Full download The Protection of Foreign Investment in Times of Armed Conflict Jure Zrilic file pdf all chapter on 2024

The Protection of Foreign Investment in
Times of Armed Conflict Jure Zrilic

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-protection-of-foreign-investment-in-times-of-arme
d-conflict-jure-zrilic/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Detention in non-international armed conflict 1st

Edition Hill-Cawthorne
https://ebookmass.com/product/detention-in-non-international-
armed-conflict-1st-edition-hill-cawthorne/
Homophobic Violence in Armed Conflict and Political

Transition 1st Edition José Fernando Serrano-Amaya
https://ebookmass.com/product/homophobic-violence-in-armed-
conflict-and-political-transition-1st-edition-jose-fernando-
serrano-amaya/
National and International Civilian Protection

Strategies in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Timea
Spitka
https://ebookmass.com/product/national-and-international-
civilian-protection-strategies-in-the-israeli-palestinian-
conflict-timea-spitka/
The Omega Theory : A New Physics of Earthquakes. Jure

Žalohar
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-omega-theory-a-new-physics-of-
earthquakes-jure-zalohar/
The Ethics of Surveillance in Times of Emergency 1st
Edition Macnish
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-ethics-of-surveillance-in-
times-of-emergency-1st-edition-macnish/
Territorial Status in International Law Jure Vidmar
https://ebookmass.com/product/territorial-status-in-
international-law-jure-vidmar/
Rebel Courts: The Administration of Justice by Armed

Insurgents René Provost
https://ebookmass.com/product/rebel-courts-the-administration-of-
justice-by-armed-insurgents-rene-provost/
The Handbook of European Defence Policies and Armed

Forces Hugo Meijer
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-handbook-of-european-defence-
policies-and-armed-forces-hugo-meijer/
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/
The Protection of Foreign Investment
in Times of Armed Conflict
The Protection of Foreign Investment in Times of Armed Conflict. First Edition. Jure Zrilič. © Jure Zrilič 2019.
Published 2019 by Oxford University Press.
The Protection of Foreign
Investment in Times
of Armed Conflict
J U R E Z R I L IČ
1
3
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
© Jure Zrilič 2019
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2019
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: 2019941501

ISBN 978–0–19–883037–5
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.
Preface
The idea to examine investment treaties in the context of armed conflict took root
against the background of a revolutionary wave that caught the Arab world at the
end of 2010 and adversely affected foreign investment in the region. While invest-
ment treaties provide foreign investors with an avenue to pursue financial repar-
ations for conflict-related losses from a host state, the practice and scholarship
following ‘Arab Spring’ revolutions and the ongoing armed conflicts in the Middle
East and Ukraine have revealed that there is lack of clarity about how effective and
appropriate investment protections actually are in a conflict and post-conflict set-
ting. This book sets out to address these questions by combining the insights from
different areas of international law, including international investment law, inter-
national humanitarian law, international human rights law, the law of state respon-
sibility, and the law of treaties. This is the first full and thorough treatment of the
subject matter.
A key theme that runs throughout the book is the question of balancing com-
peting objectives: on the one hand are investors’ interests, certainty, and stability;
and on the other hand, a state’s sovereign right to protect its security interests and
enable a smooth transition to peace. The book examines how these conflicting
interests are balanced on four different levels: on the level of the application of in-
vestment treaties, on the level of the invocation of relevant treaty protections and
host state defences against them, on the level of post-conflict compensation, and
lastly, on the level of the resolution of conflict-related disputes. The analysis of this
balancing dynamic informs the design of an analytical framework that purports to
explain and evaluate how effective and appropriate is the application of the invest-
ment treaty regime in times of armed conflict.
The book offers insightful conclusions that could be of interest to practitioners,
policy makers, and international law scholars. Over the past few years, inter-
national investment law has come under the severe scrutiny and ever stronger calls
for its dismantlement. In my research, I show that despite the system’s flaws and
the need for a long-overdue reform, there is also a potential for its contribution to
a better and safer world. In particular in periods of turmoil and armed conflict, the
system’s protections could become an important tool for inhibiting violence and
arbitrariness. In view of the ongoing rise of nationalism, xenophobia, geopolitical
tensions, and conflicts around the globe, this is something we ought not to forget.
Acknowledgements
The book is based on my doctoral thesis, completed in 2016 and defended in

