Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements A Guide To The Key Issues 2Nd Edition Katia Yannaca Small Editor Full Chapter PDF

Arbitration Under International
Investment Agreements: A Guide to the

Key Issues 2nd Edition Katia
Yannaca-Small (Editor)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/arbitration-under-international-investment-agreement
s-a-guide-to-the-key-issues-2nd-edition-katia-yannaca-small-editor/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
International Commercial Contracts: Contract Terms,

Applicable Law and Arbitration 2nd Edition Giuditta
Cordero-Moss
https://ebookmass.com/product/international-commercial-contracts-
contract-terms-applicable-law-and-arbitration-2nd-edition-
giuditta-cordero-moss/
International Energy Investment Law: The Pursuit of

Stability 2nd Edition Peter Cameron
https://ebookmass.com/product/international-energy-investment-
law-the-pursuit-of-stability-2nd-edition-peter-cameron/
Financial Times Guide to Investment Trusts, The:

Unlocking The City'S Best Kept Secret, 2nd Edition John
C. Baron
https://ebookmass.com/product/financial-times-guide-to-
investment-trusts-the-unlocking-the-citys-best-kept-secret-2nd-
edition-john-c-baron/
A Small State's Guide to Influence in World Politics

Associate Professor Of Politics & International Studies
Tom Long
https://ebookmass.com/product/a-small-states-guide-to-influence-
in-world-politics-associate-professor-of-politics-international-
studies-tom-long/
QuickBooks 2016 : the best guide for small business 2nd
Edition Capachietti
https://ebookmass.com/product/quickbooks-2016-the-best-guide-for-
small-business-2nd-edition-capachietti/
Introduction to International Development: Approaches,

Actors, Issues and Practice 4th Edition Paul A. Haslam
https://ebookmass.com/product/introduction-to-international-
development-approaches-actors-issues-and-practice-4th-edition-
paul-a-haslam/
World Protests: A Study Of Key Protest Issues In The

21st Century 1st Edition Isabel Ortiz
https://ebookmass.com/product/world-protests-a-study-of-key-
protest-issues-in-the-21st-century-1st-edition-isabel-ortiz/
Investment Banking Explained : An Insider's Guide to

the Industry, Second Edition Michel Fleuriet
https://ebookmass.com/product/investment-banking-explained-an-
insiders-guide-to-the-industry-second-edition-michel-fleuriet/
Chronic Total Occlusions-A Guide to Recanalization, 3e

(Nov 29, 2023)_(1119517273)_(Wiley-Blackwell) Ron
Waksman
https://ebookmass.com/product/chronic-total-occlusions-a-guide-
to-recanalization-3e-nov-29-2023_1119517273_wiley-blackwell-ron-
waksman/
ARBITRATION UNDER INTERNATIONAL
INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS
ARBITRATION
UNDER
INTERNATIONAL
INVESTMENT
AGREEMENTS
A Guide to the Key Issues
Second Edition
Edited by
Katia Yannaca-S mall
1
1
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Oxford University Press 2018
The moral rights of the authors‌have been asserted
First Edition publisthed in 2010
Second Edition published in 2018
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Crown copyright material is reproduced under Class Licence
Number C01P0000148 with the permission of OPSI
and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018936199
ISBN 978–0–19–875808–2
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
To David, Alexander, Sophia and Ileana
FOREWORD TO THE FIRST EDITION
International investment arbitration has a lineage that may be traced to concession and other
contracts of foreign investors with host governments. Disputes under those contracts gave
rise to a small number of large arbitrations between the two World Wars and for some three
decades after the Second World War. Only very large investors were normally in a position
to persuade host governments to agree to arbitration of disputes that might arise under con-
tracts between them. Implementation of the resultant arbitral obligations was in some cases
significant: in others frustrated.
Two developments transformed this episodic scene. The first was the conclusion of the World
Bank’s Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States
and Nationals of Other States, the ICSID Convention, which came into force in 1966. It
provides a standing forum for the settlement of disputes between foreign investors and host
governments. The second was the conclusion of bilateral investment treaties between states.
By this writing, there are—counting agreements arising not only bilaterally but those from
the Energy Charter Treaty, NAFTA, and CAFTA—some 2,700 such treaties in force. They
are the main source of the jurisdiction of ICSID. But they are by no means simply proced-
ural and jurisdictional in effect, because they provide standards for the treatment and taking
of foreign investment that represent a remarkable advance on the contentious content of
customary international law. By together enabling the foreign investor to require a host gov-
ernment to arbitrate disputes between them, on the basis of agreed international legal stand-
ards, a new era in international dispute settlement has opened. ICSID currently deals with as
many cases as has the International Court of Justice in the whole of its history.
This cascade of international litigation has spawned a multiplicity of problems, procedural,
jurisdictional, and substantive. This book analyses recurrent issues that arise in the dispos-
ition of those problems. Katia Yannaca-Small, drawing on her experience as a senior lawyer
both of the OECD and ICSID, has assembled a group of knowledgeable and acute authors,
many of them leading practitioners in this field, who address the most salient and persistent
of those issues. And she herself has written six of the chapters, which tackle some of the most
sensitive questions.
In the last few years, international investment arbitration has come under attack. The criti-
cism, much of it uninformed, has a nationalistic and autarchic tinge. Two South American
states members of ICSID, apparently under the influence of a third, have withdrawn from
the treaty, giving reasons that would have warmed the heart of Carlos Calvo. The European
Union is poised to displace bilateral investment treaties between its members by its own rules.
The adoption by the United States of a revised model bilateral investment treaty in 2004
was regressive, and current reconsideration in the Congress may lead the United States to
resile further from its traditional support of foreign investment. Nevertheless, fresh bilateral
investment treaties are being concluded, and international investment arbitration flourishes.
This valuable volume will assist the student and practitioner of international investment arbi-
tration in understanding and addressing its primary problems, which are as complex as they
are recurrent.
Stephen M Schwebel,
Former President of the International Court of Justice
vii
FOREWORD TO THE SECOND EDITION
When the first edition of this text was published a short seven years ago, it quickly be-
came an authoritative reference guide for practitioners, academics, and tribunals on investor-
state questions. While (relatively) little time has passed since publication of the first edition,
international investment law and investor-state dispute settlement have continued to evolve
rapidly.
Much of this change has been generated from the core of the discipline, through revision of
international investment agreements. This has been accomplished by the adoption of new or
revised ‘model’ treaties by numerous states, allowing them to update their obligations based
on current policies and state-of-the-art phrasing. A similar exercise has occurred on a multi-
lateral basis, where we have witnessed a trend towards negotiation of investment disciplines
on a multi-party level. In particular, the European Union has negotiated and continues to
negotiate a number of agreements with investment chapters.
The new generation agreements have addressed substantive and procedural matters, and their
hallmark is an increasingly detailed elaboration of the obligations undertaken by states and
the procedure available to ensure compliance with treaty undertakings. One good example of
the new approach to substance has been elaboration of the ‘right to regulate’, confirming that
states can take bona fide measures to act for the public good, without incurring an obligation
to compensate for the effects of such measures. Another example has been sharpening the
identification of who may invoke the protection of investment treaties, for example through
revised definitions of ‘investment’ and ‘investor’, increased use of exhaustion of local rem-
edies, and more frequent inclusion of denial of benefits clauses.
An equally significant evolution has occurred on the procedural side of investment treaties
and in investment practice. For example, many states have taken a more proactive role in
the supervision of treaties after ratification. This has been effected by committees’ super-
vising implementation of treaties, by according non-respondent treaty parties a right to par-
ticipate in arbitrations, and by giving states the ability to make interpretive declarations
about the meaning of a treaty. Another example has been the continuation of the move
towards increased transparency, which started in the NAFTA cases and in the 2006 amend-
ments to the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility arbitration rules. This evolution
was furthered in 2014 with the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency and the ratification of
the Mauritius Convention in October 2017. Another striking procedural innovation is the
policy of the European Union to conclude agreements with standing tribunals and appellate
bodies. A scant eleven years ago an Appellate Facility proposal was suggested by ICSID but
rejected by states as premature. By 2017, Canada and the European Union had agreed to a
standing body to adjudicate investment disputes arising under their free trade agreement,
with ICSID being named the Secretariat of that body. Perhaps the most significant proced-
ural innovation is one that is ongoing: ICSID has embarked upon a procedure to amend its
rules and regulations, and is consulting member states as well as the public for comments and
proposals. These amendments will apply to new cases in accordance with Articles 33 and 44
of the ICSID Convention and could have a far-reaching effect, given that ICSID administers
over 70 per cent of all investment arbitration.
While treaties have evolved, the number of cases initiated by investors has continued at a
steady pace. In fiscal year 2016, ICSID registered forty-eight cases, and had registered more
than 620 cases in total by June 2017. About three-quarters of these cases were commenced
ix
Foreword to the Second Edition
under treaties, predominantly bilateral investment treaties. However, a distinct trend towards
the use of multilateral treaties is evident, with 31 per cent of the ICSID cases commenced in
fiscal year 2016 having been initiated under the Energy Charter Treaty. Another new trend
has been the diversification of respondents and claimants in investment cases: for the first
time, western European Member States are being named in investment cases, while claim-
ants increasingly come from developing and transition economies. One trend that has proved
stable has been the outcome of cases: roughly 30–35 per cent of cases settle before an award is
rendered, and of those cases where an award is rendered, roughly half uphold the claim while
the other half dismiss the claim on jurisdictional or merits bases. The scope of issues raised in
arbitration has also continued to expand, and the interplay between individual awards and
systemic approaches to treaty drafting is clear.
As attested by the breadth and depth of the topics in this edition, investment treaties and
arbitration continue to raise novel legal questions. The editor is an expert in the field, having
dealt with investment law and procedure from the distinct perspectives of an international
organization, an arbitral institution, a law firm representing both states and investors in in-
dividual cases, and as a professor of law. Her knowledge and expertise is evident throughout.
In addition, the contributing authors are all well known in this discipline, with backgrounds
and knowledge that bring an intelligent and up-to-date perspective on the most important
questions in the field. Given this combination, it is certain that this edition will become
equally authoritative as the first edition.
Meg Kinnear,
Secretary-General, International Centre
for Settlement of Investment Disputes,
November 2017
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The fast pace at which investor-state arbitration has been evolving in the last decade has
made a second edition of this book an absolute necessity. Although its foundational elements
have remained the same in the last eight years, the wealth of claims, awards, scholarly writ-
ings, policy reconsiderations, and recalibrations driven by concerns and criticisms, point to a
system that has been maturing while changing at the same time. At the time of publication,
it is still unknown where these changes will take it but, wherever this will be, the need to
understand the key issues, as they evolve, will remain.
This second edition, following the path of the first, aims to serve as a guide on investment
treaty arbitration not only for the knowledgeable sophisticated reader but also the newcomer
to this field. This challenging task, to balance the educational and expert elements, could
not have been achieved without the wonderful group of outstanding contributors who very
graciously undertook this task with me again, with enthusiasm and no hesitation. I am also
thankful to those who joined us in this second edition and enriched the book greatly. I am
deeply grateful to all not only for their valuable contributions to this book but also for the
collegiality and cooperation I have enjoyed with all of them throughout the years.
I take the opportunity to thank the many people at Oxford University Press who saw the
need for a second edition and persuaded me to go ahead, as well as those who accompanied
me throughout the process with great professionalism, advice, and patience. Jamie Berezin,
Faye Mousley, Liana Green, and, during the last stretch, Catherine Rogers, who offered me
wise support in the last, most demanding phase of the editing process. I express my appreci-
ation to Newgen’s Nancy Rebecca for aptly managing the production process, and to Nicola
Prior for copy-editing.
Last but not least, my utmost thanks and gratitude go to my husband, David Small, former
General Counsel of the OECD, who not only greatly assisted with the editing of this volume
but also never stopped encouraging me and supporting me. Without his support, this second
edition would not have seen the light of day.
xi
CONTENTS
Table of Cases xxvii

International Legislation lxvii
National Legislation lxxxix
List of Contributors xci
PART I INVESTMENT TREATIES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF

INVESTMENT DISPUTES: THE FRAMEWORK
1. Bilateral Investment Treaties and Investment Provisions in Preferential Trade
Agreements: Recent Developments in Investment Rule-making
Roberto Echandi
I. Introduction 1.01
II. BITs and Investment Provisions in PTAs: The Gradual Shift from
Investment Protection to the Promotion of Liberalization
of Investment Flows 1.12
A. The Investment Protection Rationale of BITs 1.12
B. Investment Protection and Liberalization in ‘New Generation’ BITs and
Investment Chapters of RTAs 1.23
C. Impact of Investor-state Dispute Settlement Experience on Investment
Rule-making: A New Generation of IIAs 1.28
III. Conclusion 1.120
2. The Energy Charter Treaty

Emmanuel Gaillard and Mark McNeill
II. The Making of the Energy Charter Treaty 2.06
III. ‘Investments’ and ‘Investors’ Covered by the Energy Charter Treaty 2.10
IV. Denial of Benefits 2.21
V. Substantive Investment Protections 2.31
VI. Dispute Settlement 2.47
VII. Fork in the Road 2.53
VIII. Provisional Application 2.58
IX. Taxation Carve-out 2.85
X. Conclusion 2.89
3. International Investment Dispute Settlement Mechanisms

Ucheora Onwuamaegbu
II. Institutionally Supported Arbitration 3.03
A. Overview 3.03
B. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes 3.06
xiii
Contents
C. International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of

Commerce, Paris 3.14
D. The Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce 3.20
III. Selected Procedural Issues 3.24
A. Commencement of Proceedings and the Role of the Institution in the
Initial Determination of Jurisdiction 3.24
B. Appointment and Disqualification of Arbitrators 3.32
C. Interim Measures 3.38
D. Seat/Place of Arbitration, Language of Proceedings, and Applicable Law 3.42
E. Tribunal’s Experts 3.44
F. Transparency and Third-party Participation 3.45
G. The Award and Post-award Remedies 3.47
H. Costs 3.55
IV. Ad Hoc Dispute Settlement: UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 3.62
A. Overview of UNCITRAL 3.62
B. Commencement of Proceedings under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 3.66
C. Appointment and Disqualification of Arbitrators 3.67
D. Proceedings 3.70
E. Transparency 3.72
F. Other Provisions 3.76
G. Other UNCITRAL Texts 3.81
V. Conclusion 3.83
4. The Role of Precedent in Investment Treaty Arbitration

Jan Paulsson
II. The Anti-arbitrariness Vaccine 4.13
III. Limitations 4.18
IV. The Legal Status of Precedents 4.22
V. The Core Concepts 4.34
VI. Life and Death of Precedent in a Decentralized System 4.53
VII. Reconsidering the Value of Precedents 4.57
VIII. Towards More Rigorous Reasoning by Precedent 4.63
IX. Concluding Thoughts: Is a Synthesis Possible? 4.82
PART II GUIDE TO KEY PRELIMINARY AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES

5. An Overview of Procedure in an Investment Treaty Arbitration
Barton Legum
II. Overview of the Overview 5.04
III. Preparation of the Case 5.07
A. The Beginning 5.08
B. Initial Case Assessment 5.11
C. The Request for Arbitration 5.13
D. Selection of Arbitration Rules 5.17
xiv
Contents
E. Selection of the Arbitrators 5.24

F. The First Session with the Tribunal 5.27
IV. The Written Submissions 5.40
V. The Hearing 5.44
A. Post-hearing Activity 5.49
B. The Decision or Award and Its Aftermath 5.53
VI. Conclusion 5.59
6. Aspects of Procedure for Institution of Proceedings and Establishment of

Tribunals in Investment Treaty Arbitration
Milanka Kostadinova
II. The Initiation of Proceedings 6.04
A. The Issue of Consent 6.04
B. ‘Gate-keeping’ Provisions in Treaties 6.09
C. The Request for Arbitration 6.17
III. The Establishment of the Arbitral Tribunal 6.50
A. Preliminary Remarks 6.50
B. Composition of the Tribunal 6.52
C. Appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal 6.65
IV. Conclusion 6.100
7. The Fate of Frivolous and Unmeritorious Claims

Katia Yannaca-Small and David Earnest
II. Treatment of Frivolous Claims under International Investment
and Trade Agreements 7.02
A. The United States Model Bilateral Investment Treaty 7.02
B. The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) 7.05
C. Other International Investment Agreements 7.08
III. Summary Disposition under Institutional Rules 7.11
A. ICSID 7.11
B. Other International Arbitration Rules 7.16
IV. Investor-state Cases that Address Preliminary Objections to Frivolous
Claims 7.21
A. Cases under the Dominican Republic–United States–Central American
Free Trade Agreement 7.22
B. Cases under the United States–Peru Trade Promotion Agreement 7.26
C. Cases Applying ICSID Rule 41(5) 7.27
IV. Conclusion 7.31
8. Challenges of Arbitrators in Investment Arbitration: Still Work in Progress?

