Source: https://in.b-ok.org/book/998869/ffa57c
Timestamp: 2019-10-19 22:48:39
Document Index: 1236122

Matched Legal Cases: ['sui generis', 'EWCA ', 'UKPC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ']

The International Law of Investment Claims | Zachary Douglas | download
मुख्य The International Law of Investment Claims
पन्ने: 684 / 686
ISBN 10: 0521855675
ISBN 13: 9780521855679
डाउनलोड (pdf, 4.09 MB)
obligation307
clause293
treaties290
accordance276
ratione271
applicable258
breach258
iran257
obligations254
investors248
arbitral246
pursuant239
nationals236
provisions236
expropriation235
relating233
icsid convention233
nafta217
consent212
diplomatic protection209
provision204
admissibility203
enterprise203
investment treaties194
paragraph180
tribunals178
File: DJVU, 832 KB
The International Law of Investment Claims is the first comprehensive account of the
distinct principles governing the prosecution of a claim in investment treaty arbitration.
The principles are codified as 54 ‘rules’ of general application covering the juridical
foundations of investment treaty arbitration, the jurisdiction of the tribunal, the admissibility of claims and the laws applicable to different aspects of the investment dispute.
The commentary to each proposed rule contains a critical analysis of the investment
treaty jurisprudence and makes extensive reference to the decisions of other international
courts and tribunals, as well as to the relevant experience of municipal legal systems.
Solutions are elaborated in respect of the most intractable problems that have arisen in the
cases, including: the effect of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in an investment agreement
with the host state; reliance on the most-favoured-nation clause in relation to jurisdictional provisions; and, the legitimate scope of derivative claims by shareholders.
Z A C H A RY D O U G L A S is a lecturer at the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law and
a fellow of Jesus College. He has a substantial practice in public international law as a
barrister at Matrix Chambers, London, and in particular is regarded as a leading specialist
in investment treaty arbitration.
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521855679
© Zachary Douglas 2009
978-0-511-58081-9
978-0-521-85567-9
Ronald and Susan
Foreword – James Crawford
Table of investment cases
A. Investment treaties and investment treaty arbitration
B. The legal character of the investment treaty regime
Rule 1. Where the contracting states to an investment treaty have
agreed to a procedure for the judicial settlement of
disputes between an investor and the host state, a claim
advanced by the investor in accordance with such
procedure is its own claim and the national contracting
state of the investor has no legal interest in respect
Rule 2. The rules of admissibility of diplomatic protection in
general international law are not generally applicable to
the regime for the settlement of disputes between an
investor and the host state created by an investment treaty.
A. The beneficiary of investment treaty rights
B. The ‘derivative’ model versus the ‘direct’ model
C. Conclusions on the nature of the investor’s rights:
Two alternative ‘direct’ models
An investment treaty tribunal has the inherent authority to
characterise the issues in dispute and determine the laws
A complex approach to applicable law in
B. The source of the choice of law rules
D. The issue in dispute
E. An incidental question
The law applicable to an issue relating to the existence or
scope of property rights comprising the investment is the
municipal law of the host state, including its rules of
A. Property rights and the municipal law of the host state
B. The fallacy of municipal laws as facts before an
investment treaty tribunal
The law applicable to the issue of whether the claimant’s
property rights constitute a protected investment is the
The law applicable to an issue relating to the jurisdiction
of the tribunal and admissibility of claims and
counterclaims is the investment treaty and, where
relevant, the ICSID Convention.
The law applicable to the issue of whether the claimant is
a national of a contracting state is the investment treaty
and the municipal law of that contracting state.
The law applicable to the issue of whether a legal entity
has the capacity to prosecute a claim before an
investment treaty tribunal is the lex societatis.
The law applicable to the issue of whether the host state
is the proper respondent to the claim is the law
governing the obligation forming the basis of the claim.
The law applicable to the issue of liability for a claim
founded upon an investment treaty obligation is the
investment treaty as supplemented by general
The law applicable to an issue relating to a claim
founded upon a contractual obligation, tort or
restitutionary obligation, or an incidental question
relating thereto, is the law governing the contract, tort or
restitutionary obligation in accordance with generally
accepted principles of private international law.
The law applicable to an issue relating to the
consequences of the host state’s breach of an investment
treaty obligation is to be found in a sui generis regime of
state responsibility for investment treaties.
A. The notion of a distinct regime of state responsibility
B. Content of the distinct regime of international
responsibility created by investment treaties
of the arbitration is the investment treaty, the applicable
arbitration rules, and, in some cases, the law of the seat
A. The role of the seat of the arbitration
B. Sovereign immunity from jurisdiction and
arbitrations involving states
C. Sovereign immunity and investment treaty arbitration
D. State practice on the legal character of investment
treaty arbitrations
E. The relevance of the procedural law in practice
F. ICSID arbitrations
The choice of law rules set out in this chapter are
compatible with Article 42(1) of the ICSID Convention.
A. Article 42(1) of the ICSID Convention and the
choice of law rules in this chapter
Taxonomy of preliminary issues relating to jurisdiction and
admissibility in investment treaty arbitration
For an investment treaty tribunal to proceed to adjudge
the merits of claims arising out of an investment, it must
have jurisdiction over the parties and the claims, and the
claims submitted to the tribunal must be admissible.
A. The investment as the quid pro quo for the
B. The distinction between investment claims and
C. A taxonomy of preliminary issues
Rule 16. An investment treaty tribunal is vested with adjudicatory
power (jurisdiction) if a national of one contracting state
has acquired an investment in another contracting state
in accordance with Rule 22 to Rule 24 and the host state
of the investment has consented to the arbitration of
investment disputes in accordance with Rule 20 and
A. The existence of adjudicative power. The host
state’s consent and the investment. Jurisdiction
Rule 17. The material, personal and temporal scope of an
investment treaty tribunal’s adjudicatory power
(jurisdiction) over claims relating to an investment is
determined in accordance with Rule 25 to Rule 42.
A. The scope of the adjudicative power. Jurisdiction
A decision concerning whether a claim qualifies for
present determination (admissibility) by an international
treaty tribunal having adjudicatory power (jurisdiction),
whether it is expressed as with or without prejudice to the
possible revival of that claim, is a decision on the merits
insusceptible of review beyond that which is available to
decisions on the merits generally.
A. The exercise of the adjudicative power. Admissibility
If a tribunal has elected to make a preliminary ruling
on issues relating to its jurisdiction or the admissibility
of claims, then such issues must be determined
conclusively by the tribunal in its preliminary decision.
This is subject to the exception relating to the tribunal’s
ratione materiae jurisdiction in Rule 27 and Rule 28.
The host contracting state party must have consented to
the arbitration of investment disputes with a claimant
having the nationality of another contracting state party
pursuant to the provisions of the investment treaty and,
where relevant, the ICSID Convention. Such consent
must be valid at the time the arbitration proceedings are
In addition to the acquisition of an investment in the host
contracting state party pursuant to Rule 22 and Rule 23,
the claimant must have satisfied any conditions
precedent to the consent of the host contracting state
party to the arbitration of investment disputes as
stipulated in the investment treaty.
A. The scope of issues relating to consent
A. Introduction to the concept of an investment
The legal materialisation of an investment is the
acquisition of a bundle of rights in property that has the
characteristics of one or more of the categories of an
investment defined by the applicable investment treaty
where such property is situated in the territory of the host
state or is recognised by the rules of the host state’s
private international law to be situated in the host state or
is created by the municipal law of the host state.
B. The territorial connection with the host state
C. ‘A bundle of rights in property’
D. The categories of investments
Rule 23. The economic materialisation of an investment requires
the commitment of resources to the economy of the host
state by the claimant entailing the assumption of risk in
expectation of a commercial return.
A. The importance of certainty
B. ‘Commitment of resources to the economy of the
host state’
C. Elements of the Salini test not retained in Rule 23
Rule 24. Where the claimant relies upon a contract to establish an
investment pursuant to Rule 22 and Rule 23, the tribunal
should differentiate between rights in personam as
between the contracting parties and rights in rem that are
memorialised by the contract. The rights in personam do
not generally qualify as an investment independently of
the rights in rem.
A. The importance of distinguishing rights in rem and
B. Consequential errors produced by a failure to
characterise investment rights
C. The provisions of investment treaties
parties’ consent to arbitration in the investment treaty,
the tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione materiae may extend
to claims founded upon an investment treaty obligation,
a contractual obligation, a tort, unjust enrichment, or a
public act of the host contracting state party, in respect of
measures of the host contracting state party relating to
the claimant’s investment.
A. Investment treaty provisions on the scope of
B. Jurisdiction over contractual claims
C. ‘Measure of the host contracting state party’
The nexus between the measure and the
investment: ‘relating to …’
E. ‘Claimant’s investment’
F. Investment treaties with limited consent to
to counterclaims by the host contracting state party
founded upon a contractual obligation, a tort, unjust
enrichment, or a public act of the host contracting state
party, in respect of matters directly related to the
A. The significance of the consent to arbitration and
the applicable arbitration rules
B. The requisite nexus between the counterclaim and
For the purposes of Rule 25 and Rule 26, the legal
foundation of the claims submitted to the tribunal must
be objectively determined by the tribunal in ruling upon
the scope of its jurisdiction ratione materiae in a
A. The importance of an objective test
B. The judgments of the International Court of Justice
C. Investment treaty precedents confirming the
D. Investment treaty precedents upholding a
The test for the legal foundation of a claim for the
purposes of Rule 27 is whether the facts alleged by the
claimant in support thereof are prima facie capable of
sustaining a finding of liability on the part of the host
state by reference to the legal obligation invoked in
Where the host state party’s consent to arbitration is
stipulated in an investment agreement rather than in an
investment treaty, then, subject to the terms of the
arbitration clause, the tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione
materiae may extend to claims founded upon an
international obligation on the treatment of foreign
nationals and their property in general international law,
an applicable investment treaty obligation, a contractual
obligation, a tort, unjust enrichment or a public act of the
host state party in respect of measures of the host state
relating to the claimant’s investment.
A. The relevance of the legal instrument containing
The tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione personae extends to
one of the contracting state parties and to an individual
or legal entity (the ‘claimant’) which has the nationality
of another of the contracting state parties in accordance
with the relevant provision in the investment treaty and
the municipal law of that contracting state party and,
where applicable, Article 25 of the ICSID Convention.
A. The nationality of individuals and legal entities
The claimant must have had the relevant nationality at
the time of the alleged breach of the obligation forming
the basis of its claim and continuously thereafter
until the time the arbitral proceedings are commenced.
The claimant must have had control over the investment
in the host contracting state party at the time of the
alleged breach of the obligation forming the basis of its
claim. There is no requirement of continuous control
over the investment until the time that arbitration
proceedings are commenced or thereafter.
A. No requirement of continuous control
B. The concept of ‘control’
If an investment treaty stipulates that the investment can
be held directly or indirectly by the claimant, then it is
immaterial that the investment is held through an
intermediate legal entity with the nationality of a third
The claimant must have capacity to sue in accordance
with its personal law or, in the case of a legal entity, the
lex societatis, at the time arbitration proceedings are
Subject to an express provision to the contrary in an
investment treaty, a claimant legal entity having the
nationality of a contracting state party need not have
substantial connections with that contracting state party.