January 2017. Many people and institutions contributed to the completion of the
book. My doctoral supervisor was Markus Gehring, whose aid and kindness I re-
call with much gratitude. I am much indebted to my examiners, Michael Waibel
and Christoph Schreuer, who provided constructive and detailed comments in the
viva, and kind encouragement later. Their support was invaluable in turning the
thesis into this book. I have benefitted greatly from the stimulating intellectual en-
vironment at various institutions where parts of the book were written and revised,
in particular the Hughes Hall College and the University of Cambridge, Harvard
Law School, and the University of Liverpool School of Law and Social Justice. I am
grateful to many colleagues who provided me with comments and advice that in-
formed my work. I am especially thankful to Carsten Stahn, Mark Wu, Amandine
Garde, Pádraig McAuliffe, Vassilis Tzevelekos, Mavluda Sattorova and Gregory
Messenger. The book has benefitted from feedback received at various conferences,
including the American Society of International Law Midyear Research Forum,
Just Post Bellum Conference organized by Leiden University, and the Colloquium
on International Investment Law & the Law of Armed Conflict organized by the
European Society of International Law in Athens. Funding support, which made
this project possible, came from the Arts and Humanities Research Council,
and Slovene Human Resources Development and Scholarship Fund. Their aid is
gratefully acknowledged. I thank the Oxford University Press, particularly, Jack
McNichol, Natasha Flemming and Alison Thomas for their patience and help in
the revision process, as well as the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful
comments. Finally, I am immensely grateful to my friends, my partner, and my
family, in particular my parents Irena and Bore. This book would not have been
possible without their moral encouragement and continued support.
Table of Cases
INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS
Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ)

Brazilian Loans (France v Brazil) [1929] PCIJ Ser A No 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211n89
Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów (Germany v Poland) (Merits) [1928] PCIJ
Rep Series A No 17 (Chorzów Factory) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209n74
Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (France v Switzerland) (Order)
[1929] PCIJ Rep Series C No 17/1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80–81n136
Oscar Chinn (UK v Belgium) [1934] PCIJ Rep Series A/B No 63, Separate Opinion of
Judge Anzilotti, 114. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151–52n121
Serbian Loans (France v Serb—Croat—Slovene) [1929] PCIJ Ser A No 20 . . . . . . . . . . 211n89
International Court of Justice (ICJ)

Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v UK) (Preliminary Objections) [1998]
ICJ Rep 115. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183–84n132
Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular
Rights (Iran v US) (Provisional Measures Order) (3 October 2018) (Sanctions
against Iran) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135–36n14, 142n56, 142–43n62
Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council (India v Pakistan) (Judgment)
[1972] ICJ Rep 46. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73–74n104
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v
Uganda) (Judgment) [2005] ICJ Rep 168 . . . . . . . . . . 28–29n66, 48–49n203, 97–98n61,
162–63n3, 163–64n9, 187n153
Barcelona Traction (Belgium v Spain) (Merits) [1970] ICJ Rep 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203–4n50
Case Concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of
the Congo) (Judgment on Compensation) [2012] ICJ Rep 324, 324, Declaration
of Judge Greenwood 391. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192n178
Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia-Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro)
(Judgment) [2007] ICJ Rep 43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28–29n66, 183–84n132
Case Concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) (Merits)
[1997] ICJ Rep 1. . . . . . . . 72n90, 75–76n112, 77n123, 79–80n136, 82n151, 82–83n154,
150n109, 150–51n112, 151–52n121, 154–55n142
Certain Activities Carried Out By Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v
Nicaragua) [2015] ICJ Rep 665. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97–98n63
Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v France)
(Judgment) [2008] ICJ Rep 177 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143–44n68, 143–44n72, 144n74
Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v
Costa Rica) (Judgment) [2015] ICJ Rep 665. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97–98n63
Corfu Channel (UK v Albania) (Merits) [1949] ICJ Rep 4. . . . . . . . . . . 28–29n66, 78–79n129
Corfu Channel (UK v Albania) (Assessment of the Amount of Compensation)
[1949] ICJ Rep 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211n88
Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v Nicaragua)
(Judgment) [2009] ICJ Rep 213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93n40
Elettronica Sicula SPA US v Italy (Merits) [1989] ICJ Rep 15. . . . . . . . . . . . 28–29n66, 102n95
xiv Table of Cases
Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Federal Republic of Germany v Ireland) (Jurisdiction)

