281 (1994)
[D] Comments and Questions
[E] Establishment of Middle East Country X v. South Asian Construction Company (ICC Case No. 4145), Award of 1984, 12 Y.B. Comm’l Arb 97, 102-103 (1987)
[F] Comments and Questions
[G] Broker v. Contractor (ICC Case No 5622), Final Award of 1988, 19 Y.B. Comm’l Arb. 105, 110-115 (1994)
E. Do Claimant’s Activities Violate Swiss Public Policy?
F. Violation of the Law of Algeria and Its Consequence under Swiss Law
G. What Are the Consequences of the Violation of the Law of Algeria under Swiss Law?
[H] Comments and Questions
[I] Partner v. 4 Partners (ICC Case No. 6286), Partial Award of 28 August 1991, 19 Y.B. Comm’l Arb. 141, 149-150 (1994)
[J] Comments and Questions
[K] Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited v. Independent Power Tanzania Limited (ICSID Case No. ARB/98/8), Decision on Tariff and Other Remaining Issues of 9 February 2001, 8 ICSID Rep. 272, 282-283 (2005) [Kenneth Rokison (pres.), Charles Brower, Andrew Rogers] (12)
3. The Issue of Bribery:
[L] Comments and Questions
[M] World Duty Free Company Limited v. Kenya (ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7), Award of 4 October 2006, 46 I.L.M. 339, 366-368, 369-370, 370-371 (2007)
[N] Comments and Questions
§10.06 FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES (REBUS SIC STANTIBUS/IMPRÉVISION)
[A] UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (2004), (13) Articles 6.2.1., 6.2.2. and 6.2.3 (14)
Article 6.2.1 – Contract to be Observed
Article 6.2.2 – Definition of Hardship
Article 6.2.3 – Effects of Hardship
[B] CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8), Award of 12 May 2005, 14 ICSID Rep. 152, 194-195 (2009) [Francisco Orrego Vicuña (pres.), Marc Lalonde, Francisco Rezek] (15)
[C] Comments and Questions
Chapter 11: Reparations Recoverable by Foreign Investors in International Law
Publication
§11.01 INTRODUCTION
Topics
Bibliographic reference
§11.02 REPARATIONS GENERALLY
[A] General Types of Reparations
[1] UN International Law Commission (ILC) Articles on State Responsibility (2001), Articles 31 and 34
[2] Harvard Draft Convention on State Responsibility, 55 Am. J. Int’l L. 545, 581 (1961)
[B] General Principle of Reparations
[1] Factory at Chorzow (Germany v. Poland), Claim No. 13 (PCA), Judgment on the Merits of 13 September 1928, [1928] P.C.I.J. Series A – No. 17, 47 (1928)
[C] Limits on Reparations
[1] UN International Law Commission (ILC) Articles on State Responsibility (2001), Article 39
[2] Harvard Draft Convention on State Responsibility, 55 Am. J. Int’l L. 545, 581 (1961)
[3] James R. Crawford, State Responsibility: Third Report by the Special Rapporteur in International Responsibility, UN Doc. A/CN.4/507, ¶¶ 161-163
[4] F.V. García Amador, The Changing Law of International Claims, Vol. II, 599-601 (Oceana Publications 1984) (1)
[5] Bridas S.A.P.I.C., Bridas Energy International, Ltd., Intercontinental Oil & Gas Ventures, Ltd. and Bridas Corporation v. Government of Turkmenistan, Concern Balkannebitgazsenagat and State Concern Turkmenneft (ICC Case No. 9058/FMS/ KGA), Third Partial Award of 2 September 2000, (2) 12-13 [Edward C. Chiasson, (pres.), Griffin B. Bell, Hans Smit]
[6] Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11), Award of 5 October 2012, (3) ¶¶ 662-666, 669, 678-680, 683-685, 687 [L. Yves Fortier (pres.), David A.R. Williams, Brigitte Stern]
[7] Comments and Questions
§11.03 DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE AND INTERIM RELIEF
[A] UN International Law Commission (ILC) Articles on State Responsibility (2001), Articles 29 and 30
Article 29 – Continued duty of performance
Article 30 – Cessation and non-repetition
[B] US Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (2012), (4) Articles 26 and 28
Article 26 – Conditions and Limitations on Consent of Each Party
Article 28 – Conduct of the Arbitration
[C] James R. Crawford, State Responsibility: Third Report by the Special Rapporteur in International Responsibility, UN Doc. A/CN.4/507, 184
[D] F.V. García Amador, The Changing Law of International Claims, Vol. II, 576-578, 581-583 (Oceana Publications 1984)
[E] Christoph H. Schreuer, Loretta Malintoppi, August Reinisch and Anthony Sinclair, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, 1136-1139 (2nd ed., Cambridge University Press 2009) (5)
2. Pecuniary Obligations
[F] Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3), Decision on Jurisdiction of 14 January 2004, (6) ¶¶ 76-81 [Francisco Orrego Vicuña (pres.), Héctor Gros Espiel, Pierre-Yves Tschanz]
[G] Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Company and CJSCVostokneftegaz Company v. The Government of Mongolia (ad hoc arbitration under the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules), Order on Interim Measures of 2 September 2008, (8) ¶¶ 36-37, 39, 45-46, 55, 68-71, 79-85 [Marc Lalonde (pres.), Brigitte Stern, Horacio A. Grigera Naón]