Loretta Malintoppi and Alvin Yap
II. The Role of Institutions and Professional Associations 8.10
A. International Centre for Settlement of International Disputes (ICSID) 8.10
xv
Contents
B. Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) 8.22

C. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) 8.27
D. International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) 8.34
E. Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) 8.43
F. London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) 8.47
G. Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) 8.52
H. The IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration
(IBA Guidelines) 8.56
III. Innovations in International Investment Agreements 8.60
IV. Selected Decisions on Challenges 8.81
A. ‘Issue Conflicts’ 8.86
B. Administrative Secretaries 8.99
C. Social Media 8.109
V. Conclusion 8.115
9. Piercing the Veil of Confidentiality: The Recent Trend towards Greater Public
Participation and Transparency in Investment Treaty Arbitration
Andrea J Menaker and Eckhard Hellbeck
II. Public Access to Documents 9.09
A. The NAFTA Approach 9.12
B. ICSID’s Disclosure Regime 9.21
C. The UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency 9.32
D. The Mauritius Convention 9.38
E. Mandating Disclosure Through Investment Treaty Provisions 9.41
III. Third-party Written Submissions 9.52
A. NAFTA Chapter 11: The Beginning of Modern Third-party Participation
in Investment Arbitration 9.54
B. The NAFTA Free Trade Commission Interpretation and Guidelines and
Subsequent NAFTA Practice 9.65
C. Third-party Submissions in ICSID Cases 9.77
D. Treatment of Third-party Submissions by Other Arbitral Rules 9.108
E. Treatment of Third-party Submissions by Other Investment Treaties 9.113
IV. Public Access to Arbitral Hearings 9.121
A. The NAFTA Experience: The First Open Hearings 9.122
B. Open Hearings Under the ICSID Arbitration Rules: Still Subject
to the Parties’ Consent 9.136
C. Open Hearings: Recent Developments 9.144
V. Conclusion 9.157
PART III GUIDE TO KEY JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES

10. Who is Entitled to Claim? The Definition of Nationality in Investment Arbitration
Katia Yannaca-Small
II. Natural Persons as Investors 10.03
A. Customary International Law 10.04
B. State Practice/Investment Agreements 10.08
xvi
Contents
C. Jurisprudence under the ICSID Convention 10.11

III. Legal Persons as Investors 10.22
A. Customary International Law 10.24
B. State Practice/Investment Agreements 10.34
C. Jurisprudence 10.52
11. The Meaning of ‘Investment’ in Investment Treaty Arbitration

Katia Yannaca-Small and Dimitrios Katsikis
II. The Definition of ‘Investment’ in International Agreements 11.06
A. The Definition of ‘Investment’ in Investment Treaties 11.06
B. The Notion of ‘Investment’ in the ICSID Convention 11.16
III. Arbitral Jurisprudence on the Definition of ‘Investment’ 11.23
A. Types of Assets Constituting an ‘Investment’ 11.23
B. The Interpretation of ‘Investment’ by Arbitral Tribunals 11.47
C. The Requirement that an Investment Be Made ‘In Accordance with the
Host State’s Law’ 11.96
D. The Requirement that an Investment Be ‘In the Territory of
the Host State’ 11.101
12. Bifurcation of Investment Disputes

Baiju S Vasani and Sarah Z Vasani
II. The Framework under Major Arbitral Rules 12.03
A. ICSID Convention/Rules 12.03
B. ICSID Additional Facility Rules 12.06
C. UNCITRAL Rules 12.07
D. ICC Rules 12.09
E. SCC Rules 12.11
III. The Standard 12.12
A. Procedural Economy 12.14
B. Likelihood of Dismissal/Reduction in the Scope of Case 12.20
C. Overlapping Issues 12.24
IV. Bifurcation Procedure 12.28
V. Conclusion 12.30
13. Burden and Standard of Proof at the Jurisdictional Stage

Baiju S Vasani, Timothy L Foden, and Hafsa Zayyan
I. General Principles Regarding Burdens of Proof 13.01
II. Distinguishing the Burden of Proof from the Standard of Proof 13.05
III. Who Bears the Burden of Proof at the Jurisdictional Phase? 13.06
A. The Claimant Bears the Burden of Proving the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction 13.06
B. Either Party Can Bear the Burden of Proving or Disproving
the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction 13.14
xvii
Contents
C. The Respondent Bears the Burden of Proof 13.25

D. The Centrist Position: Neither Party Bears the Burden of Proving the
Tribunal’s Jurisdiction 13.29
IV. Who Bears the Burden of Proof Regarding Specific Jurisdictional
Objections? 13.35
A. The National Identity of the Natural Person Claimant is in Dispute 13.36
B. The Claim Does Not Arise out of an ‘Investment’ 13.37
C. The Claimant is Not an ‘Investor’ Within the Meaning of the BIT/Treaty 13.39
D. Consent to Arbitrate 13.40
E. Case Already Litigated Through Domestic Courts 13.41
F. Dispute Arose Prior to the Entry of the BIT into Force 13.44
G. Dispute Barred by a Provision of the BIT/Treaty 13.45
V. Once the Tribunal Determines Who Has the Burden of Proof, What
Standard of Proof Is Applicable at the Jurisdictional Phase? 13.46
A. Prima Facie Standard 13.46
B. The Standard Depends on the Facts 13.61
C. Establishing a Prima Facie Case 13.66
VI. Conclusion 13.72
14. Attribution: State Organs and Entities Exercising Elements

of Governmental Authority
Georgios Petrochilos
II. What Are State Organs? 14.10
A. Internal Law is the Source of Legal Data, Not Classifications 14.16
B. Institutional Separateness or Lack Thereof 14.21
III. Para-statal Entities 14.32
A. ‘Governmental Authority’ 14.37
B. Acts in Exercise of Governmental Authority 14.44
IV. Inexistence of ‘Non-justiciable’ Acts of state Organs 14.58
V. Attribution of Representations 14.67
A. Representations Frustrated by Later Conduct 14.68
B. Contractual breaches actionable under umbrella Clauses 14.78
15. Breach of Treaty Claims and Breach of Contract Claims:

When Can an International Tribunal Exercise Jurisdiction?
Stanimir A Alexandrov
II. Treaty-based Tribunals’ Jurisdiction over Treaty Claims
Arising out of an Underlying Contract 15.04
A. Contract Protection under Customary International Law 15.06
B. Contract Protection under Investment Treaties 15.11
C. Investment Treaty Claims Arising out of Contracts 15.17
xviii
Contents
III. Treaty-based Tribunals’ Jurisdiction over ‘Purely’ Contractual Claims 15.20

A. Umbrella Clause Provisions as a Basis for Jurisdiction over
Contract Claims 15.23
B. Provisions Granting Jurisdiction over ‘Any Disputes’ 15.24
C. Provisions Granting Jurisdiction over Disputes Relating
to ‘Investment Agreements’ 15.35
IV. Distinguishing Between Breach of Treaty Claims and Breach
of Contract Claims 15.38
A. The Power of Treaty-based Tribunals to Interpret Contracts 15.44
B. The Difficulty (and Irrelevance) of Attempting to Identify
Contract Claims ‘Dressed’ as Treaty Claims 15.48
C. The Impact of Contractual Forum Selection Clauses on
the Jurisdiction of Treaty-based Tribunals 15.57
D. The Role and Significance of ‘Fork-in-the-Road’ Provisions 15.72
V. Conclusion 15.80
16. The Umbrella Clause: Is the Umbrella Closing?

Katia Yannaca-Small
II. History of the Umbrella Clause and State Practice 16.06
III. Significance of the Umbrella Clause in Treaties 16.16
IV. Effects, Scope, and Conditions of Application of the Umbrella Clause 16.23
A. The Effects of the Umbrella Clause 16.26
B. The Scope of the Umbrella Clause or the Conditions of Its Application 16.52
V. Conclusion 16.84
17. Counterclaims in Investment Treaty Arbitration

Mark A Clodfelter and Diana Tsutieva
II. Milestone Cases 17.06
III. Counterclaims under the ICSID Convention 17.19
A. Introduction to Article 46 17.20
B. Counterclaims Arising Directly out of the Subject Matter of the Dispute 17.25
C. Counterclaims Within the Scope of the Parties’ Consent 17.37
D. Counterclaims Otherwise Within ICSID’s Jurisdiction 17.65
E. Conclusion 17.67
IV. Counterclaims Under the UNCITRAL Rules 17.68
A. Introduction 17.68
B. Ipso Facto Importation of Consent 17.73
C. The 1976 UNCITRAL Rules: Implied Modification by State Parties 17.82
D. The Connection Requirement under the New and Old
UNCITRAL Rules 17.88
E. Conclusion 17.94
V. Moving Forward: Greater Expectations in Counterclaim Practice 17.95
xix
Contents
18. The State’s Corruption Defence, Prosecutorial Efforts, and Anti-corruption

Norms in Investment Treaty Arbitration
Charles N Brower and Jawad Ahmad
II. Binary Outcomes of the Corruption Defence—Can the Playing
Field be Levelled? 18.12
A. Preliminary Remarks Regarding Jurisdiction, Admissibility, and Merits 18.14
B. Illegality Where There Is a Legality Clause 18.19
C. Illegality Where There Is No Legality Clause 18.24
D. The State’s Obligation to Prosecute or Investigate and the Corruption
Defence 18.29
III. Anti-corruption Norms in Recent Investment Agreements 18.84
A. Introduction 18.84
B. Independent Anti-corruption Provisions—the Japanese Treaties 18.88
C. Anti-corruption Norms as a Part of Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR)—the Canadian Treaties 18.102
PART IV GUIDE TO KEY SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

19. The Law Applicable in Investment Treaty Arbitration
Yas Banifatemi
II. Identification of the Law Chosen by the Parties 19.04
A. Choice of Law in Context 19.05
B. Variations on the Law of the Host State and International Law 19.09
III. Determination of the Applicable Law by the Arbitrators in
the Absence of the Parties’ Agreement 19.14
IV. Implications of the Specific Nature of Investment Treaties in
the Choice of Law Process 19.22
20. Fair and Equitable Treatment: Have Its Contours Fully Evolved?
Katia Yannaca-Small
II. Does FET Refer to Customary International Law or Is It
an Autonomous Standard? 20.08
A. The NAFTA Tribunals 20.12
B. Non-NAFTA Tribunals 20.20
C. What Difference Does It Make Whether Fair and Equitable Treatment
Refers to the Minimum Standard of Customary Law? 20.25
III. The Normative Content of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard 20.28
A. Denial of Justice, Due Process 20.31
B. Transparency, Stability, and Legitimate Expectations 20.45
C. Obligation of Vigilance and Protection 20.87
D. Lack of Arbitrariness and Non-discrimination 20.90
xx
Contents
21. The National Treatment Obligation

Andrea K Bjorklund
II. Precluding Nationality-based Discrimination 21.05
III. National Treatment in Practice 21.17
A. The Like Circumstances Inquiry 21.22
B. Treatment Accorded the Investor 21.59
C. ‘Arbitrary and Discriminatory’ Treatment 21.77
D. Determining the Level of Treatment that Must Be Accorded a Foreign
Investor 21.83
E. Objective Justifications for Differential Treatment: The Role
of Burden Shifting in National Treatment Analysis 21.89
IV. Reservations and Exceptions 21.94
A. State, Provincial, or Municipal Government Measures 21.97
B. Measures to Protect Health, Safety, and the Environment 21.103
C. Measures to Protect Local Culture 21.105
V. Conclusions 21.106
22. Indirect Expropriation and the Right to Regulate: Has the Line Been Drawn?
Katia Yannaca-Small
II. Basic Concepts of the Obligation to Compensate for Expropriation 22.06
III. The Notion of ‘Property’ 22.13
IV. Legal Instruments and Other Texts 22.25
V. Main Sources of Jurisprudence 22.35
A. The Iran–US Tribunal 22.39
B. The European Court of Human Rights 22.42
C. Investor-state Tribunals 22.46
VI. Criteria Indicating Whether an Indirect Expropriation Has Occurred 22.49
A. Degree of Interference with the Property Right 22.51
B. Duration of the Regulation 22.73
C. Economic Impact as the Exclusive Criterion 22.79
D. Character of Governmental Measures and the Police Powers of the State 22.85
E. Proportionality 22.97
F. Interference of the Measure with Reasonable Investment-backed
Expectations 22.109
VII. Conclusion 22.119
23. The MFN Clause and Its Evolving Boundaries

Abby Cohen Smutny, Petr Polášek, and Chad Farrell
II. Historical Background 23.04
A. Origins 23.04
B. Work of the International Law Commission 23.08
C. Early Jurisprudence 23.35
III. Bilateral Investment Treaty Practice 23.48
xxi
Contents
A. MFN Clauses and Dispute Settlement 23.48

B. The Cases 23.57
IV. Treaty-making Practice and Investment Treaty Jurisprudence 23.114
V. Conclusion 23.118
PART V REMEDIES AND COSTS

24. Interim Relief in Investment Treaty Arbitration
Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Aurélia Antonietti, and Michele Potestà
II. The Power to Grant Interim Relief 24.03
A. Interim Relief in the ICSID System 24.04
B. Interim Relief under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 24.11
C. Other Relevant Provisions 24.17
III. Purpose of the Measures: Preserving the Respective Rights of the Parties 24.19
A. ICSID System 24.20
B. NAFTA Proceedings 24.28
C. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 24.29
IV. Types of Measures 24.35
A. Preservation of a Right 24.37
B. Preservation of the Status Quo/Non-aggravation of the Dispute 24.47
C. Preserving the Integrity of the Proceedings/Preventing Prejudice to the
Arbitral Process Itself 24.62
D. Preserving Evidence 24.65
E. Protection of the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction 24.70
F. Non-frustration of the Award 24.84
V. Requirements for Interim Relief 24.92
A. The Initiative to Request Interim Relief 24.93
B. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal? 24.96
C. Prima Facie Case on the Merits? 24.105
D. Urgency 24.113
E. Necessity or Risk of Irreparable Harm 24.130
VI. Against Whom Can the Measures be Ordered? 24.144
VII. Effect of Interim Measures 24.147
A. ICSID Convention Cases 24.148
B. Additional Facility Cases 24.154
C. NAFTA Proceedings 24.157
D. UNCITRAL Rules 24.158
VIII. Concurrent Jurisdiction of Domestic Courts 24.162
A. ICSID Convention Proceedings 24.163
B. Additional Facility Rules 24.165
C. UNCITRAL Rules 24.166
D. NAFTA Proceedings 24.167
IX. Conclusion 24.168
xxii
Contents
25. Compensation and Damages in Investment Treaty Arbitration

Irmgard Marboe
II. Applicable Legal Rules and Principles 25.06
A. Rules on State Responsibility 25.07
B. BIT Provisions on Compensation 25.13
C. Other BIT Provisions 25.18
D. Contractual Obligations 25.21
III. Causation 25.26
IV. Valuation Date 25.33
V. Limiting Circumstances 25.40
A. Contributory Negligence 25.41
B. Mitigation of Damages 25.44
C. Country Risk 25.52
VI. Valuation Methods 25.56
A. Market Approach 25.59
B. Income Approach 25.62
C. Asset-based or Cost Approach 25.67
VII. Conclusion 25.70
26. Third-party Funding in Investment Treaty Arbitration

Nigel Blackaby and Alex Wilbraham
II. Does Third-party Funding Provoke Frivolous Claims? 26.12
III. The Different Forms of Funding 26.15
A. Non-recourse Financing 26.16
B. Financing by Lawyers 26.17
C. Insurance 26.18
D. Equity Financing 26.19
E. Debtor in Possession Financing 26.20
F. Pro Bono or Charitable Funding 26.21
G. Common Interest Funding 26.22
IV. Regulation of Litigation Funding 26.23
V. Jurisdiction and Admissibility 26.27
VI. Third-party Funding and Liability for Costs 26.34
A. The Right to Recover Costs if Successful 26.35
B. Recovery of Funding Costs 26.38
C. Security for Costs 26.44
VII. Disclosure of Third-party Funding 26.52
A. Disclosure of a Third-party Funder’s Identity 26.53
B. Should the Terms of Funding Agreements be Disclosed? 26.59
VIII. Concluding Remarks 26.63
xxiii
Contents
PART VI THE POST-AWARD PHASE

27. Annulment of ICSID Awards: Is it Enough or Is Appeal around the Corner?
Katia Yannaca-Small
II. Scope and Application of Annulment under the ICSID Convention 27.04
A. Annulment: An Exceptional Recourse? 27.08
B. Annulment versus Appeal: A Thin Line in ICSID Annulment Proceedings 27.15
III. The Grounds for Annulment 27.23
A. Improper Constitution of the Tribunal 27.24
B. Manifest Excess of Powers 27.30
C. Failure to State Reasons 27.44
D. Serious Departure from a Fundamental Rule of Procedure 27.50
IV. Stay of Enforcement 27.55
V. The Quest for Coherence and Consistency: Proposals for an Appeal
Mechanism 27.70
A. Past and Current Efforts to include Provisions on the Establishment
of an Appeal Mechanism in Investment Agreements 27.74
B. What Lies Ahead? A Multilateral Solution? 27.101
28. Review of non-ICSID Awards by National Courts

Kaj Hobér and Nils Eliasson
II. The Legal Framework for Review and Challenge of Investment Treaty
Awards 28.09
III. Decisions by National Courts 28.14
A. Republic of Poland v Saar Papier Vertriebs GmbH 28.15
B. Russian Federation v Sedelmayer 28.18
C. Republic of Ecuador v Occidental Exploration & Production Company 28.26
D. Petrobart Ltd v Kyrgyz Republic and Kyrgyz Republic v Pertrobart Ltd 28.34
E. Czech Republic v Saluka Investments BV 28.45
F. Bayview Irrigation District 11 and Ors v Mexico 28.49
G. Czech Republic v European Media Ventures SA 28.57
H. Mexico v Cargill, Incorporated 28.66
I. Argentina v BG Group PLC 28.76
J. Energoalians (Currently Known as Komstroy) v Moldova 28.83
K. Ecuador v Chevron (USA) and Texaco 28.88
L. Sanum Investments Ltd v Lao People’s Republic 28.98
M. Russian Federation v Renta 4 S.V.S.A. et al. 28.117
IV. Discussion 28.127
A. Do National Courts Have Jurisdiction to Determine Challenges of
Investment Treaty Awards? 28.128
B. Is It Appropriate for National Courts to Review
Investment Treaty Awards? 28.134
C. What Standards of Review Do National Courts Adopt for Reviewing
Challenges to the Jurisdiction of Investment Treaty Arbitral Tribunals? 28.145
V. Conclusion 28.159
xxiv
Contents
29. Enforcement of Investment Treaty Awards