Ergo, there is no requirement that the capital invested by
the claimant originates from the claimant or another legal
entity or individual with the nationality of the claimant.
No requirements of substantial connection or
B. ‘Subject to an express provision to the contrary in
an investment treaty’
Rule 36. The tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione personae may extend
to a legal entity having the nationality of the host
contracting state party where such legal entity is under
the control of an individual or legal entity in Rule 30, in
accordance with an express provision in an investment
treaty or by application of Article 25(2)(b) of the ICSID
Rule 37. Where an individual claimant with the nationality of one
contracting state also has the nationality of the host
contracting state party, the tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione
personae extends to such an individual only if the
former nationality is the dominant of the two, subject to
a contrary provision of an investment treaty or the
application of Article 25 of the ICSID Convention.
Rule 38. The rules for the nationality of claims in the general
international law of diplomatic protection do not apply
to issues of nationality in investment treaty arbitration.
A. The irrelevance of rules of diplomatic protection to
B. The International Law Commission’s Draft
The tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione temporis extends to
claims relating to the claimant’s investment, which are
founded upon obligations in force and binding upon the
host contracting state party at the time of the alleged
A. The intertemporal rule in relation to obligations
B. ‘Relating to the claimant’s investment’
The tribunal’s jurisdiction in Rule 39 may be limited to
investment disputes which have arisen after the
investment treaty has entered into force, in accordance
with an express provision of the investment treaty.
The claimant’s investment in Rule 39 can have been
made before or after the investment treaty entered into
force, subject to an express provision to the contrary in
the investment treaty.
The obligation to accord most-favoured-nation treatment
and the jurisdiction of an investment treaty tribunal
Without prejudice to Rule 39, a tribunal can take into
account facts relating to the claim but occurring prior to
the tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione temporis provided
that those facts are not relied upon as constituent
elements of the breach of the obligation forming the
basis of the claim.
A. Facts occuring prior to the tribunal’s jurisdiction
A most-favoured-nation (MFN) clause in the basic
investment treaty does not incorporate by reference
provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the arbitral
tribunal, in whole or in part, set forth in a third
investment treaty, unless there is an unequivocal
provision to that effect in the basic investment treaty.
B. The precedents of the International Court
C. The false question
D. No incorporation by reference of provisions of a
third treaty dealing with jurisdiction
E. ‘Unless there is an unequivocal provision to that
effect in the basic investment treaty’
Admissibility: Contractual choice of forum
The importance of preserving the efficacy of
contractual choice of forum clauses
B. Lessons from the Calvo Clause litigation
Rule 44. Where the tribunal has determined pursuant to Rule 27
and Rule 28 that the legal foundation of the claim is an
investment treaty obligation, and the object of that claim
is the vindication of contractual rights forming part of the
claimant’s investment, and there is a bona fide dispute
concerning the existence or scope of those rights, then
the tribunal should generally stay its jurisdiction
otherwise established in accordance with Rule 25 to Rule
29 in favour of a judicial or arbitral forum stipulated in
the contract as having exclusive jurisdiction in relation to
disputes arising out of the contract.
‘Where the tribunal has determined pursuant to
Rule 27 and Rule 28 that the legal foundation of
the claim is an investment treaty obligation…’
B. ‘…the object of that claim is the vindication of
contractual rights forming part of the claimant’s
C. ‘…there is a bona fide dispute concerning the
existence or scope of those [contractual] rights’
D. ‘…in favour of a judicial or arbitral forum
stipulated in the contract as having exclusive
jurisdiction in relation to the disputes arising out
of the contract’
E. ‘…the tribunal should generally stay its
jurisdiction otherwise established in accordance
with Rule 25 to Rule 29’
Rule 45. Where the tribunal has determined pursuant to Rule 27
and Rule 28 that the legal foundation of the claim is a
contractual obligation, the tribunal should decline its
jurisdiction otherwise established in accordance with
Rule 25 to Rule 29 in favour of a judicial or arbitral
forum stipulated in the contract as having exclusive
jurisdiction in relation to disputes arising out of the
Rule 46. Without prejudice to Rule 44 and Rule 45, the tribunal
should exercise its jurisdiction over the claim if the
tribunal is satisfied on the basis of compelling evidence
that the claimant will be subjected to a denial of justice
in the forum stipulated in the contract.
Admissibility: Shareholder claims
Introduction to the principle of admissibility for
B. The Barcelona Traction case
A claim founded upon an investment treaty obligation
which seeks a remedy for the interference by the host
state contracting party with the rights attaching to a
shareholding in a company having the nationality of
the host state is admissible.
A. ‘Rights attaching to a shareholding’
which seeks a remedy for the breach by the host state
contracting party of undertakings or representations
made to the shareholder but not to the company, or such
a claim for other types of loss that are separate and
distinct from the company’s loss, is admissible.
A. Undertakings or representations made to
B. Shareholder claims for types of loss that are
separate and distinct from the company’s loss
which seeks a remedy for the diminution of value of a
shareholding in a limited liability company having the
nationality of the host contracting state party is
admissible if the claimant can establish a prima facie
case that: (i) the assets of the company have been
expropriated by the host contracting state party so that
the shareholding has been rendered worthless; or (ii)
the company is without or has been deprived of a
remedy to redress the injury it has suffered; or (iii) the
company is without or has been deprived of the
capacity to sue either under the lex societatis or de
facto; or (iv) the company has been subjected to a
denial of justice in the pursuit of a remedy in the system
for the administration of justice of the host contracting
B. First limb of Rule 49: Expropriation of the assets
C. Second limb of Rule 49: Deprivation of a remedy
D. Third limb of Rule 49: Deprivation of the
company’s capacity to sue
E. Fourth limb of Rule 49: Denial of justice in the
pursuit of a remedy by the company
F. Inadmissible shareholder claims for reflective loss
G. The special case of the European Convention on
H. The special case of NAFTA
I. Relevant provisions of investment treaties and the
J. The special case of the Iran/US Claims Tribunal
For a claim to be admissible pursuant to Rule 49, the
tribunal should satisfy itself that the shareholder’s
claim will not: (i) unfairly expose the host state or the
company to a multiplicity of actions; (ii) materially
prejudice the interests of the creditors of the company;
or, (iii) interfere with a fair distribution of the recovery
among all interested parties.
Admissibility: Dispositions relating to the legal and beneficial
ownership of the investment
Diplomatic protection and investment treaty
Rule 51. The legal or beneficial ownership of an investment can
be structured in such a way so as to attract the
protection of an investment treaty in force at the host
state of the investment.
Rule 52. The legal or beneficial ownership of an investment
cannot be transferred in order to establish the
jurisdiction of an investment treaty tribunal in respect
of an alleged injury to that investment attributable to
measures of the host state save where the host state has
given its express consent to such a transfer on notice of
this consequence.
Rule 53. Dispositions relating to the legal and beneficial
ownership of the investment that occur after the
claimant has validly filed a notice of arbitration have
no effect upon the admissibility of its claims.
Admissibility: Denial of Benefits
Where a ‘denial of benefits’ provision is successfully
invoked by the host state in arbitration proceedings
against the claimant, the substantive protection of the
investment treaty is denied to the claimant and its
claims must be dismissed as inadmissible.
1. Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between
States and Nationals of Other States (1965) – ICSID (excerpts)
2. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign
Arbitral Awards (1958)
3. North American Free Trade Agreement (1992) – NAFTA (excerpts)
4. Energy Charter Treaty (1994) (excerpts)
5. China Model BIT (1997)
6. France Model BIT (2006)
7. Germany Model BIT (2005)
8. Netherlands Model BIT (1997)
9. Turkey Model BIT (2000)
10. United Kingdom Model BIT (2005, with 2006 amendments)
11. United States of America Model BIT (2004)
Some would say investment arbitration has reached its half-life. Emerging from,
or in reaction against, earlier inter-state forms – diplomatic protection, FCN
treaties, etc – it has a kind of ‘boom-and-bust’ feel to it. Ad hoc tribunals have
produced an erratic pattern of decisions, with reasoning often impressionistic
and displaying a certain disregard for state regulatory prerogatives. This is
leading in turn to a reaction by some host states. Meantime there is much that
is uncertain and unpredictable.
Zachary Douglas is unsparing in his criticism of particular decisions. But
he does not accept either the rose-tinted view that the international investment
tribunal is a new form of merchants’ court, dispensing a relatively unconstrained
justice – or the sceptic’s alternative view that there is no point in the quest
for explanations, and thereby for greater certainty. Rather he seeks to provide
guidance, to say the law, even in Diceyan propositional form.
One characteristic of the field of investment arbitration is the overlapping and
interaction of laws and legal systems. In analysing this phenomenon, Douglas
displays fluency not only in public international law but also in private international law, adding greatly to the strength of his analysis – and to the collected
wisdom of Dicey!
But there is much more. Douglas brings to his work a solid understanding
of the functions – and sometimes dysfunctions – of international arbitration,
generated by his practical and professional experience. He also brings – what
those fortunate enough to work with him always saw – a desire to comprehend
individual cases and disputes within some overall frame or matrix. This has not
taken the form of a restlessness with particulars: he is too good a lawyer for that.
But it has taken the form of a need to synthesise, of which this book is the fruit.
There is no shortage of books now on investment arbitration. But this will
prove one of the best and, I believe, most enduring; it is fit as a work of synthesis
to rank alongside Schreuer’s Commentary to the ICSID Convention.
This volume is dedicated to the elucidation of rules governing the jurisdiction
of international tribunals established pursuant to investment treaties, the admissibility of investment claims presented to them, and the laws applicable to the
various legal issues arising out of such claims. The next volume will address
the substantive obligations of investment protection that are common to the
majority of investment treaties.
The recent exponential growth of claims being prosecuted under investment
treaties by investors against states could not have happened without the expansion of the network of investment treaties by states. At first blush this might
appear to be paradoxical: why are states actively embracing the inevitability of
more international litigation against them? But it is a paradox only if the burden
of defending claims eclipses the benefits attained by the states’ compliance with
these international engagements. Some form of cost-benefit analysis might shed
some light on the rationality of the rush to sign investment treaties. It would not,
however, reveal the full picture. What about the impact of the treaty upon the
domestic rule of law? If regulatory practices in the host state of the foreign
investment evolve in the direction of greater transparency and more respect for
due process as a result of the discipline imposed by the state’s international
obligations, then this is surely a tangible benefit that may not be susceptible to
precise valuation in economic terms. The factors that lead states to conclude
investment treaties, and the advantages that flow from them, are unlikely to
be uniform within the community of states that have participated in the construction of the modern network of investment treaties. One must, however, be
sceptical of any claim that they have acted irrationally in doing so.