III. The Criteria Guiding the Tribunal
2. Prima facie establishment of the case
5. Proportionality
[H] Quiborax S.A., Non Metallic Minerals S.A. and Allan Fosk Kaplún v. Plurinational State of Bolivia (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2), Decision on Provisional Measures of 26 February 2010, (9) ¶¶ 113-114, 116-124, § V [Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler (pres.), Marc Lalonde, Brigitte Stern]
3. Requirements for provisional measures
B. Existence of Rights Requiring Preservation
1. Rights that may be protected by provisional measures
V. Decision
[I] Comments and Questions
§11.04 COMPENSATION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
[A] Harvard Draft Convention on State Responsibility, 55 Am. J. Int’l L. 545, 581 (1961)
Article 34 – Damages for Violation, Annulment, or Modification of a Contract or Concession
[B] UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (2010), (10) Articles 7.4.2–7.7.4.4, 7.4.7–7.4.8, 7.4.11, 7.4.13
Article 7.4.2 – Full compensation
Article 7.4.3 – Certainty of harm
Article 7.4.4 – Foreseeability of harm
Article 7.4.7 – Harm due in part to aggrieved party
Article 7.4.8 – Mitigation of harm
Article 7.4.11 – Manner of monetary redress
Article 7.4.13 – Agreed payment for non-performance
[C] Bridas S.A.P.I.C., Bridas Energy International, Ltd., Intercontinental Oil & Gas Ventures, Ltd. and Bridas Corporation v. Government of Turkmenistan, Concern Balkannebitgazsenagat and State Concern Turkmenneft (ICC Case No. 9058/FMS/ KGA), Partial Award of 25 June 1999, (11) 23-29 [Edward C. Chaisson (pres.), Hans Smit, Griffin B. Bell]
Repudiation
The Consequences of Repudiation
[D] Karaha Bodas Company L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (‘Pertamina’) and Pt. PLN (Persero) (‘PLN’) (ad hoc arbitration under the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules), Final Award of 18 December 2000), 16(3) Mealey’s Int’l Arb. Rep. C-2, C-15 to C-16, ¶¶ 121-122, 124-127, 134-136 (2001) [Yves Derains (pres.), Piero Bernardini, Ahmed Sadek El Kosheri]
(b) Lost profits
3. The Arbitral Tribunal’s Decision
[E] Comments and Questions
§11.05 RESTITUTION AND COMPENSATION FOR TREATY VIOLATIONS AND UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
[A] UN International Law Commission (ILC) Articles on State Responsibility (2001), Articles 35 and 36
Article 35 – Restitution
Article 36 – Compensation
[B] Harvard Draft Convention on State Responsibility, 55 Am. J. Int’l L. 545, 581 (1961)
Article 30 – Damages for Wrongful Acts of Tribunals and Administrative Authorities
Article 31 – Damages for Destruction of and Damage to Property
Article 35 – Damages for Failure to Exercise Due Diligence
[C] R. Doak Bishop, Theories of State Responsibility in International Law: Expropriation and Fair and Equitable Treatment, 58 Proceedings of the Annual Institute on Oil and Gas Law, 203, 286-287 (2007)
4. Compensation for Failing to Provide Fair and Equitable Treatment
[D] Factory at Chorzow (Germany v. Poland), Claim No. 13 (PCA), Judgment on the Merits of 13 September 1928, [1928] P.C.I.J. Series A – No. 17, 27-29, 31, 46-54 (1928)
[E] BG Group Plc. v. The Republic of Argentina (ad hoc arbitration under the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules), Final Award of 24 December 2007, (12) ¶¶ 419, 422, 426-429, 444 [Guillermo Aguilar Alvarez (pres.), Alejandro M. Garro, Albert Jan van den Berg]
[F] Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12), Decision on the Application for Annulment of 1 September 2009, (13) ¶¶ 316-328 [Gavan Griffith (pres.), Bola Ajbola, Michael Hwang]
[G] Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11), Award of 5 October 2012, (14) ¶¶ 707-709, 790-797, 824-825 [L. Yves Fortier (pres.), David A.R. Williams, Brigitte Stern]
3. The Discounted Cash Flow (“DCF”) Method
[H] Comments and Questions
§11.06 RESTITUTION AND COMPENSATION FOR EXPROPRIATION
[A] Introduction
[B] Restitutio in Integrum and Specific Performance
[1] J. Gillis Wetter and Stephen M. Schwebel, Some Little-Known Cases on Concessions, [1964] Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 183, 220-22 (1966) (15)
[2] Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company and California Asiatic Oil Company v. The Government of the Libyan Arab Republic, Award of 19 January 1977, 17 I.L.M. 3, 31-37 (1978) [René-Jean Dupuy, sole arbitrator]
[3] Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11), Decision on Provisional Measures of 17 August 2007, (16) ¶¶ 67-69, 72-76, 79, 82, 84-86 [L. Yves Fortier (pres.), David A.R. Williams, Brigitte Stern]
[4] Comments and Questions
[C] What is the Standard of Compensation for an Expropriation?