August Reinisch
II. Enforcement of Non-ICSID Awards 29.03
A. Foreign Arbitral Awards 29.04
B. Investment Awards as Commercial Disputes 29.06
C. Investment Treaty Arbitration and the Requirement of a Written
Arbitration Agreement 29.10
D. Obligation of National Courts to Enforce Investment Awards 29.12
III. Obstacles to the Recognition and Enforcement of Investment Awards 29.13
A. The Article V(1) Grounds for Refusing Enforcement
of Investment Awards 29.16
B. The Article V(2) Grounds for Refusing Enforcement
of Investment Awards 29.29
C. State Immunity as an Additional Hurdle 29.44
IV. Enforcement of ICSID Awards 29.64
A. The Autonomous International Law Obligation to Comply
with ICSID Awards 29.66
B. Exclusivity 29.68
C. The Strict Obligation to Recognize and Enforce ICSID Awards 29.71
D. State Immunity Rules on Enforcement Measures as Remaining Obstacles 29.75
E. Other Failed Attempts to Enforce ICSID Awards 29.82
V. Alternative Enforcement Mechanisms 29.83
30. A Practical Guide: Research Tools in International Investment Law

Julien Fouret
II. Arbitral Case Law and Public International Case Law 30.08
A. Case Law 30.09
B. Journal Reviews of Investment Arbitration Case Law 30.10
III. International Treaties: Identification and Interpretation 30.11
A. Resources to Identify Investment Treaties 30.12
B. Fundamental Rules of Treaty Interpretation in Public International Law 30.13
IV. Customary International Law 30.21
A. What Is International Custom and How Is a Customary Norm Created? 30.22
B. Means to Identify Customary Norms in Public International Law 30.27
C. Applicability and Relevance of Customary Norms in International
Investment Law 30.33
V. Conclusion 30.36
Index 837
xxv
TABLE OF CASES
INTERNATIONAL
Aanes v FILA, CAS 2000/A/317 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.86

Abaclat & Others v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction &
Admissibility (Aug 4, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.10, 15.50n85, 15.52, 26.22n47, 26.29
Abaclat & Others v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/5, Decision on
the Proposal to Disqualify a Majority of the Tribunal (Feb 4, 2014), . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.17, 8.83, 11.33–11.36, 11.103n183, 11.112, 11.113
Abaclat & Others v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/5,
Procedural Order No 11 (June 27, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.136
Abaclat & Others v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/5,
Procedural Order No 13 (Sept 27, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.66
Aboilard (1905), 11 RIAA 71 (France v Haiti). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.74n245
Antoine Abou Lahoud & Leila Bounafeh-Abou Lahoud v Democratic Republic of
the Congo, ICSID Case No ARB/10/4, Decision on Annulment
(July 25, 2017). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.38, 27.42
Accession Mezzanine Capital LP & Danabius Kereskedohaz v Hungary, ICSID Case No
ARB/12/3, Decision on Respondent’s Notice of Jurisdictional Objections & Request for
Bifurcation (Aug 8, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.13, 12.22
Accession Mezzanine Capital LP & Danabius Kereskedohaz v Hungary,
ICSID Case No ARB/12/3, Decision on Respondents Objection Under Arbitration
Rule 41(5) (Jan 16, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.29n67
Achmea BV v Slovak Republic [I]‌, PCA Case No 2008/13, Award on Jurisdiction,
Arbitrability & Suspension (Oct 26, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.111
Achmea BV v Slovak Republic [II], PCA Case No 2013/12, Award on Jurisdiction &
Admissibility (20 May 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.32n69, 20.04n4
ADC Affiliate Ltd & ADMC Management Ltd v Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/03/16 . . . . . .
25.04n6, 25.38,
Award (Oct 2, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.25n26, 19.26, 26.35, 26.41
Adel A. Hamadi Al Tamimi v Oman, ICSID Case No ARB/11/13, Procedural Order No 6 (Mar
18, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.12n21
Adel A. Hamadi Al Tamimi v Oman, ICSID Case No ARB/11/13, Award
(Oct 27, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.16n35
Adel A. Hamadi Al Tamimi v Oman, ICSID Case No ARB/11/13, Award
(Nov 3, 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.40, 14.34n109
Adem Dogan v Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No ARB/09/9 (Jan 15, 2016). . . . . . . . 26.10n26, 27.38
ADF Group Inc. v United States, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/00/1, Award
(Jan 9, 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.74, 20.14, 20.63, 21.25, 21.67, 30.29
Adriano Gardella S.p.A. v Republic of the Ivory Coast, ICSID Case No ARB/74/1,
Award (Aug 29, 1977), 1 ICSID Rep. 283 (1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.06
Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v Turkey), Order of September 11,
1976, ICJ Rep. 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.96n164, 24.131, 24.132
Aeroport Belbek LLC & Mr. Igor Valerievich Kolomoisky v Russia,
PCA Case No 2014-30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.104n185
AES Corporation v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/02/17,
Decision on Jurisdiction (Apr 26, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.71
AES Summit Generation Ltd & AES Tisza Erömü Kft v Republic of Hungary,
ICSID Case No ARB/07/22, Award (Sept 23, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.30, 9.104n176, 152n30
AES Summit Generation Ltd & AES Tisza Erömü Kft v Republic of Hungary,
ICSID Case No ARB/07/22, Decision on Annulment (June 29, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.42
AGIP v People’s Republic of the Congo ICSID Case No ARB/77/1,
Award (Nov 30, 1979), 1 ICSID Rep. 306. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.26n70, 19.09n15, 24.66, 24.151
xxvii
Table of Cases
Aguas del Tunari SA v Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No ARB/02/3, Decision on Jurisdiction
(Oct 21, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.65–15.67
Aguas del Tunari SA v Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No ARB/02/3, Decision on Jurisdiction
(Oct 21, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.12
Aguas del Tunari SA v Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No ARB/02/3, NGO Petition
to Participate as Amici Curiae (Aug 29, 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.77–9.80, 9.85–9.89,
10.74, 10.74n154
Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe SA, Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona SA &
InterAguas Servicios Integrales del Agua SA v Argentine Republic, ICSID
Case No ARB/03/17, Order in Response to a Petition for Participation
as Amicus Curiae (Mar 17, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.90
Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v Democratic Republic of Congo) Compensation
ICJ Rep. 322 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.01n1
Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v Democratic Republic of Congo) Compensation
ICJ Rep. 322 2012, Preliminary Objections (May 24, 2007). . . . . 4.85, 10.33, 10.33n60, 25.01
Ahmonseto, Inc. & Others v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/02/15,
Award (June 18, 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.26n61
AIG Capital Partners Inc. & CJSC Tema Real Estate Company v Republic of Kazakhstan,
ICSID Case No ARB/01/6, Award (Oct 7, 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.29n48, 29.78, 29.82
AIG Capital Partners, Inc. & CJSC Tema Real Estate Company v Republic of Kazakhstan,
ICSID Case No. ARB/01/6, Award (Oct 2, 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.44n80
AJ van den Berg, on behalf of the Arbitral Tribunal in Dunkeld International
Investment Ltd v Government of Belize, UNICTRAL, PCA
Case No 2010-13/DUN-BZ, Order No 6 (Mar 3 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.30
Aktau Petrol Ticaret AŞ v Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No ARB/15/8, Award
(Nov 13, 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.41n130
Alapli Elektrik B.V. v Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.10n26
Alasdair Ross Anderson & Others v Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID
Case No ARB (AF)/07/3, Award (May 19, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.63, 26.35
Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica Inc. v Jamaica, ICSID Case No ARB/74/2 Preliminary
Award (July 6, 1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.24n25
Giovanni Alemanni & Others v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/8,
Decision on Jurisdiction & Admissibility (Nov 17, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.33–11.36,
11.112n197, 13.17, 15.17n23, 15.53n92,
26.10n26, 26.22n47, 26.30
Alex Genin, Eastern Credit Ltd, Inc. & AS Baltoil v Republic of Estonia,
ICSID Case No ARB/99/2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.02n1
Alex Genin, Eastern Credit Ltd, Inc. & AS Baltoil v Republic of Estonia,
ICSID Case No ARB/99/2, Final Award (June 25, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.39, 20.46
Almås v Poland, PCA Case No 2015-13, Award (June 27, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.47, 14.50
Alpha Projektholding GmbH v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/07/16,
Award (Nov 8, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.41, 20.46, 20.55, 20.90n197
Alpha Projektholding GmbH v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/07/16, Decision on
Challenge to Arbitrator (Mar 19, 2010). . . . . . . 8.62n115, 11.78n133, 11.91n155, 11.100n175
Alps Finance & Trade AG v Slovak Republic (UNCITRAL),
Award (Mar 5, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.87, 11.58
The Ambatielos Claim 1952 ICJ 28 (Judgment on Preliminary Objection of July 1). . . . . . . . . . 23.43
The Ambatielos Claim 1953 ICJ 10 (Judgment on the Obligation to Arbitrate of May 19). . . . . 23.43
The Ambatielos Claim (Greece v UK), XII RIAA 91
(Award of Mar 6, 1956). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.43–23.47, 23.65
Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. & Others v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/08/09, Decision
of Jurisdiction & Admissibility (Feb 8, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.19n40, 6.19n42, 11.20n19,
11.33–11.36, 11.77, 11.93n163, 11.112,
13.14–13.16, 19.01, 26.29
Amco Asia Corporation et al. v Republic of Indonesia,
ICSID Case No ARB/81/1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.02n1, 27.38, 27.40, 27.43,
27.44, 27.44n107, 27.47
xxviii
Table of Cases
Amco Asia Corporation et al. v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No ARB/81/1, Decision on
Annulment (May 16, 1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.18n38, 27.09n17, 27.18
Jurisdiction (Sept 25, 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.33, 8.15n15, 8.81, 9.24, 10.67, 14.27n78, 14.62
Request for Provisional Measures (Dec 9, 1983) ICSID Rep. 1993 . . . . . . . . 24.21, 24.48, 24.58
Decisions on the Stay of Enforcement (May 17 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.58n135
Amco Asia Corporation et al. v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID (Resubmitted), Decision on
Jurisdiction (May 10, 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.06, 17.66, 17.89, 27.09n17, 27.18
Amco Asia Corporation et al. v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID (Resubmitted),
Award (June 5, 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.23, 25.28, 25.45n86, 25.66n125, 27.09n17,
27.18, 27.38, 27.47, 27.48
Interim Order (March 2, 1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.58n135
Second Decision on Annulment of the 1990 Award & the 1990
Supplemental Award (Dec 17, 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.19
American Manufacturing & Trading Inc. v Democratic Republic of
the Congo, ICSID Case No ARB/93/1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.02n4
American Manufacturing & Trading Inc. v Republic of Zaire, ICSID
Case No ARB/93/1, Award (Feb 21, 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.67, 20.88
Amoco International Finance v Iran 15 IUSCTR 189. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.18, 25.29, 25.38
Amoco International Finance v Iran 15 IUSCTR 189, Partial Award (July 14, 1987) . . . . . . 25.38n67
Ampal-American Israel Corporation & Others v Arab Republic of Egypt,
ICSID Case No ARB/12/11, Decision on Jurisdiction (Feb 1, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . 10.117, 12.28
AMTO Llc v Ukraine, Case No 080/2005 SCC, Final Award (Mar 26, 2008). . . . . . . . 2.12, 2.27n37,
14.34n109, 14.45, 14.47, 14.90, 16.69, 17.56n172
Anglo-French Continental Shelf Case (United Kingdom v France) (1977, 1978) 18 R.I.A.A. 3. . . 4.28
Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (UK v Iran), ICJ 1951, Interim Protection
Order (July 5, 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.19, 24.49, 24.141n246
Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (UK v Iran), ICJ 1951, Judgment on Preliminary
Objection (July 22, 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.19n34, 23.36–23.39
Ansung Housing Co. Ltd v People’s Republic of China, ICSID
Case No ARB/14/25, Award (Mar 9, 2017). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.111
Apotex Holdings Inc. & Apotex Inc. v United States, ICSID
Case No ARB (AF)/12/1, Award (Aug 25, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.107n189, 12.06, 12.19,
20.18, 21.18n39, 21.47, 21.93
Apotex Holdings Inc. & Apotex Inc. v United States, ICSID
Case No ARB (AF)/12/1, Procedural Order No 2 (Oct 11, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.73, 9.75
Application of the Convention on the Prevention & Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.10
of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v Serb. & Montenegro). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.93
of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v Serb. & Montenegro), Counter-Claims
Order (Dec 17, 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.34n102
Application of the Convention on the Prevention & Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia & Herzegovina v Serbia & Montenegro),
Order of September 13, 1993. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.42n85
Archer Daniels Midland Co. et al. v United Mexican States, ICSID
Case No ARB (AF)/04/05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.02n1
Archer Daniels Midland Co. et al. v United Mexican States,
ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/04/05, Award, redacted version (Nov 21, 2007) . . . . 9.20n31, 21.36,
21.69, 22.50, 25.29n50, 28.70n106
Archer Daniels Midland Co. et al. v United Mexican States, ICSID
Case No ARB (AF)/04/05, Order of the Consolidation Tribunal (May 20, 2005) . . . . . . . 10.124
xxix
Table of Cases
Franck Charles Arif v Republic of Moldova, ICSID Case No ARB/11/23,

Award (Apr 8, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.92n159, 18.49, 20.60, 20.62n136, 23.49
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002)
(Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda), ICJ Rep. 2006. . . . . . . . . 17.26n73, 24.96n165
Asian Agricultural Products Ltd v Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No ARB/87/3,
Final Award (June 27, 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.101n231, 17.26n70,
19.05–19.07, 19.05n5, 19.23–19.24, 20.88, 25.69
Asylum Case (Columbia v Peru), Judgment (Nov 27, 1950) [1950] ICJ Rep. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.21
ATA Construction, Industrial & Trading Company v Jordan, ICSID
Case No ARB/08/2, Award (May 18, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.38
ATA Construction, Industrial & Trading Company v Jordan, ICSID Case No ARB/08/2,
Order Taking Note of the Discontinuance of the Proceeding (July 11, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . 26.36
Atlantic Richfield Co. & the Islamic Republic of Iran et al. No 50-396-1 IUSCTR.
Interim Award (May 8, 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.146
Atlantic Triton Company Ltd v People’s Revolutionary Republic of Guinea,
ICSID Case No ARB/84/1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.44n53, 24.72, 24.86, 24.163
Atlantic Triton Company Ltd v People’s Revolutionary Republic of Guinea,
ICSID Case No ARB/84/1, Award (Apr 21, 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.06, 19.09n14
Austrian Airlines v Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award (Oct 9, 2009). . . . . . 23.35n85, 23.98
Autopista Concesionada de Venezuela CA v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,
ICSID Case No ARB/00/5 Award (Sept 23, 2003) . . . . . . . . . . 14.64n224, 19.09n14, 19.19n39
Aven et al. v Republic of Costa Rica, UNCITRAL, UNCT/15/3, Procedural
Order No 2 (Feb 4, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.08
AWG Group Ltd v Argentine Republic, UNCITRAL, Decision on Liability
(July 30, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.27n65, 20.55, 22.60n95
Robert Azinian, Kenneth Davitian & Ellen Baca v United Mexican States,
ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/97/2, Mexico (1998), 5 ICSID Rep. 269. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.63
Robert Azinian, Kenneth Davitian & Ellen Baca v United Mexican States, Case No.
ARB (AF)/97/2, Award (Nov. 1, 1999) . . . . . . . . . 10.119n280, 10.119n281, 14.63n220, 21.18
Azurix Corp. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/12, Decision
on Jurisdiction (Feb 5 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.77n122
on Jurisdiction (Dec 8, 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.107, 19.01, 19.24
Azurix Corp. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/12, Award
(July 14, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.15n14, 15.50n83, 15.53, 16.71,
16.78–16.80, 20.23, 20.25, 20.88, 22.103, 22.117
Azurix Corp. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/12, Award
(July 26, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50n29
on Annulment (Sept 1, 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.04n6, 27.24–27.26, 27.29, 27.62
Azurix Corp. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/12, Decision on
the Annulment Application of the Argentine Republic (Sept 1, 2009). . . . . . . . 6.53n108, 15.16
B-Mex LLC et al. v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/16/3, Procedural
Order No 1 (Apr 4, 2017). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.28
Balkan Energy Company v Republic of Ghana, UNCITRAL, Award (Apr 1, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . 17.06
Michael Ballantine & Lisa Ballantine v Dominican Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No
2016-17, Procedural Order No 2 (Apr 21, 2017). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.20
Barcelona Traction see Case Concerning Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Company, Limited
Cas(Belg. v Spain) (Feb 5, 1970) (1970)
Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi AS v Pakistan, ICSID Case No ARB/03/29, Decision
on Jurisdiction (Nov 14, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.42, 11.74n122, 13.07,
14.51n172, 15.42n69,
15.51, 15.56, 24.87, 30.04
Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi AS v Pakistan, ICSID Case No ARB/03/29,
Award (Aug 27, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.47n106, 21.22, 21.53, 21.75
xxx
Table of Cases
Bayview Irrigation District et al. v Mexico, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/05/1,