Another putative paradox that is closer to the concerns of this study lies in the
basic architecture of an investment treaty. Within the domestic context, there are
few areas of economic activity that inspire more intricate regulation than foreign
investment: special regimes for taxation and property ownership; rules on anticompetitive practices, the transfer of technology and currency control; special
employment or environmental obligations; rules on corporate governance and
disclosure, and so on. And yet the technique favoured by states on the international plane is to superimpose a small number of general, open-textured,
standards of investment protection upon these diverse and complex areas of
domestic regulation. Those standards are commonly elaborated in a text consisting of no more than a few pages. The contrast with other fields of international economic law is quite dramatic: consider the labyrinthine legal texts of
the WTO on goods, services and intellectual property by way of example. The
important insight from the architecture of the investment treaty is that states do
not purport to displace municipal laws and regulations on foreign investment in
a wholesale fashion by the perfunctory signing of an investment treaty. Instead
they envisage a relationship of coordination between international and municipal laws. This explains the critical role that choice of law rules must play in the
resolution of investment disputes.
The rules for prosecuting claims in investment treaty arbitration are also
small in number and general in prescription in the texts of investment treaties.
The state parties have thus entrusted the development of these rules to the
international tribunals constituted to adjudicate investment disputes on an ad
hoc and incremental basis. This act of faith on the part of the contracting states
does not provide international tribunals with a carte blanche; the rules for
prosecuting claims in investment treaty arbitration must be fair and just and
the system for the resolution of investment disputes must be internally coherent
and sustainable for the duration of the treaty. Indeed, according to the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties: ‘disputes concerning treaties, like other
international disputes, should be settled by peaceful means and in conformity
with the principles of justice and international law’. These fundamental principles might appear to be modest in prescription, but they are capable of carrying
an important part of the interpretative burden in the elucidation of the rules in
Solutions to the problems of jurisdiction, admissibility and choice of law
must ultimately contribute to the fairness and justice of the system for resolving
disputes between foreign investors and host states. The principles of fairness
and justice are a more legitimate source of guidance for resolving these questions than the policy objectives for concluding the investment treaty as revealed
in its preambular clauses. There is no inexorable connection between the
general policy of encouraging foreign investment and a decision to uphold
jurisdiction in relation to a specific investment dispute.
The sustainability of the system of dispute resolution is also an important
factor. If the basis for the decision to uphold jurisdiction were in one instance to
be universalised for all future cases, what would be the consequences for the
state parties to the treaty? Would it open the floodgates to an unlimited number
of claims in respect of the same underlying damage to a particular investment?
Would it undermine the sanctity of commercial contracts? Would it have a
deleterious effect on the capacity of municipal courts to provide effective
remedies? If such questions can be answered in the affirmative, then the tribunal
has strayed off the path towards the fair and legitimate interpretation of the
Much has been said about the importance of attaining consistency from one
investment treaty award to the next. But what about coherency? Coherency
entails consistency in principle. As Dworkin has written, it must ‘express a
single and comprehensive vision of justice’. In a system with no appellate
review, the danger inherent in the uncritical adoption of a previous solution to
a recurring problem is manifest. Hart has warned us that ‘consistency in dealing
is compatible with great iniquity’. The examples in legal history are plentiful
and notorious. The international law of investment claims must aspire to the
higher value of coherency rather than the mere absence of a direct contradiction
between the statements of law revealed in different arbitral awards.
In this volume, 54 rules covering the juridical foundations of investment
treaty arbitration, the jurisdiction of the tribunal, the admissibility of claims and
the laws applicable to different aspects of investment disputes are elaborated by
reference to a diverse range of legal texts including investment treaty awards,
the decisions of other international courts and tribunals, model investment
treaties, municipal laws and decisions of municipal courts and the writings
of leading publicists. The proposed rules do not purport to be definitive or
complete or even free from error.
This volume is a first attempt at codifying a specialist domain of international
law that is at a nascent stage of development and that is barely idle for more than
an instant. Notwithstanding the inevitable imperfections of a first attempt, it is
hoped that the arguments deployed to justify the codified rules will be met with
approval and with dissent in awards and pleadings and academic writing.
Constructive disagreement will lead to the development of better rules and to
a more enlightened second edition of this volume. In the absence of a centralised
and supreme law-making agency for the international law of investment claims,
a free and fair battle of ideas is the only way to achieve coherency in the law and
the sustainability of the system. One might be forgiven for alluding to a process
of natural selection in this anniversary year of the father of evolution.
The manuscript for this volume was delivered to the publisher in June 2008
and hence takes account of the relevant decisions and awards in the public
domain as of that date. It has, nonetheless, been possible to incorporate references to the awards and decisions available as of February 2009 in the footnotes
Citations of decisions and awards of investment tribunals are in the following
format: CME v Czech Republic (Damages) 9 ICSID Rep 264, 291/87–93, where
‘291’ refers to the page number in Volume 9 of the ICSID Reports and ‘87–93’
refers to the paragraph numbers of the award. If paragraph numbers were not
used in the original text of the award then only the page reference to the ICSID
Reports is provided. For awards that are not published in the ICSID Reports,
citations are in the following format: ADC v Hungary (Merits) para. 136, where
‘para. 136’ is a reference to the paragraph numbers in the original text of the
If a decision or award has not yet been published in the ICSID Reports, then
it can be found on one of the several electronic collections available on
open access, such as www.ita.law.uvic.ca and www.naftaclaims.com; or by
subscription, such as www.investmentclaims.com and Westlaw International
(APPLETON-ISR). No purpose would be served by referring to one of these
electronic collections for each decision and award cited in the text.
A great number of people have contributed in some way to the process of
writing this volume, and it would be impossible to recall all of them and to thank
them individually. Moreover, it would be painful to name the various opposing
counsel who advanced submissions contrary to my initial views with such skill
and dexterity that I have been compelled to redraft sections of this book! There
are, however, several people whose contributions must be acknowledged in
these pages. James Crawford, Jan Paulsson and Philippe Sands have been
mentors and friends throughout in matters going well beyond the subject matter
of this volume and my debt to them is enormous. Michael Mustill has generously presided over our joint seminars at Cambridge University on various
topics loosely related to arbitration and his constant challenges to my working
assumptions were invaluable. Sam Wordsworth cast his expert eye over the 54
rules and was able to alert me to some of the errors. Saar Pauker and Monique
Sasson assisted with the research on some of the more esoteric points. Finola
O’Sullivan, Daniel Dunlavey and Richard Woodham of Cambridge University
Press and Laurence Marsh brought it all together at the production stage.
It is Marion, my partner in life, who deserves my gratitude above all. She has
suffered on account of this book more than any reader will. Apart from providing a bedrock of support, without which I can barely function, she brought
our daughter into the world last year. Céleste’s contribution was to delay the
publication of this volume significantly and, in so doing, provided her father
with the happiest moments of his life thus far.
Cambridge, February 2009
Locator numbers refer to paragraphs, not to pages.
African Holding Company of
America Inc. and Société
Africaine de Construction au
Congo SARL v Democratic
(Decision on Jurisdiction and
Admissibility, 29 July 2008)
ICSID Case No. ARB/05/21
Asian Agricultural Products Ltd
v Democratic Socialist
(Award, 27 June 1990) ICSID
Case No. ARB/87/3, 4 ICSID
ADC Affiliate Limited, ADC &
ADMC Management Limited
v Republic of Hungary
(Award, 2 October 2006)
ICSID Case No. ARB/03/16
ADF Group Inc. v United States
of America (Procedural Order
No. 2 Concerning the Place of
Arbitration, 11 July 2001)
ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/
00/1, 6 ICSID Rep 453
of America (Award, 9 January
2003) ICSID Case No. ARB
(AF)/00/1, 6 ICSID Rep 470
African Holding Co. v 378, 551, 821, 869
Congo (Preliminary
Objections)
(Merits) 4 ICSID
80, 81, 257, 634
97, 583
ADF v USA (Place of
Arbitration) 6
ICSID Rep 453
ADF v USA (Merits)
6 ICSID Rep 470
Adriano Gardella v Ivory Coast
(Award, 29 August 1977)
ICSID Case No. ARB/74/1,
1 ICSID Rep 283
AES Corporation v Argentine
Republic (Decision on
Jurisdiction, 26 April 2005)
ICSID Case No. ARB/02/17,
12 ICSID Rep 312
AGIP SpA v Government of the
Congo (Award, 30 November
1979) ICSID Case No. ARB
77/1, 1 ICSID Rep 306
Aguaytia Energy LLC v
Republic of Peru (Award,
11 December 2008) ICSID
Case No. ARB/06/13
Aguas del Tuna SA v Republic
of Bolivia (Decision on
Respondent’s Objection to
Jurisdiction, 21 October 2005)
ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3
Aguas del Tunari SA v Republic
of Bolivia (Dissenting
Opinion of J. AberroSemerena, 21 October 2005)
AIG Capital Partners Inc. and
CJSC Tema Real Estate
Company v Republic of
Kazakhstan (Award, 7 October
2003) ICSID Case No. ARB/
01/06, 11 ICSID Rep 7
Amco Asia Corp., Pan
American Development Ltd
and PT Amco Indonesia v
(Decision on Jurisdiction,
25 September 1983) ICSID
Case No. ARB/81/1, 1 ICSID
Rep 389
Adriano v Ivory Coast 162, 164
(Merits) 1 ICSID
Rep 283
Objections) 12
ICSID Rep 312
133, 757, 856
AGIP v Congo
Rep 306
100, 162, 634
Aguaytia v Peru
AdT v Bolivia
514, 550, 556, 560,
564, 695, 865–6,
AIG v Kazakhstan
(Merits) 11 ICSID
Rep 7.
101, 551, 567, 578
No. 1 (Preliminary
Objections) 1 ICSID
Republic of Indonesia (Award
on the Merits, 20 November
1984) ICSID Case No. ARB/
81/1, 1 ICSID Rep 413
Amco Asia Corp., Pan American
Development Ltd and PT
Amco Indonesia v Republic of
Indonesia (Annulment, 16
May 1986) ICSID Case No.
ARB/81/1, 1 ICSID Rep 509
(Decision on Jurisdiction, 10
May 1988) ICSID Case No.
ARB/81/1, 1 ICSID Rep 543
Indonesia (Award , 5 June
1990) ICSID Case No. ARB/
81/1, 1 ICSID Rep 569
Indonesia (Decision on
Annulment, 3 December
1992) ICSID Case No. ARB/
81/1, 9 ICSID Rep 3
Amto v Ukraine (Final
Award, 26 March 2008) SCC
Case No. 080/2005
American Manufacturing and
Trading, Inc. v Republic of
Zaire (Award, 21 February
1997) ICSID Case No. ARB/
93/1, 5 ICSID Rep 14.
No. 1 (Merits)
1 ICSID Rep 413
100, 164, 271
No. 1 (Annulment)
1 ICSID Rep 509
164, 267, 528
134, 137–8, 473,
No. 2 (Preliminary 488, 498, 499
Rep 543
No. 2 (Merits)
1 ICSID Rep 569
187–91, 271
No. 2 (Annulment)
9 ICSID Rep 3
631, 867
AMT v Zaire (Merits)
5 ICSID Rep 14
Autopista Concesionada de
Venezuela CA v Bolivarian
(Award, 23 September 2003)
ICSID Case No. ARB/00/5,
10 ICSID Rep 309
Azinian, Davitan & Baca v
(Award, 1 November 1998)
97/2, 5 ICSID Rep 272
Azurix Corp. v Argentine
Jurisdiction, 8 December
2003), ICSID Case No. ARB/
01/12, 10 ICSID Rep 416
Republic (Award, 14 July
2006) ICSID Case No.