[1973] ICJ Rep 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72n90, 79–80n136, 82–83n152, 82–83n154
Frontier Dispute Case (Burkina Faso v Mali) (Judgment) [1986] ICJ Rep 554. . . . . . . . 211n87
Jan Mayen (Denmark v Norway) (Separate Opinion) [1993] ICJ Rep 38. . . . . . . . . . . . 211n86
LaGrand (Germany v US) (Judgment) [2001] ICJ Rep 466. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160–61n177
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) [1996]
ICJ Rep 226. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39n134, 162–63n3, 185–86
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua case (Nicaragua v US)
(Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14 . . . . . . . . . . 48–49n203, 65n54, 135–36n13, 141n49, 143n67
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v Belgium)
(Federal Republic of Germany v Netherlands) (Judgment) [1969]
ICJ Rep 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189–90n163, 211n87
Nuclear Tests (Australia v France) (Judgment) [1974] ICJ Rep 253. . . . . . . . . . . . . 190–91n167
Oil Platforms (Iran v US) (Judgment) [2003] ICJ Rep 161. . . . . . . 65n54, 135–36n13, 143n67
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) (Judgment) [2010]
ICJ Rep 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97–98n63
The Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory (Advisory Opinion) [2004] ICJ Rep 136 (Israeli Wall). . . . . . . . . . . 51–52n224,
162–63n3, 186–87, 186–87n145
US Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Teheran (US v Iran) (Judgment) [1980] ICJ Rep
3 (Hostages in Iran Case) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28–29n62, 28–29n66, 95–96n53, 155–56n150
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)

Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with
Respect to Activities in the Area, ITLOS Case no 17 (Advisory Opinion,
1 February 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97–98n63
World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body

WTO United States: Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and
Betting Services, Panel Report (10 November 2004) WT/DS285/R. . . . . . . . 139–40n42
Indonesia –Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry Panel Report
(23 July 1998) WT/DS54/R, WT/DS59/R, WT/DS64/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164n12
Turkey –Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products Panel Report
(31 May 1999) WT/DS34/R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164n12, 185–86n142
United States –Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline Appellate
Body Report (29 April 1996) WT/DS2/AB/R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78–79n129
Russia –Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit Panel Report (5 April 2019)
WT/DS512/R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138–39n32, 143–44n68, 144n74
Iran–United States Claims Tribunal

Phelps Dodge v Iran (1986) 10 Iran–USCTR 130 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126–27n223
Questech Inc. v Iran (1985) 9 Iran–USCTR 107. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80–81n141, 80–81n142
Sea-Land Service Inc v Iran (1984) 6 Iran–USCTR 149. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126–27n222, 212n90
Starrett Housing Corp v Iran (Case No 24) (1983) 4 Iran–USCTR 122 . . . . . . . . . . . . 129n245
Sylvania Technical Systems v Iran (1985) 8 Iran–USCTR 309. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154–55n145
Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthym Stratton v TAMS--A FFA (1984)
6 Iran–USCTR 219. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126–27n223
Too v Greater Modesto Insurance Associates Award, 29 December 1989,
23 IUSCT Rep 378. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102n92
Table of Cases xv
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