Award (June 19, 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.106, 11.107, 28.51, 28.75
BdB v Netherlands (Communication No 273/1989), Human Rights Committee, Report 1989,
U.N. Doc. A/44/40 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.41
Bear Creek Mining Corporation v Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No ARB/14/21,
Procedural Order No 6 (July 21, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.117, 9.150
Behring International, Inc. & the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force et al., Interim Award No
46-382-3 (Feb 22, 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.31, 24.46n56, 24.141, 24.142
Beijing Urban Construction Group Co. Ltd v Republic of Yemen, ICSID
Case No ARB/14/30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.95n217, 10.97
Bendone-Derossi International & Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
Award No 352-375-1 ITM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.57n176
Bernhard von Pezold & Others v Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No ARB/10/15 . . . . . . . . . . . 9.107, 9.143,
11.40, 11.68n104, 11.78n133, 11.79, 13.19–13.20
Bernhard von Pezold & Others v Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No ARB/10/15,
Award (July 28, 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.25n26, 17.26
Bernhard von Pezold & Others v Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No ARB/10/15, Decision on
Applicant’s Application for Provisional Measures to Exclude Consideration of
the Merits in Part I (Oct 13, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.20n12
Vladimir Berschader & Moïse Berschader v Russian Federation, SCC Case No 080/2004. . . . . . . 9.40
Award (Apr 21, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.19n21, 23.86n178, 23.90–23.94
BG Group Plc v Argentine Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award (Dec 24, 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.53n31, 28.76, 28.79, 29.23
William Bikoff & George Eisenpresser & Islamic Republic of Iran, Award
No 138-82-2 (June 29, 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.57n176
Bilcon v Government of Canada, PCA Case No 2009-04, Award on Jurisdiction &
Liability (Mar 17, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.02, 21.15, 21.18, 21.56
Rupert Binder v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award (Redacted)
(July 15, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.41n90, 20.43, 20.73n160, 20.92
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd v United Republic of Tanzania,
ICSID Case No ARB/05/22, Award (July 24, 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.26, 20.69, 25.29n50
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID
Case No ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No 1 (Mar 31, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.23n19, 24.27,
24.66, 24.116
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID
Case No ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No 3 (Sept 29, 2006). . . . . . . 9.20n29, 9.25, 9.29, 9.97,
9.99–9.102, 9.143, 11.67, 14.51n175,
14.62n214, 15.46
Blue Bank International & Trust (Barbados) Ltd v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,
ICSID Case No Arb/12/20, Decision on the Parties’ Proposal to Disqualify
the Majority of the Tribunal (Nov 12, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.16, 8.17
Blue Bank International & Trust (Barbados) Ltd v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,
ICSID Case No ARB/12/20, Award (Apr 26, 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.59n122
Boeing et al. & the Islamic Republic of Iran, Interim Award No 34-222-1 (Feb 17, 1984). . . . . 24.141
Border Timbers Ltd, Timber Products International (Private) Ltd & Hangani Development Co.
(Private) Ltd v Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No ARB/10/25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.20n12
Border Timbers Ltd, Timber Products International (Private) Ltd & Hangani Development Co.
(Private) Ltd v Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No ARB/10/25, Procedural Order No
2 (June 26, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.107n184, 9.143
Border Timbers Ltd, Timber Products International (Private) Ltd & Hangani
Development Co. (Private) Ltd v Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID
Case No ARB/10/25, Procedural Order No 5 (Apr 3, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.62, 24.122
Bosh International, Inc. & B&P Ltd Foreign Investments Enterprise v Ukraine,
ICSID Case No ARB/08/11, Award (Oct 25, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . 14.34n109, 14.41, 14.42n143,
14.46, 14.84, 16.74, 20.30n67
xxxi
Table of Cases
BP America Production Co. & Others v Argentine Republic, ICSID

Case No ARB/04/8, Decision on Jurisdiction (July 27, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.37n52
Brandes Investment Partners, LP v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID
Case No ARB/08/3, Decision on the Respondent’s Objection Under Rule 41(5)
of the ICSID Arbitration Rules (Feb 2, 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.26n54, 7.28, 7.28n62
Brazilian Loans Case (Braz. v Fr.) 1929 PCIJ (ser. A) No 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.55
Bridas v Turkmenistan, Third Partial Award & Dissent (Sept 6, 2000),
ICC Case No 9058/FMS/KGA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.44n81
Briegel v Germany (1923) 3 MAT 358. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.64n222
BSG Resources Ltd, BSG Resources (Guinea) Ltd & BSG Resources
(Guinea) SÀRL v Republic of Guinea, ICSID Case No ARB/14/22,
Procedural Order No 2 (Sept 17, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.37
BSG Resources Ltd, BSG Resources (Guinea) Ltd & BSG Resources
(Guinea) SÀRL v Republic of Guinea, ICSID Case No ARB/14/22, Procedural
Order No 3 (Nov 25, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.85n138
Bureau Veritas, Inspection, Assessment & Control BV v Republic of Paraguay,
ICSID Case No ARB/07/9, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections
to Jurisdiction (May 29, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.42n65, 11.110, 11.111,
15.17n22, 15.23n31, 15.50n83
Bureau Veritas, Inspection, Assessment & Control BV v Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case No
ARB/07/9, Decision on Jurisdiction (Oct 9, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . 14.51n172, 16.41, 16.49, 16.76
Burimi SRL & Eagle Games SA v Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No ARB/11/18,
Procedural Order No 1 & Decision on Bifurcation (Apr 18, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.25
Burimi SRL & Eagle Games SA v Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No ARB/11/18,
Procedural Order No 2 (May 3, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.87, 24.136
Burlington Resources Inc. & Others v Republic of Ecuador & Empresa Estatal
Petróleos del Ecuador (PetroEcuador), ICSID Case No ARB/08/5. . . . . . . . . . . 4.04, 8.17, 15.23
Burlington Resources Inc. & Others v Republic of Ecuador & Empresa Estatal Petróleos
del Ecuador (PetroEcuador), ICSID Case No ARB/08/5, Procedural Order No 1 on
Burlington Oriente’s Request for Provisional Measures (June 29, 2009). . . . . . . . . . 24.25–24.26,
24.27, 24.42, 24.52, 24.75n121, 24.92,
24.117, 24.135, 24.139
Petróleos del Ecuador (PetroEcuador), ICSID Case No ARB/08/5, Decision
on Jurisdiction (June 2, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.59, 16.73
Petróleos del Ecuador (PetroEcuador), ICSID Case No ARB/08/5, Decision on
Liability (Dec 14, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.20, 22.70, 22.84, 24.152
Burlington Resources Inc. & Others v Republic of Ecuador & Empresa Estatal Petróleos
del Ecuador (PetroEcuador), ICSID Case No ARB/08/5, Decision on Ecuador’s
Counterclaims (Feb 7, 2017). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.16n44, 17.19n59, 17.59n182
Camuzzi International SA v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/7,
Decision on Jurisdiction (May 11, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.104n242
Camuzzi International SA v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/7, Decision on
Jurisdiction (June 10, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.69
Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade v United States, NAFTA/UNCITRAL, Award on
Jurisdiction (Jan 28, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.14, 11.107
UNCITRAL, Decision on the Place of Arbitration, Filing of a Statement of Defence and
Bifurcation of the Proceedings (Jan 23, 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.16
Canfor Corp. v United States of America and Terminal Forest Products Ltd. v United States
of America, UNCITRAL, Decision on Preliminary Question (June 6, 2006) . . . . . 13.22–13.23,
13.45
Canfor Corporation v United States of America; Tembec Inc. et al. v United States of America
& Terminal Forest Products Ltd v United States of America, UNCITRAL, Order of the
Consolidation Tribunal (Sept 7, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.106n60, 9.20n29, 9.129
Capital Financial Holdings Luxembourg SA v Republic of Cameroon,
ICSID Case No ARB/15/18 Award (June 22, 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . 11.70n108, 11.92, 11.92n160
xxxii
Table of Cases
Caratube International Oil Company LLP & Devincci Salah Hourani v Republic of Kazakhstan,
ICSID Case No ARB/13/13, Decision on the Proposal for Disqualification of Mr. Bruno
Boesch (Mar 20, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.17, 8.90, 10.55, 11.71, 11.73n120,
11.92n159, 13.21, 13.36
Caratube International Oil Company LLP & Devincci Salah Hourani v Republic of Kazakhstan,
ICSID Case No ARB/13/13, Decision on the Claimant’s Request for Provisional
Measures (Dec 4, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.55n73, 24.98n168, 24.136
Caratube International Oil Company LLP & Devincci Salah Hourani v Republic of Kazakhstan
ICSID Case No ARB/13/13, Award (Sept 27 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.11
Caratube International Oil Company LLP v Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID
Case No ARB/08/12, Decision Regarding Claimant’s Application for Provisional
Measures (July 31, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.55n73
Caratube International Oil Company LLP v Republic of Kazakhstan,
ICSID Case No ARB/08/12, Decision on Annulment (Feb 21, 2014). . . . . . . 27.42, 27.44n107
Cargill Inc. v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/05/2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.11
Cargill Inc. v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/05/2, Award
(Sept 18, 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.47n106, 20.49, 21.15, 21.36, 29.20
Case Concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v Russian Federation),
Order (Oct 15, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.115n195, 24.116n200
Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of Congo, Counter-Claims
Order (Nov 29, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.34n102
Case Concerning Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Company, Ltd Cas
(Belgium v Spain) (Feb 5, 1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.85, 10.25–10.29, 10.25n43, 10.28n53,
10.32, 10.38n67, 10.60, 10.60n106, 10.100
Case Concerning Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v Honduras) (1986). . . . . 13.34
Case Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area,
Gulf of Maine ICJ Reports 1984, 246. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.28, 14.73
Case Concerning German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia & the Factory at
Chorzów (Ger. v Pol.), 1926 PCIJ (ser. A) No 7 (May 25, 1926). . . . . . 14.16, 15.07, 15.45n73,
22.15, 25.07, 25.10
Case Concerning German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia & the Factory at Chorzów
(Ger. v Pol.), 1926 PCIJ (ser. A) No 7 (May 25, 1926), Judgment No 13
(Claim for Indemnity) (Merits) (Sept 13, 1928). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.15, 26.41
Case Concerning Payment in Gold of Brazilian Federal Loans Issued in France
(France v Brazil), 1929 PCIJ (ser. A) Nos 21-22 (July 12, 1929) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.45n73
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd & Others v India, PCA Case No 2013-09, Decision on the
Respondent’s Challenge to Hon. Marc Lalonde as Presiding Arbitrator & Professor
Francisco Orrego Vicuña as Co-Arbitrator (Sept 30, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.95–8.97
CDC Group plc v Republic of the Seychelles, ICSID Case No ARB/02/14, Award
(Dec 17, 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.95n217
CDC Group plc v Republic of the Seychelles, ICSID Case No ARB/02/14,
Decision on Whether or Not to Continue Stay & Order (July 14, 2004). . . . . . . . . . . 27.58n158
CDC Group plc v Republic of the Seychelles, ICSID Case No ARB/02/14, Decision on
Annulment (June 29, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.13, 27.16n30, 27.31, 27.40, 27.47
CEMEX Caracas Investments BV & CEMEX II Caracas Investments BV v Bolivarian Republic
of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/08/15, Decision on the Claimant’s Request for
Provisional Measures (Mar 3, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.06n4, 24.53, 24.136
CEMEX Caracas Investments BV & CEMEX II Caracas Investments BV v Bolivarian Republic
of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/08/15, Decision on Jurisdiction
(December 30, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.106n246
Central European Aluminium Company (CEAC) v Montenegro, ICSID
Case No ARB/14/8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.88, 12.12
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua),
Provisional Measures, Order (Mar 8, 2011), ICJ Rep. 2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.106n181
Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v France), Provisional Measure,
Order of 17 June, 2003, ICJ Reports 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.115n195, 24.132n222
xxxiii
Table of Cases
Československá Obchondní Banka AS v Slovak Republic, ICSID

Case No ARB/97/4 (Dec 129, 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.06
Československá Obchondní Banka AS v Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/97/4, Decision
of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (May 24, 1999). . . . 10.95n217, 10.96, 11.21n20,
11.25n26, 11.30, 11.30n34,
11.53, 11.54, 11.65, 26.27
Československá Obchondní Banka AS v Slovak Republic, ICSID
Case No ARB/97/4, Orders No 4 & No 5 (Jan 11, 1999 & Mar 1, 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.74
Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v U.K.), Reasoned Decision
on Challenge (Nov 30, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.59n105
Champion Trading Co. et al. v Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/02/9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.18, 10.18n32
Champion Trading Co. et al. v Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/02/9,
Award (Oct 27, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.22, 21.37
Chemtura Corporation v Government of Canada (UNCITRAL), Award (Aug 2, 2010). . . . . . . 22.59
Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Co. v Ecuador, PCA Case No 2009-23. . . . . . . . . . . 29.25
Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Co. v Ecuador, PCA Case No 2009-23, Order on
Interim Measures (May 14, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.61, 24.64, 24.168
Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Co. v Ecuador, PCA Case No 2009-23, Order for
Interim Measures (Feb 9, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.104, 24.125
Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Co. v Ecuador, PCA Case No 2009-23, Procedural
Order No 8 (Apr 18, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.144
Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Co. v Ecuador, PCA Case No 2009-23, First Interim
Award on Interim Measures (Jan 25, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.125
Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Co. v Ecuador, PCA Case No 2009-23, Second
Interim Award on Interim Measures (Feb 16, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.146
Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Co. v Ecuador, PCA Case No 2009-23, Third
Interim Award on Jurisdiction & Admissibility (Feb 27, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.37n54
Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Co. v Ecuador, PCA Case No 2009-23, Fourth
Interim Award (Feb 7, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.146
Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Co. v Ecuador, PCA Case No 34877, Interim Award
(Nov 1, 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.37n54
Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Co. v Ecuador, PCA Case No 34877, Final Award
(Aug 31, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.11
Chorzów Factory see Case Concerning German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia & the Factory at
Chorzów (Ger. v Pol.), 1926 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No 7 (May 25, 1926)
Churchill Mining PLC & Planet Mining Pty Ltd v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No
ARB/12/14 & 12/40, Procedural Order No 2 (Feb 5, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.21
ARB/12/14 & 12/40, Procedural Order No 3 (Mar 4, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.101, 24.137
ARB/12/14 & 12/40, Procedural Order No 4 (Mar 4, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . 24.23n20, 24.25n23
ARB/12/14 & 12/40, Procedural Order No 9 (Aug 7, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.78n127, 24.92
ARB/12/14 & 12/40, Procedural Order No 14 (Dec 22, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . 24.56, 24.94n161
Churchill Mining PLC & Planet Mining Pty Ltd v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID
Case No ARB/12/14 & 12/40, Procedural Order No 15 (Jan 12, 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.29
City Oriente Ltd v Republic of Ecuador & Empresa Estatal Petroleos del Ecuador, ICSID Case
No ARB/06/21, Decision on Provisional Measures (Nov 19, 2007). . . . . . . 24.116, 24.119n206,
24.121, 24.134, 24.139, 24.142, 24.149
City Oriente Ltd v Republic of Ecuador & Empresa Estatal Petroleos del Ecuador, ICSID Case
No ARB/06/21, Decision on Revocation of Provisional Measures & Other Procedural
Matters (May 13, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.42
Clayton & Others v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No 2009-04, Procedural
Order No 20 (Jan 5, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.08n14, 12.14, 14.19, 14.24n67, 14.38n118
CME Czech Republic BV v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award
(Sept 13, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.104n59, 4.69n28, 10.115, 14.45, 21.82, 22.61, 29.08, 29.15
xxxiv
Table of Cases
CME Czech Republic BV v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL,, Final Award