ARB/01/12
Banro American Resources,
Inc. and Société Aurifère du
Kivu et du Maniema SARL v
Congo (Award, 1 September
2000) ICSID Case No.
ARB/98/7
Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret
Ve Sanayi AŞ v Islamic
14 November 2005) ICSID
Case No. ARB/03/29
et al v United Mexican
States (Award, 19 June 2007)
ICSID Case No. ARB
(AF)/05/1
Vladimir Berschader & Moïse
Berschader v Russian
Federation (Award, 21 April
2006) SCC Case No. 080/
Autopista v Venezuela 270
(Merits) 10 ICSID
Rep 309
(Merits) 5 ICSID
Rep 272
101, 729
Objections) 10
ICSID Rep 416
118, 514–15, 684,
819, 856
118, 193, 325
Banro v Congo
55, 542
121, 399, 440, 516,
520, 711, 734
Bayview v Mexico
101, 399, 405
480, 644
BG Group v Argentine Republic
(Final Award, 24 December
2007) UNCITRAL.
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania)
Ltd. v United Republic of
Tanzania (Award, 24 July
2008) ICSID Case No.
ARB/05/22
Camuzzi International S.A. v
Argentine Republic (Decision
on Objections to Jurisdiction,
11 May 2005) ICSID Case
No. ARB/03/2
Canadian Cattlemen for Fair
Trade v United States (Award
on Jurisdiction, 28 January
2008) UNCITRAL
Victor Pey Casado and
Foundation v Republic of
Chile (Award, 8 May 2008)
ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2
Champion Trading Company,
Ameritrade International
Inc., J.T., J.B. and T.T. Wahba
v Arab Republic of Egypt
21 October 2003) ICSID
Case No. ARB/02/9, 10
ICSID Rep 398
and Texaco Petroleum
Corporation (USA) v The
Republic of Ecuador (Partial
Award, 1 December 2008)
CME Czech Republic BV
(The Netherlands) v Czech
Republic (Partial Award on
the Merits, 13 September
2001) UNCITRAL, 9 ICSID
Rep 121.
BG v Argentina
80, 101, 121, 465,
799, 806, 818, 848
134, 334, 401
Camuzzi v Argentina
514, 520, 566, 747,
753, 848, 856
Canadian Cattlemen v 347
USA (Preliminary
Casado v Chile
101, 121, 133, 321,
408, 616
Champion Trading v
Egypt (Preliminary
581, 600, 602, 605
204, 520, 632, 639
CME v Czech
Republic (Merits)
9 ICSID Rep 121.
48, 114, 179,
575–6, 870
Republic (Dissenting Opinion
of J. Hándl, 13 September
Rep 243
CME Czech Republic BV (The
Netherlands) v Czech Republic
(Final Award on Damages,
14 March 2003) UNCITRAL,
9 ICSID Rep 264
Argentina (Decision on
Objections to Jurisdiction,
17 July 2003) ICSID Case No.
ARB/01/8, 7 ICSID Rep 494
Argentina (Award, 12 May
2005) ICSID Case No.
Annulment, 25 September
2007) ICSID Case No.
22 February 2006) ICSID
Case No. ARB/03/9
Československá Obchodni
Banka AS v Slovak Republic
(Decision on Objections to
Jurisdiction, 24 May 1999)
ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4,
5 ICSID Rep 335
Desert Line Projects LLC v
Republic of Yemen (Award,
6 February 2008) ICSID
Case No. ARB/05/17
CME v Czech Republic 114
(Merits: Dissenting
Opinion) 9 ICSID
(Damages) 9 ICSID
Rep 264
Objections) 7
ICSID Rep 494
47, 67, 325, 757,
762, 819, 856
80, 258, 819, 825–7
768–9
CSOB v Slovak
50, 249, 399,
559, 609
Objections) 5 ICSID
Rep 335
Desert Line v Yemen
276, 325, 695
Duke Energy Electroquil
Partners & Electroquil S.A.
v Republic of Ecuador
(Award, 18 August 2008)
ICSID Case No ARB/04/19
Duke Energy International Peru
Investments No. 1 Ltd v Peru
1 February 2006) ICSID
Case No. ARB/03/28
Eastern Sugar BV v Czech
Republic (Partial Award,
27 March 2007) SCC No.
088/2004
El Paso Energy International
Company v Argentine
Jurisdiction, 27 April 2006)
ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15
European Media Ventures SA v
Czech Republic (Award on
Jurisdiction, 15 May 2007)
EnCana Corporation v
Republic of Ecuador (Award,
3 February 2006)
UNCITRAL/LCIA Case
UN3481, 12 ICSID Rep 427
Enron Corporation and
Ponderosa Assets LP v
on Jurisdiction, 14 January
2004) ICSID Case No.
ARB/01/3, 11 ICSID
Rep 273
on Jurisdiction, Ancillary
Claim, 2 August 2004) ICSID
Case No. ARB/01/3, 11
ICSID Rep 295
Duke Energy v Ecuador 528
Duke Energy v Peru
Eastern Sugar v
457, 502, 551
EMV v Czech Republic 487
(Merits) 12
ICSID 427
80, 101, 111, 347,
385, 551, 579,
Objections) 11
ICSID Rep 273
334, 762, 821,
822, 841
Ancillary Claim)
11 ICSID Rep 295
821, 841
Ponderosa Assets, LP v
Argentine Republic (Award,
22 May 2007) ICSID Case
No. ARB/01/3
Ethyl Corporation v Government
of Canada (Decision on
the Place of Arbitration,
28 November 1997)
UNCITRAL, 7 ICSID Rep 5
Ethyl Corporation v
(Award on Jurisdiction, 24
June 1998) UNCITRAL, 7
ICSID Rep 12
Eureko BV v Republic of Poland
(Partial Award, 19 August
2005) 12 ICSID Rep 335
Fedax NV v Republic of
Venezuela (Decision on
11 July 1997) ICSID Case No.
ARB/96/3, 5 ICSID Rep 183
Venezuela (Award, 9 March
1998) ICSID Case No. ARB/
96/3, 5 ICSID Rep 200
Marvin Feldman v United
Mexican States (Interim
Jurisdictional Issues,
6 December 2000) ICSID
Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1,
7 ICSID Rep 327
States of Mexico (Award,
16 December 2002) ICSID
7 ICSID Rep 341
Marvin Feldman v United States
of Mexico (Dissenting Opinion
of C. Bravo, 3 December
2002) ICSID Case No. ARB
(AF)/99/1, 7 ICSID Rep 407
193, 325, 821
Ethyl v Canada (Place 204
7 ICSID Rep 5
329, 334, 347
(Merits) 12 ICSID
Objections) 5
ICSID Rep 183
113, 514, 702
ICSID Rep 327
600, 604, 605, 616
(Merits)7 ICSID
Rep 341
Opinion) 7 ICSID
Services Worldwide v
(Award, 16 August 2007)
ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25
GAMI Inc. v United States
of Mexico (Final Award,
15 November 2004)
Gas Natural SDG, S.A. v
(Decision of the Tribunal on
Preliminary Questions on
Jurisdiction, 17 June 2005)
ICSID Case No. ARB/03/10
Generation Ukraine Inc. v
Ukraine (Award, 16 September
00/9, 10 ICSID Rep 240
Genin and Others v Republic of
Estonia, (Award, 25 June
2001) ICSID Case No. ARB/
99/2, 6 ICSID Rep 236
Antoine Goetz and Others v
Republic of Burundi (Award,
10 February 1999) ICSID
Case No. ARB/95/3, 6 ICSID
Philippe Gruslin v Malaysia
(Award, 27 November 2000)
ICSID Case No. ARB/99/3,
5 ICSID Rep 484
(Award, 7 June 2008) ICSID
Case No. ARB/05/19
Competence, 22 December
2003) ICSID Case No.
ARB/02/10
101, 106, 107, 120
39, 762, 798, 803,
804, 821, 827
Gas Natural v
649, 668, 672, 677,
678, 757
Generation Ukraine v 59, 121, 391, 616,
Ukraine (Merits)
639, 873, 874
10 ICSID Rep 240
(Merits) 6 ICSID
Rep 236
324, 495, 577
162, 334, 616
Rep 484
113, 520, 551
Impregilo SpA v Islamic Republic
of Pakistan (Decision on
Jurisdiction, 22 April 2005)
ICSID Case No. ARB/03/3,
12 ICSID Rep 245
Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v
(Award, 2 August 2006)
ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26
Investor v Republic of Kazakstan
(Jurisdictional Award, 2003)
SCC Case 122/2001, (2005)
1 Stockholm International
Arbitration Review 123
Jan de Nul NV and Dredging
International NV v Arab
Republic of Egypt (Decision
on Jurisdiction, 16 June 2006)
ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13
Republic of Egypt (Award,
6 November 2008) ICSID
Case No. ARB/04/13
v The Arab Republic of Egypt
(Award on Jurisdiction,
6 August 2004) ICSID
Case No. ARB/03/11
Ioannis Kardassopoloulos v
Republic of Georgia (Decision
on Jurisdiction, 6 July 2007)
GmbH, Klöckner Belge
SA and Klöckner
Handelsmaatschappij BV v
Republic of Cameroon and
Société Camerounaise des
Engrais SA (Decision on
Jurisdiction, 21 October
1983) ICSID Case No. ARB/
81/2, 2 ICSID Rep 3
ICSID Rep 245
134, 139, 140, 313,
476–7, 502, 520,
526, 581, 582, 616,
634, 732-3, 857, 869
Inceysa v El Salvador 107
Investor v Kazakhstan 204, 551
Objections) (2005)
1 Stockholm Int
Arbitration Rev 123
399, 520, 635
441, 520, 695
Kardassopoloulos v
106, 108, 317, 616
Georgia (Preliminary
Klöckner v Cameroon 593
Objections) 2 ICSID
GmbH, Klöckner Belge,
des Engrais SA. (Award,
21 October 1983) ICSID
Case No. ARB/81/2,
2 ICSID Rep 9
Engrais SA (Dissenting
Opinion of D. Schmidt)
ICSID Case No. ARB/81/2,
2 ICSID Rep 77
Engrais SA. (Decision on
Annulment, 3 May 1985)
2 ICSID Rep 95
Lanco International Inc. v
(Preliminary Decision on
1998) ICSID Case
No. ARB/97/6, 5 ICSID
Ronald S. Lauder v Czech
Republic (Final Award,
3 September 2001)
UNCITRAL, 9 ICSID
Klöckner v Cameroon 488, 497, 716–18
(Merits) 2 ICSID
Klöckner v Cameroon 717
Opinion) 2 ICSID
Rep 77
Klöckner v Cameroon 267, 717
ICSID Rep 367
320, 514, 695,
703–4, 705, 784
Lauder v Czech
9 ICSID Rep 62
48, 114, 321, 325,
334, 575
LESI (Lavori Edili Stradali
Industriali) SpA, Astaldi SpA
v Republique Algerienne
(Award, 12 July 2006) ICSID
Case No. ARB/05/3
Consorzio Groupement
L.E.S.I. – Dipenta (Italie) v
(Award, 10 January 2005)
ICSID Case No. ARB/03/08.