[1] US Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (2012), (17) Article 6
[2] Brice M. Clagett, Just Compensation in International Law: The Issues Before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, in The Valuation of Nationalized Property in International Law, Vol. IV, 31-33, 96-97 (Richard B. Lillich (ed.), University Press of Virginia 1987)
[3] World Bank Guidelines on the Treatment of Foreign Direct Investment, 31 I.L.M. 1363, 1379, 1382-84 (1992)
[4] Government of Kuwait v. American Independent Oil Co. (AMINOIL), Final Award of 24 March 1982, 66 Int’l L. Rep. 518 (1982) (18) [Paul Reuter (pres.), Hamed Sultan, Gerald Fitzmaurice]
[5] Phillips Petroleum Company Iran v. The Islamic Republic of Iran & The National Iranian Oil Company (IUSCT Case No. 39), Award of 29 June 1989 (19) [Robert Briner (pres.), Seyed K. Khalilian, George H. Aldrich]
[6] CME Czech Republic B.V. v. The Czech Republic (ad hoc arbitration under the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules), Final Award of 14 March 2003, (21) ¶¶ 496-498, 500-502 [Wolfgang Kühn (pres.), Stephen M. Schwebel, Ian Brownlie]
[7] Comments and Questions
[D] Restitution and Compensation for Unlawful Expropriations
[1] Amoco International Finance Corp. v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IUSCT Case No. 56), Partial Award No. 310-56-3 of 14 July 1987 (22) [Michel Virally (pres.), Charles N. Brower, Parviz Ansari Moin]
[2] ADC Affiliate Limited and ADC & ADMC Management Ltd. v. The Republic of Hungary (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/16), Award of 2 October 2006, (23) ¶¶ 480-486, 494497, 499 [Charles N. Brower (pres.), Albert Jan van den Berg, Neil Kaplan QC]
[3] Questions and Comments
[E] Date of Valuation for Expropriation
[1] W. Michael Reisman and Robert D. Sloane, Indirect Expropriation and Its Valuation in the BIT Generation, 74 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L., 36-37, 38-39, 41, 46-47, 50-51 (2003) (24)
[2] Phillips Petroleum Company Iran v. The Islamic Republic of Iran & The National Iranian Oil Company (IUSCT Case No. 39), Award of 29 June 1989 (25) [Robert Briner (pres.), Seyed K. Khalilian, George H. Aldrich]
[3] Compañia del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A. v. Costa Rica (ICSID Case No. ARB/96/1), Final Award of 17 February 2000, 39 I.L.M 1317, 1329-1332 (2000), 73-74, 76-78, 80-81, 83-84, 90, 93-95 [L. Yves Fortier (pres.), Elihu Lauterpacht, Prosper Weil]
[4] Comments and Questions
§11.07 COMPENSATION FOR DENIAL OF JUSTICE
[A] Chevron Corp (USA) and Texaco Petroleum Co (USA) v. Republic of Ecuador (PCA Case No. 34877), Partial Award on the Merits of 30 March 2010, (26) ¶¶ 374-379, 381-382, 384, 546 [Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel (pres.), Charles N. Brower, Albert Jan van den Berg]
[B] Comments and Questions
§11.08 METHODOLOGIES FOR VALUING LOSSES
[A] Generally
[1] Paul D. Friedland and Eleanor Wong, Measuring Damages for the Deprivation of Income-Producing Assets: ICSID Case Studies, 6 ICSID Rev. – Foreign Inv. L.J. 400, 405-407 (1991)
[2] Brice M. Clagett, Just Compensation in International Law: The Issues Before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, in The Valuation of Nationalized Property in International Law, Vol. IV, 48-51 (Richard B. Lillich (ed.), University Press of Virginia 1987)
[B] Valuation Methods
[1] Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Method
[2] Comparable Sales or Transactions
[3] Comments and Questions
[C] Using Alternative Valuation Methods
[1] Charles N. Brower and Jason D. Brueschke, The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, 588-589 (Kluwer Law International 1998) (31)
[2] Compañia de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal (formerly Compagnie Générale Des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3), Award of 20 August 2007, (32) ¶¶ 8.1.3-8.1.5, 8.3.3-8.3.5, 8.3.12-8.3.13 [J. William Rowley (pres.), Gabrielle Ka