(Mar 14, 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.12, 19.12n26, 25.33, 25.42, 25.44n80
CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID
Case No ARB/01/08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.21, 27.38, 27.40, 27.47, 27.48, 27.71
CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/08, Decision
on Jurisdiction (July 17, 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.29n11, 4.66n25, 10.103, 10.103n237,
10.103n240, 14.80, 15.77n123, 19.01
CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/08, Award
(May 12, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.15n14, 15.77, 16.57, 16.63, 16.82,
16.83, 20.54, 20.61, 20.62, 20.65, 20.91,
20.96, 21.11n18, 22.63, 25.48, 29.82
CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/08, Decision
on Stay of Enforcement (Sept 1, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.58n135
CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/08,
Decision on Annulment (Sept 25, 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.51n98
Commerce Group Corp. & San Sebastian Gold Mines Inc. v El Salvador, ICSID
Case No ARB/09/17, Public Hearing (Nov 17, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.142
Commerce Group Corp. & San Sebastian Gold Mines Inc. v El Salvador, ICSID
Case No ARB/09/17, Award (Mar 18, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.43n88, 7.01n1
Commerce Group Corp. & San Sebastian Gold Mines Inc. v El Salvador,
ICSID Case No ARB/09/17, Decision on El Salvador’s Application for Security for Costs
(Sept 20, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.20n12, 26.47
Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija SA & Vivendi Universal SA v Argentine Republic,
ICSID Case No ARB/97/3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.02n1, 27.31, 27.33n68
Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija SA & Vivendi Universal SA v Argentine Republic, ICSID
Case No ARB/97/3, Award (Nov 21, 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.60–15.64, 15.76
ICSID Case No ARB/97/3, Decision on the Challenge to the President of
the Committee (3 Oct 3, 2001). . . . . . . . . . 8.15n15, 9.29, 9.74, 9.85, 9.92–9.95, 9.102, 9.137
Case No ARB/97/3, Decision on Annulment (July 3, 2002) . . . . 14.80, 15.41–15.42, 15.42n69,
15.45, 15.47, 15.53, 15.60, 15.61, 15.70, 15.71, 15.76,
19.30, 27.07, 27.20, 27.44, 27.46–27.47
Case No ARB/97/3, Second Award (Aug 20, 2007) (Vivendi v Argentina II). . . . . . . . 15.15n15,
15.16, 15.47, 20.23, 22.65, 25.04n6, 25.38n68
ICSID Case No ARB/97/3, Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Request for
a Continued Stay of Enforcement of the Award (Nov 4, 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.58n135
Case No ARB/97/3, Second Decision on Annulment (Aug 10, 2010)
(Vivendi v Argentina II). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.24, 27.27–27.28, 27.47, 27.67
Compañía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena SA v Republic of Costa Rica,
ICSID Case No ARB/96/1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.83
Compañía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena SA v Republic of Costa Rica,
ICSID Case No ARB/96/1, Final Award (Feb 17, 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.11
Companie d’Exploitation du Chemin de Fer Transgabonais v Gabonese Republic, ICSID Case
No ARB/04/5, Decision on Stay of Enforcement of the award (Mar 13, 2009). . . . . . 27.58n135
Companie d’Exploitation du Chemin de Fer Transgabonais v Gabonese Republic,
ICSID Case No ARB/04/5, Decision on Annulment (May 11, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . 27.24, 27.28
Company General of the Orinoco Case (France v Venezuela), 10 RIAA 250 (1906) . . . . . . . . . . 15.08
Computer Sciences Corp. v Iran et al. (1986-I) 10 IUSCTR 269. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.42
Concessions des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman (1956) 12 RIAA 155 (France v Greece). . . . . . . . . 14.62
Condorelli (1984-VI) 189 RdC 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.51n174
ConocoPhillips Company et al. v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID
Case No ARB/07/30, Decision on the Proposal to Disqualify L. Yves Fortier,
Q.C. Arbitrator (Feb 27, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.14, 8.17, 8.62
xxxv
Table of Cases
ConocoPhillips Company et al. v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID

Case No ARB/07/30, Decision on the Proposal to Disqualify a Majority of the Tribunal
(May 5, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.17, 8.84, 8.86
Consistency of Certain Danzig Legislative Decrees with the Constitution of the Free City,
Advisory Opinion, 1935 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No 65 (Dec 4, 1935) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.45n73
Consortium Groupement LESI-DIPENTA v République Algérienne Démocratique
et Populaire, ICSID Case No ARB/03/08, Award (Jan 10, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . 11.91, 11.97n169,
11.100n175, 16.46, 16.46n76
Consortium RFCC v Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No ARB/00/6. . . . 6.66n140, 14.88, 15.12,
15.12n9, 15.21n29, 15.50n83, 15.53n92
Consortium RFCC v Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No ARB/00/6,
Award (Dec 22, 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.22, 21.70
Continental Casualty Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/9. . . . . . . . . 27.02n1
Continental Casualty Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/9,
Decision on Jurisdiction (Feb 22, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.66, 30.13
Continental Casualty Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/9,
Award (Sept 5, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.44, 16.83, 20.03, 20.70, 25.49
Continental Casualty Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/9, Decision
by ad hoc Committee on Continental Casualty Company’s preliminary objection to
Argentina’s application for annulment (Oct 23, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.62
Convial Callao SA & CCI-Compañía de Concesiones de Infraestructura SA v Republic of Peru,
ICSID Case No ARB/10/2, Decision on Application for Provisional Measures
(Feb 22, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.25, 24.57
Corfu Channel (UK v Albania) (Damages) [1949] ICJ Rep. 243. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.01n1
Corn Products International Inc v Mexico, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/04/01. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.124
Corn Products International Inc v Mexico, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/04/01, Decision on
Responsibility (Jan 15, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.30, 21.36, 21.69
Corona Materials LLC v Dominican Republic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.10n26
Cortec Mining Kenya Ltd, Cortec (Pty) Ltd & Stirling Capital Ltd v Kenya. . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.10n26
The Republic of Croatia v MOL Hungarian Oil & Gas Plc, PCA Case No 2014-15,
Final Award (Dec 23, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.60, 18.65
Crystallex International Co. v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID
Case No ARB (AF)/11/2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.10n26
Crystallex International Co. v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID
Case No ARB (AF)/11/2, Award (Apr 4, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.49, 19.20n41, 19.30n52,
20.50, 20.62, 20.62n136, 20.96, 25.19,
25.29n50, 25.30, 25.61, 25.66
Daimler Financial Services AG v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/05/1, Award (Aug
22, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.35n85, 23.47n102, 23.56
Daimler Financial Services AG v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/05/1,
Decision on Annulment (Jan 7, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.38
Dan Cake (Portugal) SA v Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/12/9, Decision
on Jurisdiction & Liability (Aug 24, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.38
Dawood Rawat v Republic of Mauritius (UNCITRAL), PCA Case 2016-20, Order Regarding
Claimant’s & Respondent’s Requests for Interim Measures (Jan 11, 2017). . . . 26.47, 26.59n158
Jan de Nul NV & Dredging International NV v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID
Case No ARB/04/13, Decision on Jurisdiction (June 16, 2006). . . . . . . . 11.73n119, 11.74n121,
11.77n129, 11.84n140, 11.90n153, 13.37,
13.41, 13.44, 14.30n89, 14.47, 14.48, 14.50, 14.51,
14.51n173, 14.53, 14.54, 15.64
Jan de Nul NV & Dredging International NV v Arab Republic of Egypt,
ICSID Case No ARB/04/13, Award (Nov 6, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.41, 20.89
Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda, Provisional Measures, Order
(July 10, 2002), ICJ Rep. 2002,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.96n165
Denunciation of the Treaty of 2 November 1865 between China & Belgium see Sino Belgian
Treaty Case, 1927 P.C.I.J. Series A, No 8, p. 7, Order (Feb 21, 1927)
xxxvi
Table of Cases
Desert Line Projects LLC v Republic of Yemen, ICSID Case No ARB/05/17, Award (Feb 6,
2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.100n175, 13.27, 14.75,
17.19n59, 18.47, 18.47n81, 25.09
Detroit International Bridge Company v Government of Canada, NAFTA/UNCITRAL,
Procedural Order No 8 (May 12, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.132
Deutsche Bank AG v Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No ARB/09/2,
Award (Oct 23, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.74n121, 11.83, 11.84n140, 11.86, 11.88n148,
11.91n155, 11.113, 14.28, 14.30n101, 15.50n85
Deutsche Bank AG v Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID
Case No ARB/09/2, Award (Oct 31, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.26, 22.68, 22.106
Deutsche Bank AG v Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No ARB/09/2,
Dissenting Opinion of Makhdoom Ali Khan (Oct 31, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.33n73
Dredging International NV v Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/04/13 Award (Nov 6, 2008). . . . 14.30n89
Duke Energy Electroquil Partners & Electroquil SA v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID
Case No ARB/04/19, Award (Aug 18, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.59, 20.26, 25.29n50
Duke Energy International Peru Investments No 1 Ltd v Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No
ARB/03/28, Award (Aug 18, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.74n246
Duke Energy International Peru Investments No 1 Ltd v Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No
ARB/03/28, Decision on Stay of Enforcement (not public) (June 23, 2009). . . . . . . . 27.58n135
E-Systems, Rockwell International Systems Inc. & Islamic Republic of Iran, Ministry of
Defence, Interim Award No 20-430-1 (June 6, 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.81
E-systems v Islamic Republic of Iran & Bank Melli (Feb 4, 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.60n87
ECE Projektmanagement International GmbH & Kommanditgesellschaft PANTA
Achtundsechzigste Grundstücksgesellschaft mbH & Co v Czech Republic,
PCA Case No 2010-5, Award, (Sept 19, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.51
EDF International SA (France) v Republic of Hungary, UNCITRAL Award (Dec 4, 2014). . . . 29.43
EDF International SA SAUR International SA & Leon Participaciones Argentinas SA v
Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/23, Challenge Decision Regarding Professor
Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler (June 25, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.15n15
Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/23, Award (June 11, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.49
Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/23, Decision on Stay of Enforcement (July
18, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.58n135
Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/23, Decision on Annulment
(Feb 5, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.24, 27.26–27.29, 27.38
EDF (Services) Ltd v Romania, ICSID Case No ARB/05/13, Award (Oct 8, 2009). . . . . . . 14.22n55,
14.30n101, 14.45, 18.57, 18.59,
18.108, 18.110, 20.84, 25.52n99, 26.35
EDF (Services) Ltd v Romania, ICSID Case No ARB/05/13, Dissenting
Opinion (Oct 8, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.84
El Paso Energy International Co. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/15 . . . 25.11, 25.24
El Paso Energy International Co. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/15, Decision
on Jurisdiction (Apr 27, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.66n101, 16.36, 16.37, 16.55
El Paso Energy International Co. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/15, Award
(Oct 31, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.05n5, 20.46, 20.59, 20.60, 20.82n174,
20.88, 22.69, 22.105, 22.118
El Paso Energy International Co. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/15,
Decision on Annulment (Sept 22, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.31, 27.40, 27.44n107
Electrabel SA v Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/07/19, Decision on
Jurisdiction, Applicable Law & Liability (Nov 30, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.33, 2.34, 2.45, 9.31,
9.104, 9.104n176, 9.105, 11.74n121, 14.30,
14.30n103, 14.45, 22.72
Electrabel SA v Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/07/19,
Award (Nov 25, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.30n67, 20.57
Electricity Company of Sofia & Bulgaria, Pleadings, PCIJ, Series C, No 88 (1939) 60 . . . . 14.63n221
xxxvii
Table of Cases
Electricity Company of Sofia & Bulgaria (Belgium v Bulgaria), Judgment (Dec 5, 1939), PCIJ
series A/B, No 79, 199. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.47
Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (US v Italy), ICJ Judgment (July 20, 1989), ICJ Rep. (1989) 15.
4.85, 10.32, 14.64, 20.96
Eli Lilly & Co. v Government of Canada, Case No UNCT/14/1, Procedural Order No 4 (Feb
23, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.76, 9.103n174, 9.127n211
Elsamex, SA v Republic of Honduras, ICSID Case No ARB/09/4, Award
(Nov 16, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.19n59
Elsamex, SA v Republic of Honduras, ICSID Case No ARB/09/4, Decision on
Elsamex S.A.’s Preliminary Objections (Jan 7, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.30
Elsamex, SA v Republic of Honduras, ICSID Case No ARB/09/4, Decision on Stay of
Enforcement (Jan 7, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.58n135
Emmis International Holding BV, Emmis Radio Operating BV & MEM Magyar Electronic
Media Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/12/2, Decision
on Objection under ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5) (Mar 11, 2013). . . . . 7.29n67, 12.18–12.19,
12.22, 12.27, 13.09, 13.58
Empresas Lucchetti SA & Lucchetti Peru SA v Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No ARB/03/4,
Award (Feb 7, 2005), 12 ICSID Rep. 219. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.26n70
EnCana Corporation v Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No UN3481, UNCITRAL (Canada/
Ecuador BIT). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.38, 14.53n181
EnCana Corporation v Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No UN3481, UNCITRAL
(Canada/Ecuador BIT), Award (Feb 3, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.88
EnCana Corporation v Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No UN3481, UNCITRAL
(Canada/Ecuador BIT), Interim Award, Request for Interim Measures of
Protection (Jan 31, 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.103, 24.123
Energoalians TOB v Republic of Moldova, Ad Hoc UNCITRAL Award
(Oct 23, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.13, 2.15n23, 2.20n30, 11.61
Enkev Beheer BV v Republic of Poland, PCA Case No 2013-01, First Partial
Award (Apr 29, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.61
Enron Corp. & Ponderosa Assets LP v Argentine Republic, ICSID
Case No ARB/01/3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.02n1, 27.38, 27.43, 27.48
Enron Corp. & Ponderosa Assets LP v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/3,
Decision on Jurisdiction (Jan 14, 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.51n79, 10.111, 15.77
Enron Corp. & Ponderosa Assets LP v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/3, Award
(May 22, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.15n14, 16.64, 20.22, 20.56, 20.75, 21.78
Enron Corp. & Ponderosa Assets LP v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/3,
Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Request for a Continued State
of Enforcement of the Award (Oct 7, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.57n134
Enron Corp. & Ponderosa Assets LP v Argentine Republic, ICSID
Case No ARB/01/3, Decision on Annulment (July 30, 2010) . . . . . . . . . 25.51n98, 27.22, 27.68
Ethyl Corp v Canada (Jurisdiction) (1999) 38 I.L.M. 708. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.65n227
Eudoro Armando Olguín v Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case No ARB/98/5, Decision on
Jurisdiction (Aug 8, 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.77n123
Eudoro Armando Olguín v Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case No ARB/98/5,
Award (July 26, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.11
Eureko BV v Republic of Poland, Ad Hoc Partial Award (Aug 19, 2005). . . . . . . 11.42, 14.65, 14.83,
15.12n9, 15.17, 15.64, 16.17, 16.41, 16.41n61,
16.51, 16.60, 16.64
EuroGas Inc. & Belmont Resources Inc. v Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/14/14,
Procedural Order No 2 (Apr 16, 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.45, 9.46
EuroGas Inc. & Belmont Resources Inc. v Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/14/14,
Procedural Order No 3 (June 23, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.54n71, 24.87, 26.10n26
European American Investment Bank AG v Slovak Republic, PCA Case No 2010-17, Award on
Jurisdiction (Oct 22, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.56, 23.101
European American Investment Bank AG v Slovak Republic, PCA Case No 2010-17, Second
Award on Jurisdiction (June 4, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.16
xxxviii
Table of Cases
Fábrica de Vidrios Los Andes CA & Owens-Illinois de Venezuela CA v Venezuela, ICSID Case
No ARB/12/21, Notice of Arbitration (Aug 10, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.116
Fábrica de Vidrios Los Andes CA & Owens-Illinois de Venezuela CA v Venezuela,
ICSID Case No ARB/12/21, Reasoned Decision on the Proposal to Disqualify L. Yves
Fortier, Q.C., Arbitrator (Mar 28, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.14n10, 8.111, 8.114
“Factory at Chorzów” see Case Concerning German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia & the
Factory at Chorzów (Ger. v Pol.), 1926 PCIJ (ser. A) No 7 (May 25, 1926)
Saba Fakes v Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/07/20, Award (July 14, 2010). . . . . 11.56n84,
11.71, 11.91n155, 11.94n165, 11.97,
11.100n175, 11.100n177, 18.20n25
Fedax NV v Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/96/3,
Award (Mar 9, 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.03, 16.03n5
Fedax NV v Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/96/3, Decision of the Tribunal on
Objections to Jurisdiction (July 11, 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.19, 11.24, 11.29, 11.52,
11.63, 11.65, 11.74, 11.74n122, 11.112n195
Fedders Corp. v Loristan Refrigeration Industries et al. (1986-IV) 13 IUSCTR 97 . . . . . . . . . . . 14.42
Marvin Ray Feldman Karpa v United Mexican States, Case No ARB (AF)/99/1 . . . . . . . . . . . 27.02n1
Marvin Ray Feldman Karpa v United Mexican States, Case No ARB (AF)/99/1, Procedural
Order No 2 concerning request for provisional measures & the schedule of the
proceeding (May 3, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.28
Marvin Ray Feldman Karpa v United Mexican States, Case No ARB (AF)/99/1, Award (Dec 16,
2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.47n106, 22.58, 22.87, 22.113, 29.08, 29.18, 29.38
Feldman v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/99/1, Award
(Dec 16, 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.48–21.51, 21.55, 21.62, 21.74, 21.75,
21.87, 21.90, 21.91, 25.29
Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/02/1, Award
(Redacted) (July 17, 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.20n31, 14.19
Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Spain v Canada), 1998 ICJ 432, 1998 WL 1797317. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.32
Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (UK v Iceland), 1972 ICJ 12 (Interim Protection Order of 17
August) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.54, 24.141n246
Flemingo Duty Free Shop Private Ltd v Poland, Award (Aug 12, 2016). . . . . 14.07, 14.19, 14.42n140
Flexi-Van Leasing, Inc. v Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
Award No 259-36-1 (Oct 13, 1986), 12 IUSCTR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.10n8
Flughafen Zürich y Gestión e Ingeniería IDC SA v Bolivarian Republic
of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/10/19, Award (Nov 18, 2014) . . . . . . . 6.66n140, 19.26n47
Fluor Corporation & Islamic Republic of Iran, Interim Award No I62-333-1
(Aug 6, 1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.82n135
Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation & the Air Force of the Islamic
Republic of Iran, Interim Award No 39-159-3 (June 4, 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.103n176
Piero Foresti, Laura de Carli and Others v Republic of South Africa, ICSID Case No. ARB
(AF)/07/1, Letter from the Tribunal to the Legal Resources Centre & the International
Commission of Jurists (Oct 5, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.106
Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v The Republic of the Philippines, ICSID
Case No ARB/03/25 (Fraport I). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.50–4.51, 4.66n25
Case No ARB/03/25 (Fraport I), Award (Aug 16, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.63n96,
18.19n20, 18.30, 18.30n41, 18.46–18.48, 18.54, 18.59
Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v The Republic of the Philippines,
ICSID Case No ARB/03/25 (Fraport I), Decision on Annulment
(Dec 23, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.30n41,27.22, 27.54
Case No ARB/11/12 (Fraport II), Award (Dec 10, 2014). . . . . . 17.57n177, 18.19n20, 18.30n41
Frontier Petroleum Services Ltd v Czech Republic, PCA Final Award
(Nov 12, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.37n54, 11.37n55, 14.43n148, 20.89n195
Ron Fuchs v Republic of Georgia, ICSID Case No ARB/07/15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.02n4, 27.56
Ron Fuchs v Republic of Georgia, ICSID Case No ARB/07/15, Decision
on Stay of Enforcement (Nov 12, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.58n135
xxxix
Table of Cases
Funnekotter v Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No ARB/05/6, Award (Apr 22, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.38
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), Judgment (Sept 25, 1997) (1997) ICJ
Reports, 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.44n80
Gabriel Resources Ltd & Gabriel Resources (Jersey) Ltd v Romania ICSID
Case No ARB/15/31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.150, 26.10n26
GAMI Investments Inc. v United Mexican States, Final Award
(Nov 15, 2004) [2005] 44 ILM 545. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.29n12, 10.105, 14.04, 14.24n66,
21.52, 21.55, 21.64
Garanti Koza LLP v Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No ARB/11/20, Decision on
Jurisdiction of 3 July 2013. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.97
Gas Natural SDG SA v Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No ARB/03/10, Decision on
Jurisdiction (June 17, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.108, 10.108n248
GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/08/16
Award (Mar 31, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.39, 22.19
Gemplus SA, SLP SA & Gemplus Industrial SA de CV v United Mexican States, ICSID Case
No ARB (AF)/04/3 & ARB (AF)/04/4, Award (June 16, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.17n22, 22.67,
25.29n50, 26.35, 26.41n92
Generation Ukraine, Inc. v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/00/9, Award
(Sept 16, 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.66n25, 10.81, 11.46n71, 14.80n256, 14.87,
14.87n270, 15.35–15.36, 22.47
Genin, Eastern Credit Ltd Inc. & AS Baltoil v Estonia, ICSID Case No ARB/99/2,
Award (June 25, 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.34n109, 14.41, 15.77n123, 15.78
German Settlers in Poland, Advisory Opinion, 1923 PCIJ (ser. B) No 6
(Sept 10, 1923) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.45n73
Glamis Gold, Ltd v United States of America, NAFTA/UNCITRAL, Procedural Order No 2
(May 31, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.08n13, 12.13n25, 12.21, 12.25
Glamis Gold, Ltd v United States of America, NAFTA/UNCITRAL, Decision on Application
& Submission by Quechan Indian Nation (Sept 16, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.70–9.71, 9.130
Glamis Gold, Ltd v United States of America, NAFTA/UNCITRAL, Award
(June 8, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.32n69, 20.15, 20.66
Global Trading Resource Corp. & Globex International Inc. v Ukraine, ICSID
Case No ARB/09/11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.13n41
Global Trading Resource Corp. & Globex International Inc. v Ukraine, ICSID
Case No ARB/09/11, Award (Dec 1, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.29, 11.43n67
Antoine Goetz et al. v Republic of Burundi I, ICSID Case No ARB/95/03,
Award (Feb 10, 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.51n79, 19.08
Antoine Goetz et al. v Republic of Burundi II, ICSID Case No ARB/01/2,
Award (June 21, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . 17.11, 17.14–17.15, 17.29, 17.40, 17.42, 17.52, 25.42n75
Gold Reserve Inc. v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/09/1 . . . . . . . 10.73
Gold Reserve Inc. v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/09/1, Award
(Sept 22, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.64n141, 25.07n10, 25.19, 25.30,
25.55, 25.66, 29.40
Grand River Enter. Six Nations Ltd et al. v United States, NAFTA/UNCITRAL,
Transcripts of the Hearing on Jurisdiction (Mar 23-25, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.135n216, 11.107
Grand River Enter. Six Nations Ltd et al. v United States, NAFTA/UNCITRAL,
Decision on Jurisdiction (July 20, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.29
Grynberg (Rachel, Stephen & Miriam) & RSM Production Corporation v Grenada, ICSID
Case No ARB/10/6, Decision on Respondent’s Application for Security
for Costs (Oct 14, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.46n109
Grynberg (Rachel, Stephen & Miriam) & RSM Production Corporation v Grenada, ICSID
Case No ARB/10/6, Award (Dec 10, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.29
Guaracachi America Inc. & Rurelec PLC v Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA
Case No 2011–17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.10n26
Guaracachi America Inc. & Rurelec PLC v Plurinational State of Bolivia,
PCA Case No 2011–17, Procedural Order No 13 (Feb 21, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.54
Guaracachi America Inc. & Rurelec PLC v Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No
2011–17, Procedural Order No 14 (Mar 11, 2013). . . . . . . . 24.90, 24.110, 26.45, 26.47, 26.49
xl
Table of Cases
Guinea-Bissau v Senegal, ICJ Arbitral Award of July 31, 1989. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.20n14

Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd & others v Republic of Yemen, ICC Arbitration No
19299/MCP, Award (July 10, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.26
Gustav FW Hamester GmbH & Co KG v Republic of Ghana, ICSID
Case No ARB/07/24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.07, 14.22
Gustav FW Hamester GmbH & Co KG v Republic of Ghana, ICSID Case No ARB/07/24,
Award (June 18, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.62–13.63, 14.45, 14.47, 14.49,
14.50, 17.52, 18.19n20, 18.23, 26.49
Hanocal Holding BV & IPIC International BV v Republic of Korea, ICSID Case No ARB/15/
17, Order of the Tribunal discontinuing the proceedings (Oct 5, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . 10.95n217
Helnan International Hotels AS v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/05/19,
Decision on Jurisdiction (Oct 17, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.93n162, 14.41, 14.55n191
Helnan International Hotels AS v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/05/19, Award
(July 3, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.35
Helnan International Hotels AS v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/05/19,
Decision on Annulment (June 14, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.22
Hesham TM Al-Warraq v Republic of Indonesia, UNCITRAL, Award on Respondent’s
Preliminary Objections to Jurisdiction & Admissibility of the Claims
(June 21, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.37–18.39, 24.61, 24.89, 26.46, 26.47
Hesham TM Al-Warraq v Republic of Indonesia, UNCITRAL, Award (Dec 1, 2014). . . . . . . . . 20.37
Hesham TM Al-Warraq v Republic of Indonesia, UNCITRAL, Final Award
(Dec 15, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.06, 17.17–17.18, 17.88, 18.35–18.36,
18.98, 23.49
Himpurna California Energy Ltd v PT (Persero) Perusahaan Listruik Negara (Indonesia), Final
Award (May 4, 1999), 25 YB Comm. Arb. 13 (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.04n6, 25.45n84
Hochtief AG v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/31, Decision
on Jurisdiction (Oct 24, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.99, 23.104
Hoffland Honey v NIOC, Award (Jan 26, 1983), 2 IUSCTR 41. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.29n53
Holiday Inns SA & Others v Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No ARB/72/1. . . . . . . . . . . 9.21n33
Holiday Inns SA & Others v Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No ARB/72/1, Order (July 2,
1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.48, 24.74, 24.94
Holiday Inns SA & Others v Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No ARB/72/1,
Decision on Jurisdiction (May 12, 1974). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.24n25
Joseph Houben v Burundi, ICSID Case No ARB/13/7, Award (Jan 12, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.40
Hrvatska Elektroprivreda DD v Republic of Slovenia, ICSID Case No ARB/05/24,
Decision on the treaty interpretation issue (June 12, 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.95n217
Hulley Enterprises Ltd (Cyprus) v Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No AA 226,
Interim Award on Jurisdiction & Admissibility (Nov 30, 2009)
(Yukos Interim Award). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.15, 2.20, 2.25, 2.25n35, 2.29, 2.44, 2.58, 2.84,
2.88, 11.60, 11.92n159, 11.99
Hulley Enterprises Ltd (Cyprus) v Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No AA 226,
Final Award (July 18, 2014). . . . . . . 8.100–8.103, 10.82n185, 12.29, 14.30n101, 14.43, 14.67,
18.27n39, 18.28, 25.41n73, 29.27
Hussein Nuaman Soufraki v United Arab Emirates, ICSID Case No ARB/02/7, Decision on
Jurisdiction (July 7, 2004). . . . . 10.13, 10.16, 10.16n23, 10.16n24, 10.16n25, 10.16n27, 10.17
Hussein Nuaman Soufraki v United Arab Emirates, ICSID Case No ARB/02/7, Decision on
Annulment (June 5, 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.36, 13.55, 27.31, 27.38, 27.41, 27.47
Hydro S.r.l. & Others v Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No ARB/15/28, Order on
Provisional Measures (Mar 3, 2016), revoked & modified by a Decision
of September 1, 2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.54n70, 24.57
Iberdrola SA & Iberdrola Energía SAU v Plurinational State of Bolivia,
PCA Case No 2015-05, Procedural Order (Aug 7, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.37
İçkale İnşaat Ltd Şirketi v Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No ARB/10/24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.02n1
İçkale İnşaat Ltd Şirketi v Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No ARB/10/2, Decision on
Claimant’s Proposal to Disqualify Professor Phillipe Sands (July 11, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.14
İçkale İnşaat Ltd Şirketi v Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No ARB/10/2, Award
(Mar 8, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.25n26, 23.49n110
xli
Table of Cases
ICS Inspection & Control Services Ltd v Argentine Republic, PCA Case No 2010-9, Award on
Jurisdiction (Feb 10, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.40, 23.35n85, 23.95, 23.104
Impregilo S.p.A. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.69
Impregilo S.p.A. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/17, Award
(June 21, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.17, 20.57, 20.89, 20.90n198
Impregilo S.p.A. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/17, Decision on Annulment
(Jan 24, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.31, 27.40
Impregilo S.p.A. v Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No ARB/03/3, Decision on
Jurisdiction (Apr 22, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.42, 13.52, 14.30n95, 14.51n172,
14.90, 15.12, 15.12n10, 15.34, 15.42, 15.50n83, 15.53, 16.70, 17.26n70
Inceysa Vallisoletana SL v Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No ARB/03/26,
Award (Aug 2, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.100n176, 18.19n20, 18.25
Industria Nacional de Alimentos SA & Indalsa Perú SA v Republic of Peru ICSID
Case No ARB/03/4, Decision of the Ad hoc Committee on Annulment
(Sept 5, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.34
Industria Nacional de Alimentos SA & Indalsa Perú SA v Republic of Peru ICSID
Case No ARB/03/4, Dissenting Opinion Attached to Decision on Annulment. . . . . . . . . . 27.34
Infinito Gold Ltd v Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No ARB/14/5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.10n26
Infinito Gold Ltd v Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No ARB/14/5, Procedural Order No 2
(June 1, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.31, 9.103, 9.144
Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH & Others v Ukraine,
ICSID Case No ARB/08/8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.21
Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH & Others v Ukraine,
ICSID Case No ARB/08/8, Decision on Jurisdiction (Mar 8, 2010). . . . . . . . . 11.42, 18.47n81
Interhandel (Switzerland v U.S.), Judgment (Mar 21, 1959) [1959] ICJ Rep. 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.22
International Fisheries (1931), 4 RIAA 631 (US-Mexico General Claims Commission). . . . . . . 14.63
International Technical Products Corp v Iran et al. (1985-II) 9 IUSCTR 206. . . . . 14.51n175, 14.57
International Thunderbird Gaming Corp. v Mexico, UNCITRAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.135n216
International Thunderbird Gaming Corp. v Mexico, UNCITRAL, Award
(Jan 26, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.76, 22.114
International Thunderbird Gaming Corp. v Mexico, UNCITRAL, Procedural
Order No 4 (Dec 24, 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.25, 13.46n95
International Thunderbird Gaming Corp. v Mexico, UNCITRAL, Separate
Opinion (Dissent in Part) by Professor Thomas Wälde (Jan 26, 2006). . . . . . 20.61, 20.64, 20.80
Intertrade Holding GmbH v Czech Republic, PCA Case No 2009-12,
Final Award (May 29, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.47, 14.51
Invesmart v Czech Republic, Ad Hoc UNCITRAL Award (June 26, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.22
Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America, Award (Dec 28, 1998), IUSCTR Cases
A15(IV). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.26n43
Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America, Case No B1 (Counterclaim), Interlocutory
Award (Sept 9, 2004), ITL No 83-B1-FT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.60n184, 17.76, 17.77n228
Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America, IUSCTR, Case No A/2,
Decision (Jan 13, 1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.60n184
Islamic Republic of Iran v United States America (Case No A27), (1998) 34 IUSCTR 39. . . . . . 14.62
Italba Corporation v Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No ARB/16/9, Decision on
Claimant’s Application for Provisional Measures & Temporary Relief (Feb 15, 2017) . . . . . 24.55
Italian Republic v Republic of Cuba, Ad-Hoc, Final Award (Jan 15, 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.38
Itera International Energy LLC & Itera Group NV v Georgia, ICSID Case No ARB/08/7,
Decision on Admissibility of Ancillary Claims (Dec 4, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.28n83
Iurii Bogdanov, Agurdino-Invest Ltd & Agurdino-Chimia JSC v Moldova, SCC
Award (Sept 22, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.42n74
JKX Oil & Gas plc v Ukraine, PCA Case No 2015-11, Award (Feb 6, 2017). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.79
Joy Mining Machinery Ltd v Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/03/11, Award
(Aug 6, 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.21n23, 11.43n67, 11.55, 11.77n131,
11.93n162, 14.65, 15.48, 15.50n83,
15.68, 16.21, 16.35, 16.35n47
xlii
Table of Cases
Kaiser Bauxite Company v Jamaica, ICSID Case No ARB/74/3, Decision on Jurisdiction (July
6, 1975). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.24n25,19.09n15
Ioannis Kardassopoulos v Republic of Georgia, ICSID Case No ARB/05/18. . . . . 26.10n26, 27.02n4,
27.56, 27.57
Ioannis Kardassopoulos v Republic of Georgia, ICSID Case No ARB/05/18, Decision on
Jurisdiction (July 6, 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.90n153, 28.147n225
Ioannis Kardassopoulos v Republic of Georgia, ICSID Case No ARB/05/18, Award
(Mar 3, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.44, 2.64, 2.68, 2.74, 25.38n68, 26.36
Khan Resources Inc., Khan Resources BV, CAUC Holding Company Ltd v Government of
Mongolia & MonAtom LLC, PCA Case No 2011-09, Decision on Jurisdiction
(July 25, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.25n35, 2.28, 2.39, 2.57, 10.83, 16.67
Khan Resources Inc., Khan Resources BV, CAUC Holding Company Ltd v Government of
Mongolia & MonAtom LLC, PCA Case No 2011-09, Award (Mar 2, 2015). . . . . . 26.40, 26.61
Kılıç İnşaat İthalat İhracat Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No
ARB/10/1, Award (July 2, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.47, 23.107
Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH & Others v Republic of Cameroon, ICSID Case No ARB/
81/2, Award (Oct 21, 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.67, 17.07–17.09, 17.33, 27.09
Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH & Others v Republic of Cameroon, ICSID Case No ARB/
81/2, Decision on Annulment (May 3, 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.18n38, 27.09n16, 27.18,
27.38, 27.39, 27.43, 27.44n107, 27.48
Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH & Others v Republic of Cameroon: Resubmitted Case,
Second Decision on Annulment (May 17, 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.19
KT Asia Investment Group B.v v Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID
Case No ARB/09/8, Award (Oct 17, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.56n84, 11.73, 11.73n119,
11.79n134, 11.83, 11.85, 11.88n148, 11.91n155,
11.92, 11.92n160
The Government of the State of Kuwait & the American Independent Oil Co.,
Ad-Hoc, Final Award (Mar 24, 1982), 21 I.L.M. 976, 1051 (1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.39n61
LaGrand Case (Germany v United States), Judgment (June 27, 2001), ICJ Rep.
[2001] 466. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.47, 24.149n263
Lalanne & Ledour (1903), 10 RIAA 17 (France-Mexico Commission) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.59n202
Lanco International Inc. v Republic of Argentina, Preliminary Decision on
Jurisdiction (Dec 8, 1998), 40 ILM 457 (2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.102, 15.59, 15.75
Lao Holdings NV v Lao People’s Democratic Republic, ICSID Case No ARB
(AF)/12/6, Decision on Jurisdiction (Feb 21, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.76n164, 13.28, 14.27n77
Lao Holdings NV v Lao People’s Democratic Republic, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/12/6, Ruling
on Motion to Amend the Provisional Measures Order (May 30, 2014) . . . . . . . . 24.09n6, 24.57
Ronald S. Lauder v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award (Sept 3, 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.104,
4.69n28, 10.115, 10.127,
14.45, 15.77n122, 21.80–21.82, 22.93
Joseph C. Lemire v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/06/18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.92n159, 25.09–25.10
Joseph C. Lemire v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/06/18, Decision on
Jurisdiction & Liability (Jan 14, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.63n96
Joseph C. Lemire v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/06/18, Dissenting Opinion of Arbitrator
Dr. Jürgen Voss (March 28, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.28n66, 20.30, 20.30n67, 20.49
Joseph C. Lemire v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/06/18, Award (May 28, 2011) . . . . . 25.11, 25.30
Joseph C. Lemire v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/06/18, Decision on Stay
of Enforcement (Feb 14, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.58n135
LESI S.p.A. & ASTALDI S.p.A. v République Algérienne Démocratique et Populaire, ICSID
Case No ARB/05/3, Merits (July 26, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.30n91, 14.35n110,
14.41, 14.55, 14.86
LESI S.p.A. & ASTALDI S.p.A. v République Algérienne Démocratique et Populaire, ICSID
Case No ARB/05/3, Award (Nov 12, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.82, 26.35
Liberian Eastern Timber Corporation v Republic of Liberia, ICSID Case No. ARB/83/2, Award
(Mar 31, 1986), 2 ICSID Rep. 343. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.77
LG&E Energy Corp, LG&E Capital Corp & LG&E Int’l Inc v Argentine Republic, ICSID
Case No ARB/02/1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.02n1
xliii
Table of Cases
Case No ARB/02/1, Decision on Jurisdiction (Apr 30, 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.12
LG&E Energy Corp, LG&E Capital Corp & LG&E Int’l Inc v Argentine Republic,
ICSID Case No ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability (Oct 3, 2006). . . . . 1.53n31, 3.44, 15.15n14,
16.43, 16.65, 16.83, 19.24, 20.55, 20.74,
20.93, 21.11n20, 21.78, 22.77, 22.103
Case No ARB/02/1, Award (July 25, 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.11, 25.29n53, 25.30, 25.49
Libyan American Oil Company (LIAMCO) v The Libyan Arab Republic, Mahmassani,
Sole Arbitrator (Apr 12, 1977), 62 ILR 141. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.32
Libananco Holdings Co. Ltd v Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/06/8, Decision on
Preliminary Issues (June 23, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.20n12, 24.62, 26.47, 26.49
Libananco Holdings Co. Ltd v Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/06/8, Procedural
Order (Dec 17, 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.26
Libananco Holdings Co. Ltd v Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/06/8,
Award (Sept 2, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.29, 13.65
Libananco Holdings Co. Ltd v Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/06/8, Decision on
Applicant’s Request for a Continued Stay of Enforcement of the Award
(May 7, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.57, 27.60
Liberian Eastern Timber Corporation v Liberia, ICSID Case No ARB/83/2 Award
(Mar 31, 1986), 2 ICSID Rep (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.24n25
Liman Caspian Oil BV & NCL Dutch Investment BV v Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case
No ARB/07/14, Excerpts of the Award (June 22, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.28, 2.34
Lion Mexico Consolidated LP v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/15/
2, Decision on Respondent’s Preliminary Objection Under Art. 45(6) of the ICSID
Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rules (Dec 12, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.29n67
Loewen Group Inc. & Raymond L. Loewen v United States of America, ARB (AF)/98/3 . . . . 27.02n1
Loewen Group Inc. & Raymond L. Loewen v United States of America, ARB (AF)/98/3,
Decision on Hearing of Respondent’s Objection to Competence & Jurisdiction
(Jan 5, 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.16
Loewen Group Inc. & Raymond L. Loewen v United States of America, ARB (AF)/98/3, Final
Award (June 26, 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.35, 20.41n93, 20.49n111, 21.27, 21.68
Lotus Case (Series A-N 10), PCIJ Judgment (Sept 7, 1927). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.22, 30.25
Lundin Tunisia v Tunisian Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/12/30 Award
(Dec 22, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.56n85
M/V ‘SAIGA’ (No 2) Case (Saint Vincent & the Grenadines v Guinea)
(Judgment of July 1, 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.01n1
M/V ‘Virginia G’ (No, 19) Case (Panama v Guinea-Bissau)
(Judgment of April 14, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.01n1
Emilio Agustín Maffezini v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No Arb/97/7, Decision of the
Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (Oct 28, 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.26n70
Emilio Agustín Maffezini v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No Arb/97/7, Decision on Request
for Provisional Measures (Oct 28, 1999) . . . . . . . . . 24.22, 24.38, 24.87, 24.92, 24.115, 24.149
Emilio Agustín Maffezini v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No Arb/97/7,
Procedural Order No 2 (Oct 28, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.47n112
Emilio Agustín Maffezini v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No Arb/97/7, Decision on
Jurisdiction (Jan 25, 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.47, 13.39, 14.18n43,
14.27n76, 14.42, 23.52, 23.57–23.61, 23.62, 23.64,
23.67–23.68, 23.81, 23.88, 23.116
Malaysian Historical Salvors SDN, BHD v Government of Malaysia, ICSID
Case No ARB/05/10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.66n25
Malaysian Historical Salvors SDN, BHD v Government of Malaysia, ICSID
Case No ARB/05/10, Award on Jurisdiction (17 May 17, 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.66n25, 11.21,
11.86n143, 11.87, 11.88n148, 13.38
Malaysian Historical Salvors SDN, BHD v Government of Malaysia, ICSID Case No ARB/05/
10, Decision on the Application for Annulment (Apr 16, 2009) . . . . . . 11.81n135, 27.35, 27.42
xliv
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
“For both!”
Just for a moment Mary’s feelings nearly proved too much for
her. Having come to despair of Bridport House, there had been no
reason to hope for this sudden change of front. She simply couldn’t
fathom it. That was also true of Milly. And as the significance of the
whole thing rushed upon that imperious creature, she turned to Mary
in the manner of Helen, the Spartan Queen. “A last word to you,
Miss Lawrence!” Her voice trembled with excitement. “If you do
anything idiotic, I’ll never speak to you again. And that’s official!”
V
As the crow flies, it is just nine minutes from Broad Place to
Bridport House. Therefore they had time to burn. And as it was such
a perfect day for motoring, it was a day equally well adapted for
sitting under the trees in the Park.
Force majeure was applied so vigorously by Mrs. Wren, with
timely aid from the Tenderfoot, that Mary was not given half a chance
to jib at this new and amazing turn of fortune’s shuttle. She must
wear her new hat with the roses—Mrs. Wren. She must wear
Raquin’s biscuit-colored masterpiece—Mr. Dinneford. Her diamond
earrings thought Mrs. Wren. Mr. Dinneford thought her old-fashioned
seed pearl. There was never really any question of her going to
luncheon at Bridport House at 1.30. Her friends and counselors did
not even allow it to arise. The only thing that need trouble her was
how she looked when she got there.
En route she made a picture of immense distinction beyond a
doubt. Whether it was the hat with the roses, or the sunshine of July,
or the dress of simple muslin, which on second thoughts seemed
more in keeping with the occasion than the Raquin masterpiece, and
in the opinion of Mrs. Wren had the further merit “that it gave her
eyes a chance,” or her favorite earrings which Aunt Harriet had given
her as a little girl; or the fact that Jack walked beside her, and that
Happiness is still the greatest of Court painters, who shall say?—but
in the course of a pilgrimage from Albert Gate to the Marble Arch
and half way back again, she certainly attracted more than her share
of the public notice. In fact, with her fine height and her lithe grace
she actually provoked a hook-nosed, hard-featured dame in a sort of
high-hung barouche to turn in the most deliberate manner and look
at her. Or it may have been because the Tenderfoot in passing had
raised a reluctant, semi-ironical hat.
“Aunt Charlotte,” said he.
“I hope Aunt Charlotte is not as disagreeable as she looks,” was
Mary’s thought, but doubtless remembering in the nick of time
Talleyrand’s famous maxim, she merely said, “What a clever face!”
“Is it?” said Jack, unconcernedly. But his mind was on other
things, perhaps.
As a matter of fact, it was on other things.
“Let’s sit here five minutes,” he said, as they came to a couple of
vacant chairs. “Then I’ll tell you a bit of news.”
They sat accordingly. And the bit of news was the following:
“Muriel’s hooked it.”
Respect for her mother tongue caused Mary to demand a
repetition of this cryptic statement.
“Hooked it with her Radical,” Jack amplified. “They were married
yesterday morning, quite quietly, ‘owing to the indisposition of his
Grace,’ the papers say. And they are now in Scotland on their
honeymoon.”
“Let us hope they’ll be happy,” said Mary. “She has a very brilliant
husband, at any rate.”
“Not a doubt of that. If brains breed happiness, they’ll be all right.”
But do brains breed happiness? that was the question in their
minds at the moment. Aunt Charlotte had brains undoubtedly, but as
she passed them three minutes since no one could have said that
she looked happy. The Duke had brains, but few would have said
that he was happy. Mary herself had brains, and they had brought
her within an ace of wrecking her one chance of real happiness.
They were in the midst of this philosophical inquiry, when
Chance, that prince of magicians, gave the kaleidoscope a little
loving shake, and hey! presto! the other side of the picture was
laughingly presented to them.
A rather lop-sided young man in a brown bowler hat was
marching head in air along the gravel in front of them. One shoulder
was a little higher than its neighbor, his clothes looked shabby in the
sun of July, his gait was slightly grotesque, yet upon his face was a
smile of rare complacency. In one hand he held a small girl of five,
and in the other a small boy to match her; and that may have been
why at this precise moment he looked as if he had just acquired a
controlling interest in the planet. And yet there must have been some
deeper, subtler reason for this young man’s air of power mingled with
beatitude.
Rather mean of mansion as he was, it was impossible for two
shrewd spectators of the human comedy on the Park chairs to ignore
him as he swung gayly by. In spite of his impossible hat and his
weird trousers, the mere look on his face was almost cosmic in its
significance, he was so clearly on terms with heaven. But in any
case he would have forcibly entered their scheme of existence. Just
as he came level with them he chanced to lower his gaze abruptly
and by doing so caught the fascinated eyes of Mary fixed upon his
face.
“Good morning, Miss Lawrence. What a nice day!”
He was not in a position to take off his hat, but he enforced a
hearty greeting with a superb bow, and passed jauntily on.
The Tenderfoot could not help being amused. “Who’s your
friend?” He turned a quizzical eye upon a countenance glowing with
mischief.
“That’s Alf.”
“In the name of all that’s wonderful, who is Alf?” The tone was
expostulation all compact, but as mirth was frankly uppermost, even
the most sensitive democrat could hardly have resented it.
“He’s a man on a newspaper.”
“I see,” said the Tenderfoot. But somehow it didn’t explain him.
“An old friend, my dear, and he’s now the Press, with a capital
letter. The other day he interviewed me for his paper.”
“How could you let him?” gasped the Tenderfoot.
“For the sake of old times.” Suddenly she loosed her famous
note. “That little man is in my stars. He dates back to my earliest
flapperdom, when my great ambition was to kill him. He was the
greengrocer’s boy in the next street, and he used to call after me:
“‘I am Mary Plantagenet;