(LETCO) v Liberia (Award,
31 March 1986) ICSID
Case No. ARB/83/2, 2 ICSID
LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E
Capital Corp., LG&E
International Inc. v Argentine
30 April 2004) ICSID Case
No. ARB/02/1, 11 ICSID
Rep 414
Loewen Group Inc. & Raymond
L. Loewen v United States
of America (Decision on
Competence and Jurisdiction,
9 January 2001) ICSID Case
No. ARB(AF)/98/3, 7 ICSID
Rep 425
L. Loewen v United States of
America (Award, 26 June
(AF)/98/3, 7 ICSID Rep 442
Empresas Lucchetti SA &
Lucchetti Perú SA v Republic
of Peru (Award on
Jurisdiction, 7 February
2005) ICSID Case No. ARB/
03/4, 12 ICSID Rep 219.
LESI (Astaldi) v
399, 408, 517–19
LESI (Dipenti) v
134, 334, 399,
408, 457
LETCO v Liberia
LG&E v Argentina
ICSID Rep 414
753, 757, 848
ICSID Rep 425
Loewen v USA (Merits) 29–31, 49–50, 76,
7 ICSID Rep 442
611–14, 753
ICSID Rep 219
Industria Nacional de Alimentos
S.A. and Indalso Perú S.A. v
Republic of Peru (Decision
on Annulment, Dissenting
Opinion of F. Berman,
5 September 2007) ICSID
Case. No. ARB/03/4
Emilio Agustín Maffezini v
Kingdom of Spain (Decision
25 January 2000) ICSID
Case No. ARB/97/7, 5 ICSID
Rep 396
Kingdom of Spain (Award,
13 November 2000) ICSID
Rep 419
Malaysian Historical Salvors
Sdn, Bhd v Government of
Malaysia (Award on
Jurisdiction, 17 May 2007)
ICISD Case No. ARB/05/10
MCI Power Group LC & New
Turbine Inc. v Republic of
Ecuador (Award, 31 July
ARB/03/6.
Methanex Corporation v United
States of America (Decision
on the Place of Arbitration,
31 December 2000)
UNCITRAL, 7 ICSID
Rep 213.
States of America (Decision on
7 August 2002) UNCITRAL,
7 ICSID Rep 239
States of America (Final
Award on Jurisdiction and
Merits, 3 August 2005)
(Annulment:
Dissenting Opinion).
ICSID Rep 396
59, 318, 319, 632,
634, 662–4,
667–72, 677, 783
Malaysian Salvors v
341, 407
MCI Power v
Ecuador (Merits)
616, 622, 639, 644
Arbitration) 7
ICSID Rep 213.
ICSID Rep 239
313, 464–5, 467,
204, 464
Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula,
S.C.. European Food SA,
S.C. Starmill SRL and
S.C. Multipack SRL v Romania
Admissibility, 24 September
2008) ICSID Case No. ARB/
Middle East Cement Shipping
and Handling Co. SA v Arab
Republic of Egypt (Award, 12
April 2002) ICSID Case No.
ARB/99/6, 7 ICSID Rep 178
Corporation v Democratic
Socialist Republic of Sri
Lanka (Award, 15 March
2002) ICSID Case No. ARB/
00/2, 6 ICSID Rep 310
Patrick Mitchell v Democratic
Republic of Congo (Decision
Annulment of the Award,
1 November 2006) ICSID
Case No. ARB/99/7
Mondev International Ltd v
(Award, 11 October 2002)
99/2, 7 ICSID Rep 192
MTD Equity Sdn & MTD Chile
SA v Republic of Chile
(Decision on Annulment,
21 March 2007) ICSID Case
No. ARB/01/7
Mytilineos Holdings SA v The
State Union of Serbia &
Montenegro and Republic of
Serbia (Partial Award on
Jurisdiction, 8 September
20906) UNCITRAL
Nagel v Czech Republic (Final
Award, 9 September 2003)
SCC Case 49/2002
183, 313, 315,
605, 632
Middle East Cement v 325, 621
Egypt (Merits) 7
ICSID Rep 178
398, 869
Objections)6 ICSID
347, 406, 408
Mondev v USA (Merits) 39, 59, 157, 329,
6 ICSID Rep 192
551, 616, 620,
639, 640, 834, 835,
840, 842
MTD v Chile
179, 347, 409, 520
Nagel v Czech
101, 440
National Grid plc v Argentine
Jurisdiction, 20 June 2006)
Noble Energy Inc. &
Machalapower CIA LTDA v
Republic of Ecuador &
Electricidad (Decision
on Jurisdiction, 5 March
ARB/05/12
Technology Holding AB v
Republic of Latvia (Award,
16 December 2003) SCC,
11 ICSID Rep 158
Occidental Exploration and
Production Company v The
Republic of Ecuador (Final
Award, 1 July 2004) LCIA
Case No. UN 3467, 12 ICSID
Corporation and Occidental
Company v Ecuador
(Decision on Jurisdiction, 9
September 2008) ICSID Case
No ARB/06/11
Olguín v Paraguay (Decision
on Jurisdiction, 8 August
2000) ICSID Case No. ARB/
98/5, 6 ICSID Rep 156.
Olguín v Paraguay (Award,
26 July 2001) ICSID Case
No. ARB/98/5, 6 ICSID
Parkerings-Compagniet AS v
(Award, 11 September 2007)
ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8.
National Grid v
551, 654, 655, 757,
856, 871
Noble v Ecuador
125, 162, 443, 502,
520, 757, 822
Rep 158
116–17, 514, 702,
Occidental v Ecuador 76
(Merits)12 ICSID
Occidental v Ecuador 334
No. 2 (Preliminary
Olguín v Paraguay
Objections) 6
ICSID Rep 156
Parkerings v Lithuania 514
Pan American Energy LLC, BP
27 July 2006) ICSID Case
No. ARB/03/13
Petrobart Limited v Kyrgyz
Republic (Award, 29 March
2005) SCC 126/2003.
Plama Consortium Limited v
8 February 2005) ICSID
Case No. ARB/03/24
Republic of Bulgaria (Award,
27 August 2008) ICSID Case
No. ARB/03/24
Pope & Talbot Inc v
(Award on Preliminary
Motion to Dismiss Claim,
26 January 2000) 7 ICSID
Pope & Talbot Inc v Government
of Canada (Interim Award,
26 June 2000) UNCITRAL,
7 ICSID Rep 69
PSEG Global Inc., The North
American Coal Corporation,
and Konya Ilgin Elektrik
Üretim ve Ticaret Limited
Sirketi v Republic of Turkey
4 June 2004) ICSID Case No.
ARB/02/5, 11 ICSID Rep 434
Corporation v Republic of
Guatemala (Decision on
Objection to Jurisdiction,
17 November 2008) ICSID
Case No. ARB/07/23
462, 511, 757, 854,
Energy v Argentina 855, 856
Petrobart v Kyrgyz
317, 357, 405, 442
126, 520, 644, 650,
654, 660, 674–7,
877–82
Pope & Talbot v
Canada (Motion to
Dismiss) 7 ICSID
Merits) 7 ICSID
ICSID Rep 434
117, 388, 443, 502,
631, 705
Railroad v Guatemala 327
The Rompetrol Group N.V. v
Romania (Decision on
Respondent’s Preliminary
Objections on Jurisdiction and
Admissibility, 18 April 2008)
ICSID Case No. ARB/06/3
RosInvest Co UK Ltd v Russian
Federation (Award on
Jurisdiction, October 2007)
SCC Case No. V079/2005
Consortium RFCC v Royaume
du Maroc (Award,
22 December 2003) ICSID
Case No. ARB/00/6
Rumeli Telekom AS and Telsim
Mobil Telekomunikasyon
Hizmetleri AS v Kazakhstan
(Award, 29 July 2008) ICSID
Case No. ARB/05/16
Saipem S.p.A. v People’s
(Decision on Jurisdiction
and Recommendation on
21 March 2007) ICSID
Case No. ARM/05/07
Salini Costruttori SpA. and
Italstrade S.p.A. v The
15 November 2004) ICSID
Case No. ARB/02/13
Salini Costrutorri SpA and
Italstrade SpA v Kingdom of
Morocco (Decision on
Jurisdiction, 23 July 2001)
ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4,
6 ICSID Rep 400
Saluka Investments BV v Czech
Jurisdiction over the Czech
Republic’s Counterclaim,
7 May 2004) UNCITRAL/
Rompetrol v Romania 583, 605
RosInvest v Russia
179, 481, 605, 672
RFCC v Morocco
(Merits).
Rumeli Telekom v
107, 871
Kazakhstan (Merits)
123, 389, 399,
502, 520
Salini v Jordon
520, 527, 616,
Objections) 6 ICSID
Rep 400
139, 140, 341, 399,
401, 403, 407–8,
440, 457, 514, 695,
Saluka v Czech
488, 495, 496–9
Saluka Investments BV v
Czech Republic (Partial
Award, 17 March 2006)
UNCITRAL/PCA
Compañía del Desarrollo de
Santa Elena SA v Costa Rica
(Award, 17 February 2000)
ICSID Case No. ARB/96/1,
5 ICSID Rep 157
S.D. Myers Inc. v Government
of Canada (Procedural Order
No. 18 on Suspension of
Arbitration, 26 February
2001) UNCITRAL, 8 ICSID
of Canada (First Partial
Award on Liability,
13 November 2000)
UNCITRAL, 8 ICSID Rep 18
S.D. Myers Inc v Government of
Canada (Separate Opinion of
B. Schwartz, 12 November
2000) UNCITRAL, 8 ICSID
Canada (Award on Damages,
21 October 2002)
UNCITRAL, 8 ICSID
Franz Sedelmayer v Russian
Federation (Award, 7 July
1998) SCC
Sempra Energy International v
No. ARB/02/16
28 September 2007) ICSID
Case No. ARB/02/16
46, 101, 150, 552,
583, 586, 587, 631,
639, 737–8
Santa Elena v Costa
Rica (Merits) 5
ICSID Rep 157
S.D. Myers v Canada
(Procedural Order)
8 ICSID Rep 15
(Merits) 8 ICSID
31, 61, 466,
551, 568
(Merits: Separate
Opinion) 8 ICSID
S.D. Myers v Canada 338
(Damages) 8 ICSID
480, 495, 551,
578, 580
502, 598–9, 848
193, 194, 199,
Société Générale v Dominican
Republic (Preliminary
19 September 2008)
UNCITRAL, LCIA Case
No. UN 7927
Surveillance SA v Islamic
(Procedural Order No. 2,
16 October 2002) ICSID
Case No. ARB/01/13, 8
ICSID Rep 388
Surveillance S.A. v Islamic
(Decision on Objections
to Jurisdiction, 6 August
ARB/01/13, 8 ICSID
Surveillance SA v Republic of
the Philippines (Decision on
29 January 2004) ICSID
Case No. ARB/02/6, 8 ICSID
Rep 518
the Philippines (Declaration
of A. Crivellaro, 29 January
ARB/02/6, 8 ICSID
Rep 568
Surveillance SA v Republic
of the Philippines (Order of
the Tribunal on Further
Proceedings, 17 December
ARB/02/6
Société Générale v
518, 551, 616,
821, 869
Order) 8 ICSID
Rep 388
Objections) 8
ICSID Rep 406
179, 323, 334, 405,
447–8, 456–7, 495,
514, 683, 729–31
ICSID Rep 518
149, 313, 323, 347,
405, 425, 457, 495,
502, 510, 520, 616,
682, 708, 720, 732,
8 ICSID Rep 568
Waguih Elie George Siag and
Clorinda Vecchi v Arab
on Jurisdiction, 11 April 2007)
ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15
Republic of Egypt (Partial
F. Orrego Vicuña, 11 April
2007) ICSID Case No. ARB/
Siemens AG v Argentine
Jurisdiction, 3 August 2004)
ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8,
12 ICSID Rep 174
Société Ouest Africaine des
Bétons Industriels [SOABI] v
State of Senegal (Decision on
Jurisdiction, 1 August 1984),
ICSID Case No. ARB/82/1,
2 ICSID Rep 175
Hussein Nuaman Soufraki v
(Award on Jurisdiction, 7 July
2004) ICSID Case No. ARB/
02/07, 12 ICSID Rep 158
Southern Pacific Properties
(Middle East) Limited v Arab
Republic of Egypt (No. 1)
(Jurisdiction, 27 November
1985) 3 ICSID Rep 101
Republic of Egypt (No. 2)
(Jurisdiction 14 April 1988)
ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3,
3 ICSID Rep 131
20 May 1992) ICSID Case No.
ARB/84/3, 3 ICSID Rep 189
Siag v Egypt
316, 546, 583, 605
546, 605
ICSID Rep 174.
514, 580, 650, 654,
665, 672, 753, 757,
SOABI v Senegal
Objections)2
ICSID Rep 175
ICSID Rep 158
133, 534, 535–6,
537–8, 602
SPP v Egypt No. 1
Objections) 3
ICSID Rep 101
713, 722–4
SPP v Egypt No. 2
ICSID Rep 131
713–15, 718
SPP v Egypt
(Merits) 3
ICSID Rep 189
267, 426
Suez, Sociedad General de
Aguas de Barcelona SA &
InterAguas Servicios
Integrales del Agua SA v
on Jurisdiction, 16 May
SwemBalt AV v Republic of
Latvia (Award, 23 October
2000) UNCITRAL/PCA
Company Limited v
Limited (Decision on
20 December 1999) ICSID
Case No. ARB/98/8, 8 ICSID
Tecmed SA v United Mexican
States (Award, 29 May 2003)
00/2, 10 ICSID Rep 134
AS v Republic of Hungary
(Award, 13 September 2006)
ICSID Case No. ARB/04/15b
International Thunderbird
Gaming Corporation v
(Award, 26 January 2006)
Tokios Tokelės v Ukraine
29 April 2004) ICSID Case
No. ARB/02/18, 11 ICSID
(Dissenting Opinion of P.
Weil, 29 April 2004) ICSID
Case No. ARB/02/18, 11
ICSID Rep 341
Suez v Argentina
514, 668, 672, 753,
757, 856
Tanzania Electric v
204, 247
Measures) 8 ICSID
Rep 134
345, 346, 616, 638,
639, 641, 644, 647
520, 644, 672
Thunderbird v Mexico 112, 569–73
Tokios v Ukraine
ICSID Rep 313
133, 552, 583,
585–8, 867–8
11 ICSID Rep 341
Total SA v Argentine Republic
Jurisdiction, 25 August 2006)
ICSID Case No. ARB/04/01
TSA Spectrum de Argentina SA v
19 December 2008) ICSID
Case No. ARB/05/5
TSA Spectrum de Argentina
SA v Argentine Republic
(Concurring Opinion,
G. Abi-Saab) ICSID Case
No. ARB/05/5
(Dissenting Opinion,
G. Aldonas) ICSID Case
Tradex Hellas SA v Republic of
Albania (Decision on
Jurisdiction, 24 December
1996) 5 ICSID Rep 47
America Inc. v Government
of Canada (Award on
Jurisdiction, 22 November
2002) UNCITRAL, 7 ICSID
of Canada (Award, 24 May
2007) UNCITRAL
Vacuum Salt Products Limited v
Ghana (Award, 16 February
1994) ICSID Case No. ARB/
92/1, 4 ICSID Rep 329
Vanessa Ventures Ltd v
Jurisdiction, 22 August 2008)
ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)
520, 751, 757
TSA Spectrum v
Objections: Separate
Tradex v Albania
ICSID Rep 47
ICSID Rep 288
75, 107, 318,
514, 594
514, 699
317, 616, 638
313, 347, 502,
171, 175, 843–4
Vacuum Salt v Ghana
313, 315, 597
Vanessa v Venezuela
Compañia de Aguas del
Aconquija SA and
Eaux/Vivendi Universal v
21 November 2000) ICSID
Case No. ARB/97/3, 5 ICSID
Rep 299
on Annulment, 3 July 2002)
ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, 6
ICSID Rep 340
of the Ad Hoc Committee on
Rectification of its Decision
Concerning Annulment of the
Award, 28 May 2003) ICSID
Case No. ARB/97/3
on Jurisdiction, 14 November
20 August 2007) ICSID Case
No. ARB/97/3
Vivendi v Argentina
5 ICSID Rep 299
179, 322, 548–9,
704, 708, 718–19
6 ICSID Rep 340
80, 141, 162, 179,
322, 325, 457,
512–13, 514, 542,
549, 551, 692, 699,
708, 718–19, 739
No. 1 (Annulment:
Waste Management Inc. v
(Award, 2 June 2000) ICSID
Case No. ARB(AF)/98/2,
5 ICSID Rep 443
(Dissenting Opinion of
K. Highet, 2 June 2000)
98/2, 5 ICSID Rep 462
United Mexican States (No. 2)
(Decision on the Venue of the
Arbitration, 26 September
2001) ICSID Case No. ARB
(AF)/00/3, 6 ICSID Rep 541
(Decision on Preliminary
Objection, 26 June 2002)
00/3, 6 ICSID Rep 549
(Award, 30 April 2004)
00/3, 11 ICSID Rep 361
Wena Hotels v Egypt (Decision
on Jurisdiction, 25 May
1999) ICSID Case No. ARB/
98/4, 6 ICSID Rep 74
Wena Hotels Ltd v Arab
8 December 2000) ICSID
Case No. ARB/98/4, 6 ICSID
on Annulment, 5 February
98/4, 6 ICSID Rep 129
Mexico No. 1
Rep 443
Opinion) 5 ICSID
311, 329, 331
Waste Management v 204
Mexico No. 2 (Place
of Arbitration) 6
ICSID Rep 541
Waste Management v 179, 329
Mexico No. 2
Rep 549
159, 551, 578, 605
Wena v Egypt
ICSID Rep 74
(Merits) 6
ICSID Rep 89
334, 366
(Annulment) 6
ICSID Rep 129
113, 366
Wintershall Aktiengesellschaft v
Argentine Republic (Award, 8
December 2008) ICSID Case
No. ARB/04/14
v Government of the Union of
Myanmar (Award, 31 March
2003) ASEAN I.D. Case No.
ARB/01/1, 8 ICSID Rep 463
Zhinvali Development Limited v
Republic of Georgia (Award,
24 January 2003) ICSID Case
No. ARB/00/1, 10 ICSID
Wintershall v
Yaung Chi Oo v
ICSID Rep 463
Zhinvali v Georgia
ICSID Rep 3
165, 318, 644,
675, 871
101, 121, 317,
347, 398
Table of cases of international courts
Ad Hoc International Arbitration Tribunals
Administrative Decision No.V (USAv Germany) 7 RIAA 119 (1924) 21, 34, 862
Ambetielos (Greece v UK)12 RIAA (1956) 119
American Security and Trust Company 26 ILR 322 (1958)
250, 559, 609
Angarica (USA v Spain), Moore (Vol. III) 2621
Aroa Mines (UK v Venezuela) 9 RIAA 402 (1903)
152, 673
Asling Trading Co & Svensak Tändsticks Aktiebolaget v Greece
(1954) 23 ILR 633
Aslop (Chile v USA) 11 RIAA 349
Baasch & Romer (Netherlands v Venezuela) 10 RIAA 723 (1903) 796, 805
Bank of New York and Trust Company et al (USA v Germany) 8 RIAA 42 110
Batavian National Bank Claim 26 ILR 346 (1958)
Biloune v Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana
(Award on Jurisdiction and Liability) 95 ILR 183 (1990)
81, 276
Brewer, Moller and Co 10 RIAA 433
British Petroleum Exploration Co v Libyan Arab Republic
(Award on the Merits) 53 ILR 297 (1973)
Burt (George Rodney) (USA v UK) 6 RIAA 93
Chemin de Fer Buzau-Neholasi (Germany v Romania) 3 RIAA 1829
Claims of Nicholas Marmaras and Ina Hoffman & Dulcie Steinhardt,
Nielsen, 437
Coard v USA 123 ILR 157 (1999)
Cook v Mexico No.1 (USA v Mexico) 4 RIAA 213 (1927)
Criado (USA v Spain), Moore (Vol. III) 2624
Delagoa Bay Railway Company, Moore (Vol. II) 1865
794–5, 813
Deutsche Amerikanische Petroleum Gesellschaft Oil Tankers
2 RIAA 777 (1926)
748, 813
Ospar Convention (Ireland v UK) (Dissenting Opinion of G. Griffith)
42 ILM 1118
Dobozy 26 ILR 345 (1958)
International court and tribunal cases
El Oro Mining and Railway Co (UK v Mexico) 5 RIAA 191 (1931)
El Triumfo Case (Rosa Gelbtrunk & the Salvador Commercial
Company) (El Salvador v USA) 15 RIAA 459 (1902)
800–2, 813
Elton Case United States-Mexico Claims Commission, Opinion
of the Commissioner (Sept. 1928–Oct. 1929) 301
Fabiani (No.1) (France v Venezuela)
Finnish Ships Arbitration (Finland v UK) 3 RIAA 1479 (1934)
First National City Bank of New York (1958) 26 ILR 323
Flannagan, Bradley, Clark & Co (USA v Venezuela), Moore
(Vol. IV) 3564
689–91
Flegenheimer (USA v Italy) 25 ILR 108 (1958)
Flutie (USA v Venezuela) 9 RIAA 148 (1904)
Hoachoozo Palestine Land and Development Co (USA v Turkey),
Nielsen, 254
ICC Case No. 1110 (1963), (1994) 10 Arbitration Int 282
Installations Maritimes de Bruges v Hambourg Amerika Line 1 RIAA
877 (1921)
Island of Palmas 2 RIAA 829 (1949)
Kuhnagel (USA v France), Moore (Vol. III) 2647
Kunhardt Co (USA v Venezuela) (1903) 9 RIAA 171
Landreau Claim (USA v Peru) 1 RIAA 347 (1922)
Laurent (USA v UK), Moore (Vol. III) 2671
Leupold-Praesent v Germany 25 ILR 540 (1958)
Libyan American Oil Co (LIAMCO) v Libyan Arab Republic 20 ILM 1
Lizardi (USA v Mexico), Moore (Vol. III) 2569
Martini (Italy v Venezuela), Ralston, 64
Medina (USA v Costa Rica), Moore (Vol. III) 2593
Mexican Union Railway Ltd (UK v Mexico) 5 RIAA 115 (1930)
Neer v Mexico (1927) 21 AJIL 555
Nitrate Railway Co Ltd (UK v Chile), Ralston, 67
North American Dredging Co (USA v Mexico) 4 RIAA
51, 682, 686, 688
North and South American Construction Co (USA v Chile), Moore
(Vol. II) 2318
686, 690, 692
Norwegian Shipowners Claims (Norway v USA) 8 RIAA 308 (1922)
Pinson (France v Mexico) 5 RIAA 321
Reineccius et al v Bank for International Settlements, 22 November 2002,
Revere Copper v OPIC, 24 August 1978, AAA Case No. 16/10/0137/76,
17 ILM 1321
424–5
Rio Grande Irrigation and Land Company (UK v USA) 6 RIAA 131
110, 292, 363
Rogerio v Bolivia, Ralston, 69
Rudloff (USA v Venezuela), Ralston, 63
Salem (Egypt v USA) 2 RIAA 1161 (1932)
Sapphire International Petroleum v National Iranian Oil Co 35 ILR
136 (1963)
Saudi Arabia v Arabian American Oil Co (ARAMCO) 27 ILR 117
216–20
Shufeldt Claim (USA v Guatemala) 28 RIAA 1080 (1930)
Tehuantepec Ship-Canal and Mexican and Pacific R.R.Co v Mexico
(USA v Mexico), Moore (Vol. III) 3132