Prosecutor v Galić (Judgment and Opinion) IT-98-29-T (5 December 2003). . . . . 47–48n195
Prosecutor v Galić (Appeal Judgment) IT-98-29-A (30 November 2006) . . . . . . . 47–48n195,
48–49n202
Prosecutor v Hadžihasanović and Kubura (Decision on Motions for Acquittal)
IT-01-42-T (27 September 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47–48n192
Prosecutor v Kupreškić (Trial Judgment) IT-95-16 (14 January 2000) . . . . . . . . . . 43–44n160,
47–48n192, 47–48n195, 48–49n202, 158n165, 180–81n118
Prosecutor v Martić (Review of the Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61) IT-95-11
(8 March 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158n165
Prosecutor v Strugar (Judgment) IT-01-42-T (31 January 2005). . . . . . . . . . . 47–48n192–193
Prosecutor v Tadić (Appeal Judgment) IT-94-1-A (15 July 1999). . . . . . . . 7–8, 39n132, 60–61
Prosecutor v Tadić (Decision on Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on
Jurisdiction) IT-94-1-T (2 October 1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7–8n18, 47–48n188
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)

Prosecutor v Akayesu (Appeal Judgment) ICTR-96-4-T (1 June 2001) . . . . . . . . . . 48–49n202
Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission (EECC)

Central Front—Eritrea’s Claims, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 22 (Partial Award of 28 April 2004)
26 RIAA 115. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39n136
Central Front—Ethiopia’s Claim 2 (Partial Award of 28 April 2004)
26 RIAA 155. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39n136, 171n59
Civilian Claims: Eritrea’s Claims 15, 16, 23, 27–23 (Partial Award of 17 December
2004) 26 RIAA 195. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40nn137–138, 40–41n140–141, 57–58n3, 114n166
Civilian Claims: Ethiopia’s Claim 5 (Partial Award of 17 December 2004)
26 RIAA 249. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39n136, 40n139
Eritrea’s Non-Residents’ Claim 24 (Partial Award, 19 December 2005) 26 RIAA 429. . . . . 40n138
Ethiopia’s Port Claim 6 (Final Award, 19 December 2005) 26 RIAA 489. . . . . . . . . . . 40n138,
219–20n128
Pensions: Eritrea’s Claims 15, 19 & 23 (Final Award of 19 December 2005)
26 RIAA 471. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57–58n3
Western Front, Aerial Bombardment and Related Claims, Eritrea’s
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9 –13, 14, 21, 25 & 26 (Partial Award of 19 December 2005)
26 RIAA 291. . . . . . . . . . . . 44n161, 44–45n167, 45nn169, 45n171, 45–46n173, 170n49
Ethiopia’s Damages Claims (Final Award of 17 August 2009)
26 RIAA 631. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212n92, 213n104
European Court of Justice (ECJ)/Court of Justice of the

European Union (CJEU)
Case 162/96, Racke v Hauptzollamt Mainz [1998] ECR I--3655. . . . . . . 73–74n103, 73–74n104,
79n132, 81nn.144–149, 82, 84n160
Case T-306/01, Yusuf and Al Barakaat v Council and Commission [2005]
ECR II--3533. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141n49
Case T-315/01, Kadi v Council and Commission Case [2005] ECR II--3649. . . . . . . . . 141n49
Case C-495/ 07 Elgafaji v Staatssecretaris van Justitie [2009] ECR-I 921. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8n19
Case C-285/12 Aboubacar Diakité v Commissaire Général aux réfugiés et aux
apatrides ILEC 033 (CJEU 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8n19
xvi Table of Cases
European Commission and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