Who would imagine it?
Eyes full of liquid fire,
Hair bright as jet;
No one knows my hist’ry,
I am wrapt in myst’ry,
I am the She-ro
Of a penny novelette.’”
“Well, I hope,” said the Tenderfoot, “you jolly well lammed into
him for such a piece of infernal cheek.”
“Yes, I did,” she confessed. “One day I turned on him and boxed
his ears, and I’m bound to say he’s been very respectful ever since.
It was very amusing to be reminded of his existence when he turned
up the other day. He paid me all sorts of extravagant compliments;
he seems to hold himself responsible for any success I may have
had.”
“Nice of him.”
“He says he has written me up for the past two years; and that
when he edits a paper of his own, and he’s quite made up his mind
that it won’t be long before he does, I can have my portrait in it as
often as I want.”
“My Lord!”
“All very honestly meant,” laughed Mary Plantagenet. “It is very
charming of Alf—a nom de guerre, by the way. His real name is
Michael Conner, but now he’s Alf of the Millennium. And the other
day at our interview, when he came to talk of old times, somehow I
couldn’t help loving him.”
“What, love—that!”
“There’s something to love in everybody, my dear. It’s really very
easy to like people if you hunt for the positive—if that’s not a high
brow way of putting it! The other day when Alf began to talk of his
ambitions, and of the wife he had married, and of the little Alfs and
the little Alfesses, I thought the more there are of you the merrier,
because after all you are rather fine, you are good for the
community, and you make this old world go round. Anyhow we
began as enemies, and now we are friends ‘for keeps,’ and both Alf
and I are so much the better for knowing it.”
“I wonder!”
“Of course we are. And when Alf is a great editor, as he means to
be, and he is able to carry out his great scheme of founding a
Universal Love and Admiration Society, for the purpose of bringing
out the best in everybody, including foreign nations—his very own
idea, and to my mind a noble one—he has promised to make me an
original member.”
“A very original member!” The Tenderfoot scoffed.
But sitting there in the eye of the morning, with the gentle leaves
whispering over his head, and the finest girl in the land by his side
drawing a fanciful picture of “Alf” on the gravel with the point of her
sunshade, he was not in the mood for mockery. The world was so
full of a number of things, that it seemed but right and decent to have
these large and generous notions. Let every atom and molecule that
made up the pageant of human experience overflow in love and
admiration of its neighbor. He was a dud himself, his dwelling-place
was en parterre, yet as heaven was above him and She was at his
elbow, there was no denying that the little man who had just passed
out of sight had laid hold somehow of a divine idea.
Yes, the ticket for the future was Universal Love and Admiration,
at any rate for the heirs of the good God. Not a doubt that! He didn’t
pretend to be a philosopher, or a poet, but even he could see that
yonder little scug in the brown pot hat was a big proposition.
“I wonder,” he mused aloud, “how the little bounder came to think
of that?”
“He says it came to him in his sleep.” And the artist at his elbow
gave one final masterful curl to the amazing trousers of the latest
benefactor of the human species.
CHAPTER XIII
EVERYTHING FOR THE BEST
I
Jack glanced at the watch on his wrist. By the mercy of Allah there
were fifty minutes yet. A whole fifty minutes yet to stay in heaven.
And then....
Suddenly hard set by thoughts which had no right to be there he
looked up and away in the direction of Bridport House.
“There they go!” He gave the pavement artist a little prod.
“Who—goes—where?”
“Cousin Blanche and Cousin Marjorie.”
True enough! Sublimely unconscious of two pairs of amused
eyes upon them, Cousin Blanche and Cousin Marjorie were passing
slowly by. As usual at that hour they were riding their tall horses. And
they became their tall horses so remarkably well that they might
have belonged to the train of Artemis. In the saddle, at any rate,
Cousin Blanche and Cousin Marjorie looked hard to beat.
“Now for your precious theory,” said the Tenderfoot with malice.
“Here’s your chance to hunt for the positive.”
She fixed her eyes on the slowly-receding enemy. “Well, in the
first place, my dear, those old-fashioned habits become them
marvelously.”
“No use for that sort of kit myself,” growled the hostile critic.
“Then they are so much a part of their horses they might be
female centaurs.”
“And about as amusing as female centaurs.”
“But we are hunting for the positive, aren’t we? We are trying ‘to
affirm something,’ as Alf would say. Now those two and their horses
are far grander works of art than anything that ever came out of
Greece or Italy. It has taken millions of years to produce them and
they are so perfect in their way that one wonders how they ever
came to be produced at all.”
“You might say that of anything or anybody—if you come to think
of it.”
“Of course. I agree. And so would Alf. And that’s why universal
love and admiration are so proper and natural.”
“Wait till you are really up against ’em and then you’ll see.”
“The more I’m up against them—if I am to be up against them—
the more I shall love and admire them, not for what they are
perhaps, but for what they might be if only they’d take a little trouble
over their parts in this wonderful Play, which I’m quite sure the
Author meant to be so very much finer than we silly amateurs ever
give it a chance of becoming.”
The sunshade began to scratch the gravel again, while Jack
Dinneford sighed over its owner’s crude philosophy.
Presently he began to realize again that they were in a fool’s
paradise. Surely they were taking a climb down too much for
granted. Why should these hardshells give in so inexplicably? It was
in the nature of things for a flaw to lurk under all this fair-seeming.
Only fools would ever build on such a sublime pretense as Bridport
House. Was it rational to expect its denizens to behave like ordinary
sensible human people?
In order to sidetrack his fears he turned again to watch the labors
of the pavement artist. The tip of a gifted sunshade was doing
wonderful things with the gravel. It had just evolved a chef d’œuvre,
which however was only apparent to the eye of faith.
“Who do you imagine that is?”
Imagination was certainly needed. It would not have been
possible otherwise to see a resemblance to anything human.
“That is his lamp,” hovered the sunshade above this masterpiece.
“That is his truncheon. Those are his boots. That is his overcoat. And
there we have his helmet. And there,” the tip of the sunshade traced
slowly, “the noble profile of the greatest dear in existence.”
At that he was bound to own that had the Park gravel been more
sensitive, here would have been a living portrait of Sergeant Kelly of
the X Division. And even if it was only visible to the eye of faith it was
pretext enough for honest laughter.
“No one knows her hist’ry,