Texaco Overseas Petroleum & California Asiatic Oil Co (TOPCO) v
Libya (Award on the Merits) 17 ILM 1 (1978)
Turnbull, Manoa Company Ltd and Orinoco Company Ltd
(USA v Venezuela) 9 RIAA 261
Woodruff Case (USA v Venezuela), Ralston, 62
512, 513, 692, 718
Young Plan (Belgium, France, Switzerland & UK v Germany) 59 ILR
524 (1980)
Agrotexim v Greece, 21 EHRR 250
Al-Adsani v UK, Case 35763/97, 123 ILR 24 (2001)
Amat-G Ltd and Mebaghishvili v Georgia, Case 2507/03, 27 September
Beshiri v Albania, Case 7352/03, 22 August 2006
Blecic v Croatia, Case 59532/00, 8 March 2006
Blecic v Croatia, Case 59532/00, 29 July 2004
Bramelid and Malmström v Sweden (1982) 29 DR 64
Bulinwar Ood and Hrusanov v Bulgaria, Case 66455/01, 12 April 2001 830
Burdov v Russia, Case 59498/00, (2002-III) ECHR
Credit and Industrial Bank v Czech Republic, Case 29010/95, 21 October
Droon v France, Case 1513/03 [GC] 6 October 2005
Fletcher v UK, Case 3034/67, 19 December 1967
Géniteau v France, Case 4069/02, 8 November 2005
G.J. v Luxembourg, Case 21156/93, 26 October 2000
Golder v UK, 1 EHRR 524
Gudmunsson v Iceland, 21 EHRR CD 89
Gustafsson v Sweden, Case 18/1995/524/610, 28 March 1996
Hornsby v Greece, 24 EHRR 250
Iza Ltd and Makrakhidze v Georgia, Case 28537/02, 27 September 2005 830
James and Others v UK, 21 February 1986, Series A No. 98
JLS v Spain, Case 41917/98, 27 April 1999
Kalashnikov v Russia [2002] ECHR 47095/99
Khamidov v Russia, Case 72118/01, 15 November 2007
Kopecky v Slovakia, Case 44912/98, 28 September 2004
Kreps v Poland [2001] ECHR 34097/96
Lenzing AG v UK [1999] EHRLR 132
Loizidou v Turkey, 20 EHRR 99
154, 625–6
Mitap v Turkey, 22 EHRR 31
Motsnik v Estonia [2003] ECHR 50533/99
Olczak v Poland, Case 30417/96, 7 November 2002
Öneryldiz v Turkey, Case 48939/99, 30 November 2004
Panikian v Bulgaria, Case 29583/96, 10 July 1997
Papamichalopoulos v Greece, (1993) Series A, No. 260-B
Pentidis v Greece, Case 23238/94, Comm. Rep 27.2.96
Prodan v Moldova, Case 49806/99, 18 May 2004
Samardzic and Ad Plastika v Serbia, Case 28443/05, 17 July 2007
Smith Kline and French Laboratories v Netherlands (1990) 66 DR 70
Spaans v Netherlands, Case 12516/86, 58 DR 119
Stran Greek Refineries v Greece, Case 13427/87, 9 December 1994
[1994] 19 ECHRR 368
246, 438
Teliga v Ukraine, Case 72551/01, 21 December 2006
Terem, Chechetkin and Olius v Ukraine, Case 70297/01, 18 October
Uzkuréliené v Lithuania, Case 62988/00, 7 April 2005
X v Germany, Case 235/56, 2 Ybk of the European Convention on
Human Rights 256
Yagci v Turkey 20 EHRR 505
Überseering BV and Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement
GmbH (NCC) [2002] ECR I-09919
Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v Congo) (Preliminary Objections)
24 May 2007 66, 771
Ambatielos (Greece v UK) 1953 ICJ Rep 10
644, 646, 649, 657–66, 673
Anglo-Iranian Oil Co (UK v Iran) 1952 ICJ Rep 93 578, 644, 646, 649–50, 673
Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United
Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947, 1988 ICJ Rep 12 634
Crime of Genocide (Preliminary Objections) (Bosnia v Yugloslavia)
1996 ICJ Rep 595
Arbitral Award Made by the King of Spain on 23 December 1903
(Honduras v Nicaragua) 1960 ICJ Rep 192
Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea Bissau v Senegal) 1991 ICJ Rep 53 62
Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Congo v Belgium) 2002 ICJ Rep 3
Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Provisional Measures) (Mexico v USA)
2003 ICJ 77
Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v USA) 2004 ICJ Rep 12
Barcelona Traction Case (Belgium v Spain) 1964 ICJ Rep 5
Barcelona Traction Case (Belgium v Spain) 1970 ICJ Rep 4 21, 23, 34, 35, 40,
41, 43–6, 543, 585, 753–5, 761–72, 776, 777, 788, 792, 810–12, 816, 830, 858
Continental Shelf (Greece v Turkey) 1978 ICJ Rep 3
Corfu Channel (UK v Albania) 1948 ICJ Rep 15
East Timor (Portugal v Australia) 1995 ICJ Rep 90
ELSI (USA v Italy) 1989 ICJ Rep 15
179, 777, 819
Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v Canada) 1998 ICJ Rep 432
458, 459, 509
Interhandel Case (Switzerland v USA) 1959 ICJ Rep 6
56, 295
(First Phase), 1950 ICJ Rep 65
LaGrand Case (Germany v USA), 27 June 2001, ICJ Rep 466
(Cameroon v Nigeria) 1988 ICJ Rep 275
Legal Consequences for the States of the Continued Presence of
South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security
Council Resolution 276 (1970) 1971 ICJ Rep 16
Legality of Use of Force (Yugloslavia v Italy), 1999 ICJ Rep 490
502, 508
(Nicaragua v USA) 1984 ICJ Rep 392
Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v UK) 1963 ICJ Rep 15
Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v Guatemala) 1954 ICJ Rep 4 21, 42, 44, 133, 295,
541, 602, 605
Nuclear Tests (Australia v France; New Zealand v France) 1974 ICJ
Rep 253
Oil Platforms (Iran v USA) (Merits) 2003 ICJ Rep
Oil Platforms (Iran v USA) (Preliminary Objections) (1996) ICJ
316, 502, 507, 510
Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie
(Libya v UK) 1998 ICJ Rep 9
Case (Advisory Opinion) 1949 ICJ Rep 174
(France v USA) 1952 ICJ Rep 176
154, 487, 644, 646, 649, 650–6, 673
South West Africa (Ethiopia v South Africa) 1966 ICJ Rep 6
South West Africa (Ethiopia v South Africa) (Liberia v South Africa)
1962 ICJ Rep 319
Territorial Dispute (Libya v Chad) 1994 ICJ Rep 6
Prosecutor v Tadic (Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal
on Jurisdiction), 2 October 1995, Appeals Chamber
Iran/US Claims Tribunal
American Bell International, Inc v Iran, Case ITL 41-48-3, 11 June
1984, 6 Iran-US CTR 74
Amoco International Finance Corporation v Iran, Case 310-56-3, 14 July
1987, 15 Iran-US CTR 189
154, 426, 851
Behring International, Inc v Iranian Air Force, Case 52-382-3, 21 June
1985, 8 Iran-US CTR 238
Blount Brothers Corp v Iran, Case 215-52-1, 28 February 1986,
10 Iran-US CTR 64
Blount Brothers Corp v Ministry of Housing and Urban Development,
Case 74-62-3, 2 September 1983, 3 Iran-US CTR 225
CMI International Inc v Ministry of Roads and Transport,
Case 99-245-2, 27 December 1983, 5 Iran-US CTR 263
DIC of Delaware, Inc v Tehran Redevelopment Corp, Case 176-255-3,
26 April 1985, 8 Iran-US CTR 144
Esphanian v Bank Tejarat, Case 31-157-2, 29 March 1983, 2 Iran-US
CTR 157
Flexi-Van Leasing v Iran, Case 259-36-1, 11 October 1986,
12 Iran-US CTR 335
Foremost-McKesson HBOC Inc v Iran, Case 220-37/231-1, 10 April
1986, 10 Iran-US CTR 228
427, 777
Grimm v Iran, Case 25-71-1, 18 February 1983, 2 Iran-US CTR 78
Harris International Telecommunications v Iran, Case 323-409-1,
2 November 1987, 17 Iran-US CTR 31
Harza v Iran, Case 232-97-2, 2 May 1986, 11 Iran-US CTR
International Technical Products Corp v Iran, Case 196-302-3, 28 October
1985, 9 Iran-US CTR 206
Iran v USA (Counterclaims) Case ITL 83-B1-FT, 9 September 2004 488, 493
Iran v USA (Dual Nationality Case) Case DEC 32-A18-FT, 6 April
1984, 5 Iran-US CTR 251
26–8, 608
Iran v USA (State Responsibility for Awards Rendered Against its Nationals)
Case DEC 62-A21-FT, 4 May 1987, 13 Iran-US CTR 324
Isiah v Bank Mellatt, Case 35-219-2, 30 March 1983, 2 Iran-US CTR 232 162
Marks and Umann v Iran, Case ITL 53-458-3, 26 June 1985,
8 Iran-US CTR 290
Morrison-Knudsen Pacific Ltd v Ministry of Roads and Transportation,
Case 143-127-3, 13 July 1984, 7 Iran-US CTR 54
Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp v Iran, Case ITL 18-113-2, 13 May
1983, 2 Iran-US CTR 322
497, 500
Phillips Petroleum v Iran, Case 425-39-2, 29 June 1989,
21 Iran-US CTR 79
Sea-Land Service, Inc v Iran, Case 135-33-1, 22 June 1984,
6 Iran-US CTR 149
SeaCo, Inc v Iran, Case 531-260-2, 25 June 1992
Sedco v NIOC and Iran, Case ITL 55-129-3, 28 October 1985,
9 Iran-US CTR 245
Westinghouse Electric Corp v Iran, Case 67-389-2, 12 February 1987,
14 Iran-US CTR 104
Yeager v Iran, Case 324-101099-1, 2 November 1987, 17 Iran-US
CTR 92
Mox Plant (Ireland v UK) Order No.3 (2003) 42 ILM 1187
Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germany v Poland)
(Jurisdiction) 1925 PCIJ (Ser. A) No. 6
333, 714
Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germany v Poland) (Merits)
1926 PCIJ (Ser. A) No. 7
115, 426
Chorzów Factory (Germany v Poland) (Merits) 1928 PCIJ (Ser. A) No. 17