She is wrapt in myst’ry,”
he quoted softly.
It was quite true. Various zephyrs and divers little birds had
whispered the romantic fact in their ears long ago. But what did it
matter? It was but one plume more in the cap of the Magician, a
mere detail in that pageant of which Mystery itself is the last
expression.
There may have been wisdom in their laughter. At any rate it
seemed to give them a kind of Dutch courage for the ordeal that was
now so near. But a rather forced gayety did not long continue; it was
soon merged in a further piece of news which Jack suddenly
remembered.
“By the way,” he announced, “there’s more trouble at Bridport
House. My cousins, I hear, are going to live with Aunt Charlotte.”
She was obliged to ask why, but he had to own that it was
beyond his power to answer her question. All that he knew was that
his cousins were “at serious outs” with their father, and that
according to recent information they were on the point of leaving the
paternal roof.
The Tenderfoot, however, in professing a diplomatic ignorance of
a matter to which he had indiscreetly referred, had only pulled up in
the nick of time. He knew rather more than he said. “There’s a
violent quarrel about Mrs. Sanderson,” was at the tip of his tongue,
but happily he saw in time that such words in such circumstances
would be pure folly. Nay, it was folly to have drifted into these
perilous waters at all; and in the face of a suddenly awakened
curiosity, he proceeded at once to steer the talk into a safer channel.
“We mustn’t build castles,” she sighed, and the

light fringed her eyelids
After all, that was not very difficult. As they sat under the
whispering leaves, gazing a little wistfully at the pomp of a summer’s
day, heaven was so near that it hardly seemed rational to be giving a
thought to those who dwelt in spheres less halcyon. The previous
evening at six o’clock they had parted for ever in this very spot. But a
swift turn of Fate’s shuttle had changed everything.
As now they tried to understand what had occurred, it was hard
to keep from building castles. An absurd old planet might prove, after
all, such a wonderful place. When you are four-and-twenty and in
love, and the crooked path suddenly turns to the straight, and the
future is seen through magic vistas just ahead, surprising things are
apt to arise, take shape, acquire a hue, a meaning. The light that
never was on sea or land is quite likely to be found south of the
Marble Arch and north of Hyde Park Corner. They were on the
threshold of a very wonderful world. What gifts were theirs! Health,
youth, a high-hearted joy in existence, here were the keys of heaven.
Life was what they chose to make it.
Poetry herself clothed them as with a garment. But not for a
moment must they forget, even amid the dangerous joys of a rather
wild reaction, that all might be illusion. Voices whispered from the
leaves that as yet they were not out of the wood. Jack, it is true, was
fain to believe that the latest act of Bridport House implied a very real
change of heart. For all that, as the hour of Fate drew on, he could
not stifle a miserable feeling of nervousness. And Mary, too, in spite
of a proud surface gayety, felt faint within. The dream was far too
good to be true.
“Of course it’s a climb down,” said Jack, whistling to keep up his
courage. “Do you suppose Uncle Albert would have sent for us like
this unless he meant to chuck up the sponge?”
“We mustn’t build castles,” she sighed, and the light fringed her
eyelids.
“We’ll build ’em as high as the moon!”
She shook a whimsical head. And then the goad of youth drove
her to a smile of perilous happiness. All sorts of subtle fears were
lurking in that good, shrewd brain of hers. They were on the verge of
chaos and Old Night—yet she had not the heart to rebuke him.
The dread hour of one-thirty was now so very near, that it was
idle to disguise the fact that one at least of the two people on the
Park chairs had grown extremely unhappy. Mary was quite sure that
a horrible ordeal was going to prove too much for her. It was hardly
less than madness to have yielded in the way she had. But qualms
were useless, fears were vain. There was only one thing to do. She
must set her teeth and go and face the music.
II
Punctual to the minute they were at the solemn portals of Bridport
House. And then as a servant in a grotesque livery piloted them
across an expanse of rather pretentious hall into a somber room, full
of grandiose decoration and Victorian furniture, a grand fighting spirit
suddenly rose in one whose need of it was sore. Mary was quaking
in her shoes, yet the joy of battle came upon her in the queerest,
most unexpected way. It was as if a magician had waved his wand
and all the paltry emotions of the past hour were dispelled. Perhaps
it was that deep down in her slept an Amazon. Or a clear conscience
may have inspired her; at any rate she had no need to reproach
herself just then. She could look the whole world in the face. Her
attitude had been sensitively correct; if other people did not
appreciate that simple fact, so much the worse for other people!
A long five minutes they waited in that large and dismal room, a
slight flush of anxiety upon their faces, their hearts beating a little
wildly, no doubt. In all that time not a word passed between them;
the tension was almost more than they could bear. If Fate had kept
till the last one final scurvy trick it would be too horrible! And then
suddenly, in the midst of this grim thought, an old man came
hobbling painfully in. Both were struck at once by the look of him.
There was something in the bearing, in the manner, in the play of the
rather exquisite face which spoke to them intimately. For a reason
deeply obscure, which Jack and Mary were very far from
comprehending, the welcome he gave her was quite touching. It was
full of a simple kindness, spontaneous, unstudied, oddly caressing.
Jack, amazed not a little by the heart-on-the-sleeve attitude of
this old barbarian, could only ascribe it to the desire of a finished
man of the world to put the best possible face on an impossible
matter. Yet, somehow, that cynical view did not seem to cover the
facts of the case.
In a way that hardly belonged to a tyrant and an autocrat, the old
man took one of the girl’s hands into the keeping of his poor
enfeebled ones, and was still holding it when his sister and his eldest
daughter came into the room. Both ladies were firm in the belief that
this was the most disagreeable moment of their lives. Still it was their
nature to meet things heroically, and they now proceeded to do so.
The picture their minds had already formed of this girl was not a
pleasing one. But as far as Lady Wargrave was concerned it was
shattered almost instantly. The likeness between father and daughter
was amazing. She had, in quite a remarkable degree, the look of
noblesse the world had always admired in him, with which, however,
he had signally failed to endow the daughters of the first marriage.
But there was far more than a superficial likeness to shatter
preconceived ideas. Another, more virile strain was hers. The mettle
of the pasture, the breath of the moorland, had given her a look of
purpose and fire, even if the grace of the salon had yielded much of
its own peculiar amenity. Whatever else she might be, the youngest
daughter of the House of Dinneford was a personality of a rare but
vivid kind.
As soon as the Duke realized that the ladies had entered the
room, he gravely presented the girl, but with a touch of chivalry that
she simply adored in him. The little note of homage melted in the
oddest way the half-fierce constraint with which she turned
instinctively to meet these enemies. Sarah bowed rather coldly, but
Aunt Charlotte came forward at once with a proffered hand.
“My sister,” murmured his Grace. In his eyes was a certain humor
and perhaps a spice of malice.
For a moment speech was impossible. The girl looked slowly
from one to the other, and then suddenly it came upon her that these
people were old and hard hit. She felt a curious revulsion of feeling.
Their surrender was unconditional, and woman’s sixth sense told her
what their thoughts must be. They must be suffering horribly. All at
once the fight went out of her.
In a fashion rather odd, with almost the naïveté of a child, she
turned aside in a deadly fight with tears, that she managed to screw
back into her eyes.
It was left to Lady Wargrave to break a silence which threatened
to become bitterly embarrassing: “Come over here and talk to me,”
she said with a directness the girl was quick to obey.
Lady Wargrave led the way to a couple of empty chairs near a
window, Mary following with a kind sick timidity she had never felt
before, and a heart that beat convulsively. What could the old dragon
have to say to her? Even now she half expected a talon.
The Dowager pointed to a chair, sat down grimly, and then said
abruptly, “I hope you will be happy.”
There was something in the words that threw the girl into
momentary confusion. The fact was a miracle had occurred and her
bewilderment was seeking a reason for it. Only one explanation
came to her, and it was that these great powers, rather than suffer
Jack to depart, were ready to make the best of his fiancée. There
was not much comfort in the theory, but no other was feasible. Place
and power, it seemed, were caught in meshes of their own weaving.
And yet bruised in pride as she was by a situation for which she was
not to blame, the rather splendid bearing of these old hard-bitten
warriors touched a chivalry far down. Deep called unto deep. At the
unexpected words of the griffin, she had again to screw the tears
back into her eyes. And then she said in a voice that seemed to be
stifling her, “It’s not my fault. I didn’t know.... I didn’t want this.... If
you will.... If you will help me I will do my best ... not ... to....”
The eyes of the Dowager searched her right through.
“No, you are not to blame,” she said judicially. “We are all going
to help you,” and then in a voice which cracked in the middle she
added, to her own surprise, “my dear.”
III
At luncheon the girl had the place of honor at the right hand of his
Grace. It was a rather chastened assembly. The arrival of the cuckoo
in the nest was a fitting climax to Muriel. Both episodes were felt to
be buffets of a wholly undeserved severity; they might even be said
to have shaken a sublime edifice to its base. Not for a moment had
the collective wisdom of the Dinneford ladies connived at Muriel’s
Breadth, nor had it in any way countenanced the absurd fellow Jack
in his infatuation for a chorus girl.
Simple justice, however, compelled these stern critics to own that
Bridport’s future duchess had come as a rather agreeable surprise.
She differed so much from the person they had expected. They
couldn’t deny that she was a personality. Moreover, there was a
force, a distinction that might hope to mold and even harmonize with
her place in the table of precedence. So good were her manners that
the subtle air of the great world might one day be hers.
It amazed them to see the effect she had already had on their
fastidious and difficult parent. He was talking to her of men and
events and times past in a way he had not talked for years. He
discoursed of the great ones of his youth, the singers and dancers of
the ’Sixties when he was at the Embassy at Paris and ginger was hot
in the mouth. Then by a process of gradation he went on to tell his
old stories of Gladstone and Dizzy, to discuss books and politics and
the pictures in the Uffizi, and to cap with tales of his own travels an
occasional brief anecdote, wittily told, of her own tours in America
and South Africa.
Sarah, Blanche, and Marjorie could not help feeling hostile, yet it
was clear that this remarkable girl had put an enchantment on their
father. While he talked to her the table, the room, the people in it
seemed to pass beyond his ken. Candor bred the thought that it was
not to be wondered at, her way of listening was so delightful. The
beautiful head—it hurt them to admit the fact yet there it was—bent
towards him in a kind of loving reverence, changing each phrase of
his into something rare and memorable by a receptivity whose only
wish was to give pleasure to a poor old man struggling with a basin
of arrowroot—that sight and the sense of a presence alive in every
nerve, a voice of pure music, and a face incapable of evil: was it
surprising that a spell was cast upon their sire? Take her as one
would she was a real natural force—an original upon whom the
fairies had lavished many gifts.
The family chieftain was renewing his youth, but only Charlotte
understood why. In common with the rest of the world, Sarah,
Blanche, and Marjorie were to be kept in ignorance of the truth—for
the present at any rate. But already the Dinneford ladies had taken
further counsel of the sage of Hill Street, and upon her advice all
thought of secession from Bridport House had been given up.
Reflection had convinced Lady Wargrave, now in possession of the
light, that the true interests of the Family would be served by silence
and submission. After all, Mrs. Sanderson was an old and valued
retainer; her integrity was beyond question; her devotion and single-
minded regard for their father’s welfare ought not to be forgotten!
Taking all the circumstances into account, it was in Aunt
Charlotte’s opinion, a case for humble pie. And to do the ladies no
injustice they were ready to consume it gracefully. Jack, after all, was
quite a distant connection; and what was even more important in
their sight, the girl herself was presentable. Their father, at any rate,
made no secret of the fact that he found her sympathetic. Nay, he
was even a little carried away by her. As the meal went on, his
manner towards her almost verged upon affection; and at the end, in
open defiance of his doctors, he went to the length of wishing her
happiness in a glass of famous Madeira.
IV
At five minutes past three Mary and Jack awoke with a start from
a dream fantasy, to find themselves breathing the ampler air of Park
Lane. Even then they could not quite grasp the meaning of all that
had happened. Unconditional surrender indeed, yet so sudden, so
causeless, so mysterious. Why had this strange thing come to be?
But just now they were not in a mood to question the inscrutable
wisdom of the good God. Behind the curtain of appearances the sun
shone more bravely than ever, the dust of July lay a shade lighter on
the trees across the road. No, there was really no need for
Providence to give an account of itself at that moment; the nature of
things called for no analysis.
“I’ve fallen in love with that old man.”
Even if Jack heard the words he was not in a position to offer
comment upon them, for he was in the act of summoning a taxi from
the lee of the Park railings.
“Where shall we go?”
“To the moon and back again?”
And why not! It is not very far to the moon if you get hold of the
right kind of vehicle. But MX 54,906 proved on inspection hardly to
be adapted for the purpose; at any rate Jack came to the conclusion
after a mere glance at the tires that Hampton Court, via Richmond
and Elysium, would meet the case equally well.
V
Meanwhile his Grace in his favorite chair in his favorite room, was
doing his best to envisage “The Outlook for Democracy,” with the aid
of the Quarterly Review. Of a sudden the clock on the chimneypiece
chimed a quarter past three, and he laid down an article perfect alike
in form, taste and scholarship, with the air of one who expects
something to happen.
Something did happen. In almost the same moment, the
housekeeper, Mrs. Sanderson, came into the room. She carried a
tray containing a glass, a spoon, and a bottle.
His Grace shook his head. “I’ve had a glass of Madeira.”
“How could you be so unwise!” It was the gentle, half-smiling tone
of a mother who reproves a very dear but willful child.
She measured the draught inflexibly and he drank it like a man.
As he returned the glass to the tray he sighed a little, and then with a
whimsical glance upwards he said slowly and softly, “She has her
mother’s brains.”
As she looked down upon him, he saw the color darkening a
strong and beautiful face. “And her father’s eyes.” The warmth of her
voice almost stifled the words.
For nearly a minute there was so deep a silence that even the
clock on the chimneypiece was lost in it. And then very slowly and
gently, as one who thinks aloud, he said, “I am trying to remember
those words of Milton.” He closed his eyes with a smile of perplexity.
“Ah, yes, yes. I have them now:
“‘He for God only, she for God in him.’”
Transcriber’s Notes:
On pages 43 and 51, Number Five Beaconsfield
has been changed to Number Five, Beaconsfield.
On page 53, universed has been changed to
unversed.
On page 58, spirt has been changed to spirit.
On page 59, réclamce has been changed to
réclame.
On pages 72 and 218, a period has been added
to Mrs.
On page 88, Majorie has been changed to
Marjorie.
On page 90, Majorie’s has been changed to
Marjorie’s.
On pages 97, 107 and 117, commonsense has
been changed to common sense.
On page 102, the single quote has been
removed from America’s.
removed from Wren’s.
On page 143, decidely has been changed to
decidedly.
On page 163, cause has been changed to
course.
removed from Parington’s.
On page 235, Panjandram has been changerd to
Panjandrum.
On page 239, efficiency has been changed to
efficiently.
On page 259, redoutable has been changed to
redoubtable.
On page 266, a closing double quote has been
added to “Whom do you mean?.
On page 267, familar has been changed to
familiar.
On page 274, financée has been changed to
fiancée.
On page 290, green-grocer’s has been changed
to greengrocer’s.
On page 302, undeservedly has been changed to
undeserved.
On page 305, a closing double quote has been
added to the last sentence.
All other hyphenation and variant/archaic
spellings have been retained.
Illustrations in the midst of a paragraph have
been moved to avoid interrupting the paragraph flow.

Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements A Guide To The Key Issues 2Nd Edition Katia Yannaca Small Editor Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements A Guide To The Key Issues 2Nd Edition Katia Yannaca Small Editor Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arbitration Under International

Investment Agreements: A Guide to the

International Commercial Contracts: Contract Terms,

International Energy Investment Law: The Pursuit of

Financial Times Guide to Investment Trusts, The:

A Small State's Guide to Influence in World Politics

Introduction to International Development: Approaches,

World Protests: A Study Of Key Protest Issues In The

Investment Banking Explained : An Insider's Guide to

Chronic Total Occlusions-A Guide to Recanalization, 3e

Table of Cases xxvii

PART I INVESTMENT TREATIES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF

2. The Energy Charter Treaty

3. International Investment Dispute Settlement Mechanisms

C. International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of

4. The Role of Precedent in Investment Treaty Arbitration

PART II GUIDE TO KEY PRELIMINARY AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES

E. Selection of the Arbitrators 5.24

6. Aspects of Procedure for Institution of Proceedings and Establishment of

7. The Fate of Frivolous and Unmeritorious Claims

8. Challenges of Arbitrators in Investment Arbitration: Still Work in Progress?

B. Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) 8.22

PART III GUIDE TO KEY JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES

C. Jurisprudence under the ICSID Convention 10.11

11. The Meaning of ‘Investment’ in Investment Treaty Arbitration

12. Bifurcation of Investment Disputes

13. Burden and Standard of Proof at the Jurisdictional Stage

C. The Respondent Bears the Burden of Proof 13.25

14. Attribution: State Organs and Entities Exercising Elements

15. Breach of Treaty Claims and Breach of Contract Claims:

III. Treaty-​based Tribunals’ Jurisdiction over ‘Purely’ Contractual Claims 15.20

16. The Umbrella Clause: Is the Umbrella Closing?

17. Counterclaims in Investment Treaty Arbitration

18. The State’s Corruption Defence, Prosecutorial Efforts, and Anti-​corruption

PART IV GUIDE TO KEY SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

21. The National Treatment Obligation

23. The MFN Clause and Its Evolving Boundaries

A. MFN Clauses and Dispute Settlement 23.48

PART V REMEDIES AND COSTS

25. Compensation and Damages in Investment Treaty Arbitration

26. Third-​party Funding in Investment Treaty Arbitration

PART VI THE POST-​AWARD PHASE

28. Review of non-​ICSID Awards by National Courts

29. Enforcement of Investment Treaty Awards

30. A Practical Guide: Research Tools in International Investment Law

Aanes v FILA, CAS 2000/​A/​317 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.86

Franck Charles Arif v Republic of Moldova, ICSID Case No ARB/​11/​23,

Bayview Irrigation District et al. v Mexico, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/​05/​1,

BP America Production Co. & Others v Argentine Republic, ICSID

Československá Obchondní Banka AS v Slovak Republic, ICSID

CME Czech Republic BV v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL,, Final Award

ConocoPhillips Company et al. v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID

Guinea-​Bissau v Senegal, ICJ Arbitral Award of July 31, 1989. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.20n14

“‘I am Mary Plantagenet;

“No one knows her hist’ry,

“We mustn’t build castles,” she sighed, and the

You might also like

III. Treaty-based Tribunals’ Jurisdiction over ‘Purely’ Contractual Claims 15.20

18. The State’s Corruption Defence, Prosecutorial Efforts, and Anti-corruption

26. Third-party Funding in Investment Treaty Arbitration

PART VI THE POST-AWARD PHASE

28. Review of non-ICSID Awards by National Courts

Aanes v FILA, CAS 2000/A/317 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.86

Franck Charles Arif v Republic of Moldova, ICSID Case No ARB/11/23,

Bayview Irrigation District et al. v Mexico, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/05/1,

Guinea-Bissau v Senegal, ICJ Arbitral Award of July 31, 1989. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.20n14