21, 60, 62, 183, 191, 200, 395, 714
Diversion of Water from the Meuse (Netherlands v Belgium)
1937 PCIJ (Ser. A/B) No.70
Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig (Advisory Opinion)
1928 PCIJ (Ser. B) No.15
Losinger & Co (Switzerland v Yugoslavia) 1936 PCIJ (Ser. C) No. 78
Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (UK v Greece)
1924 PCIJ (Ser. A) No.2
19, 20, 21, 33, 65, 68, 634, 635, 714
Panecezys-Saldutiskis Railway (Estonia v Latvia) 1938
PCIJ (Ser. A/B) No.76
Prince von Pless (Germany v Poland) 1933 PCIJ (Ser. A/B), No. 52
Serbian and Brazilian Loans (France v Serbia) 1929 PCIJ (Ser. A) No. 20 21
S.S. Wimbledon (UK, France, Italy, Japan, Poland v Germany) (Merits)
1923 PCIJ (Ser. A) No.1
EC-Beef Hormones, 16 January 1998, WT/DS48/AB/R
US-Gasoline (Submissions of the US Government) WL 112677 (1996)
US-Shrimp, 12 October 1998, WT/DS58/AB/R, 38 ILM 118 (1999)
American Diagnostica Inc v Gradispore Ltd et al (1998)
33 New South Wales L Rep 312
Poland v Eureko, Brussels Court of First Instance, 23 November 2006
226/71/06
Anchem Products Inc v Workers Compensation Board [1993]
1 SCR 897
Attorney General of Canada v S.D.Meyers Inc, Federal Court of Ottawa,
13 January 2004, 2004 FC 38; 8 ICSID Rep 194
31, 65, 228, 569
Bayview Irrigation District et al v Mexico, Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
5 May 2008, 07-CV-340139-PD2
International Corona Resources Ltd v LAC Minerals Ltd (1989)
61 DLR (4th) 14
Mexico v Martin Roy Feldman Karpa, Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
3 December 2003, 03-CV-23500; 8 ICSID Rep 500
Mexico v Metalclad Corporation, Supreme Court of British Colombia,
2 May 2001, 2001 BCSC 664; 5 ICSID Rep 236
Abidub Daver [1984] AC 398
AIG v Kazakhstan [2005] EWHC 2239; [2006] 1 WLR 1420
240–1, 246
Al Battani [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 219
Askin v Absa Bank [1999] I L Pr 471
Barings plc (in administration) v Coopers & Lybrand (a firm) [1997]
1 BCLC 427
Base Metal Trading Ltd v Shamurin [2004] EWCA Civ 1316;
[2005] 1 WLR 1157
Bay Hotel and Resort Ltd v Cavalier Construction Ltd [2001] UKPC 34 204
Buttes Gas and Oil Co v Hammer [1982] AC 888
Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd [1981]
Colonial Bank v Cady (1890) 15 App Cas 267
Connelly v RTZ Corporation plc [1998] AC 854
Czech Republic v European Media Ventures SA [2007] EWHC 2851
(Comm); 1 Lloyd’s Rep 186
65, 228, 487
Dallal v Bank Mellat [1986] 1 All ER 239
Day v Cook [2001] PNLR 32
Diamantides v JP Morgan Chase Bank [2005] EWCA Civ 1612
Ecuador v Occidental (No.2) [2006] EWHC 345 (Comm);
[2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 773
74, 185, 228
Ecuador v Occidental (No.2) [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 352
ETI Euro Telecom International BV v Republic of Bolivia and Empresa
Nacional de Telecommunicaciones Entel SA [2008] EWCA Civ 880 239, 241
George Fisher (Great Britain) Ltd v Multi Construction Ltd [1995]
1 BCLC 260
780, 808
Gerber Garment Technology Inc v Lectra Systems Ltd [1997] RPC 443 780, 808
Giles v Rhind [2003] Ch 618
800, 814
Harding v Wealands [2004] EWCA Civ 1735; [2005] 1 WLR 1539
Harding v Wealands [2006] UKHL 32; [2007] 2 AC 1
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2001] 1 All ER 481
759, 780, 782, 804, 808
Konamanemi v Rolls-Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd [2002]
1 WLR 1269
Lee v Sheard [1956] 1 QB 192; [1955] 3 All ER 777
Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc (No.3) [1996]
1 WLR 387
Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London v Ashok
Sancheti [2008] EWCA Civ 1283
Mohammed v Bank of Kuwait [1996] 1 WLR 1483
Mohsin v Commonwealth Secretariat [2002] EWHC 377 (Comm)
Naviera Amazonica Peruana SA v Cia Interacional de Seguros del Peru
[1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 116
Nile Rhapsody [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 399
Occidental Exploration & Production Company v Republic of Ecuador
[2005] EWCA Civ 1116; [2006] QB 432; 12 ICSID Rep 129
39, 65, 76, 128, 225, 674
Oppenheimer v Cattermole [1976] AC 249
Prudential Assurance Co v Newman Industries [1982] Ch 204
Purcell v Khayat, [1987] The Times, 23 November (CA)
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Adan
[2001] 2 AC 477
Seaconsar (Far East) Ltd v Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran [1994]
1 AC 438
Soleimany v Soleimany [1999] QB 785
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd [1987] 1 AC 460
Vishva Ajay [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 399
Wagg, Re Herbert [1956] 1 Ch 323
Court of Cassation 22 December 1913, Braunkohlen Briket Verkaufsverein
Gesellschaft v Goffart
Court of Cassation, Cass Civ 1st, 18 July 1995, No.1609
Court of Cassation, Cass Com, 21 October 1997, No. 2182
Court of Cassation, Cass Civ 3rd, 21 November 2000, No.1542
Czech Republic v Pren Nreka (Cour d’Appel de Paris, 25 September
Lloyd’s Bank v De Ricqlès et De Gaillard, Tribunal Commercial de la
Procureur de la République v Société LIAMCO, Tribunal de Grande
Instance, Paris, 5 March 1979 (1979) Journal du Droit International
Adhiguna Meranti, Court of Appeal [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 834
Attorney General v Mobil Oil NZ Ltd, 118 ILR 620
Christensen v Scott [1996] 1 NZLR 273
Club Mediterranée NZ v Wendell [1989] 1 NZLR 216
Supreme Court Judgment of Munir A. Sheikh J., 3 July 2002,
8 ICSID Rep 356
Coop International Pty Ltd v Ebel SA [1998] 3 SLR 670
Hengwell Developments Ltd v Thing Chiang Ching [2002] 4 SLR 902
Czech Republic v CME Czech Republic B.V., Svea Court of Appeal,
15 May 2003, 9 ICSID Rep 439
Libyan American Oil Co v Libya, Svea Court of Appeal, 18 June
1981 (1981) 20 ILM 893
Russian Federation v Sedelmayer, City Court of Stockholm, 18 December
2002, Svea Court of Appeal, 15 June 2005
Czech Republic v Saluka Investments B.V., Federal Tribunal, 7 September
France Telecom v Lebanon, Federal Tribunal, 10 November 2005
Saar Papier Vertriebs GmbH v Poland, Federal Tribunal, 20 September
2001 and 1 March 2002
Breman v Zapata Off-Shore Co, 407 US 1 (1972)
Casman v Hexter, District Court of Columbia, 5 October 1959,
28 ILR 592
Green v Victor Talking Machines Co, 24 F 2d 378
International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v Mexico, District
Court of Columbia, 14 February 2007, 06-00748 (HHK)
Libyan American Oil Co v Libya, 482 F. Supp. 1175 (D.D.C. 1980)
Loewen v United States of America, District Court of Columbia,
31 October 2005, 10 ICSID Rep 448
Massachusetts v Davis, 320 US 310 (1942)
MINE v Guinea, Court of Appeal, 693 F. 2d 1094
Piper Aircraft Co v Reyno, 454 US 235 (1981)
Pro-Eco Inc v Board of Commissioners of Jay County, Indiana,
Court of Appeal, 57 F. 3d 505
Scherk v Alberto-Culver Co, 417 US 506 (1974)
Tember Inc et al. v USA (US District Court for the District
of Colombia, 14 August 2008) No. 07-1905 (RMC)
United States v Willow River Power Co, 324 US 499 (1945)
Z & F Assets Corporation (Affaire du Sabotage) Supreme Court,
6 January 1941, 10 ILR 424
between States and Nationals of Other States (1965) – ICSID
North American Free Trade Agreement (1992) – NAFTA
Energy Charter Treaty (1994) (excerpts)
China Model BIT (1997)
France Model BIT (2006)
Germany Model BIT (2005)
Netherlands Model BIT (1997)
Turkey Model BIT (2000)
United Kingdom Model BIT (2005, with 2006 amendments)
United States of America Model BIT (2004)
Appeal Cases (UK)
All England Law Reports (UK)
Law Reports Appeal Cases, House of Lords 1875–90
Butterworths Company Law Cases (UK)
Chancery Division (UK)
and Popular Republic of Algeria concerning the
Settlement of Claims by the Government of the
Crawford, ILC’s
J. Crawford, The International Law Commission’s
Articles on State Responsibility. Introduction, Text
and Commentaries (2002)
Dec & Rep
Decisions and Reports of the ECommHR
Dispute Settlement Reports of the WTO
Reports of the Court of Justice of the European
Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil
Grand Chamber (ECHR)
ICJ Rep
International Centre for the Settlement of
ICSID Rep
Reports of ICSID Decisions and Awards
I L Pr
Reports of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal
King’s Bench (UK)
Common Mar