AGOSI v United Kingdom (1986) 9 EHRR 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50n216
Ahmet Özkan and Others v Turkey App no 21689/93, Judgment (ECtHR,
6 April 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117n182, 188–89n156
Akdivar and Others v Turkey App no 21893/93, Judgment (ECtHR,
16 September 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53n233
Albekov and Others v Russia App no 68216/01, Judgment (ECtHR,
9 October 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54–55n248, 177–78n102
Al-Jedda v United Kingdom App no 27021/08, Judgment (ECtHR, 7 July 2011). . . . . . 8–9n20
Beyeler v Italy (2000) 33 EHRR 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50n216
Bosphorus Hava Tollari v Ireland App no 45036/98, Judgment (ECtHR,
30 June 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141n51
Cyprus v Turkey App nos 6780/74 and 6950/75, EComHR (1976) 4 EHRR 482. . . . . . 53n231
Cyprus v Turkey App no 8007/77, EComHR (1983) EHRR 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53n232
Ergi v Turkey App no 23818/94, Judgment (ECtHR, 28 July 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . 53–54n234,
54–55n245, 54–55n251, 55–56n255, 117n182, 177–78n102
Former King of Greece and Others v Greece App no 25701/94, Judgment (ECtHR,
23 November 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207–8n70
Gasus Dosier v the Netherlands (1995) 20 EHRR 403. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50n216
Gogitidze and Others v Georgia App no 36862/05, Judgment (ECtHR,
12 May 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127–28n233
Gül v Turkey App no 22676/93, Judgment (ECtHR, 14 December 2000) . . . . . . . 188–89n157
Güleç v Turkey App no 21593/93 (ECtHR, 27 July 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . 53–54n235, 117n182,
120n193
Hamiyet Kaplan and Others v Turkey App no 36749/97 (ECtHR, Judgment,
13 September 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120n192
Hassan v the UK App no 29750/09, Judgment (ECtHR, 16 September
2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8–9n20, 52n227
Isayeva v Russia App no 57950/00, Judgment (ECtHR, 24 February 2005)
(Isayeva II). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8–9n21, 53–54n236, 54–55n247, 55n252, 55–56n255,
117n182, 120n194, 171–72n65, 177–78n99, 188–89n156
Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v Russia App nos 57947/00, 57948/00, and
57949/00, Judgment (ECtHR, 24 February 2005) (Isayeva I). . . . . 8–9n21, 53–54n236,
55–56n255, 177–78n99
Khatsiyeva and Others v Russia App no 5108/02, Judgment (ECtHR,
17 January 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188–89n158
Loizidou v Turkey (1995) 23 EHRR 513. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50n216
Mansuroğlu v Turkey App no 43443/98, Judgment (ECtHR,
26 February 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188–89n158
McCann and Others v The United Kingdom App no 18984/91
(ECtHR, 27 September 1995). . . . . . . 53–54n238, 55–56n255, 177–78n99, 177–78n101
Mentes and Others v Turkey (1997) 26 EHRR 595. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53n233
Neumeister v Austria App no 1936/63, Judgment (ECtHR, 7 May 1974). . . . . . . . 185–86n142
Oğur v Turkey App no 21594/93, Judgment (ECtHR, 20 May 1999) . . . . . . . . . . 188–89n157
Osman v The United Kingdom (2000) 29 EHRR 245. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55n252
Papachelas v Greece App no 31423/96, Judgment (ECtHR, 25 March 1999 . . . . . . . 207–8n70
Paulet v The United Kingdom App no 6219/08, Judgment (ECtHR,
13 May 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127–28n233
Plattform ‘Ärzte für das Leben’ v Austria (1988) 13 EHRR 204. . . . . . . . . 54–55n250, 55n252
Selcuk and Asker v Turkey (1998) 26 EHRR 477. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52n228, 53n233
Tre Traktörer AB v Sweden (1991) 13 EHRR 309. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50n217
Table of Cases xvii
Yarrow et al v United Kingdom App no 9266/81, Decision (EComHR,

28 January 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50n217
Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR)

Barrios Family v Venezuela Judgment of the IACtHR of 24 November 2011 . . . . . . . . 54n241
Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez v Ecuador Judgment of the IACtHR of
21 November 2017. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127–28n233
Ituango Massacres v Colombia Judgment of the IACtHR of 1 July 2006. . . . . . . . . 54–55n249,
54–55n251, 55–56n255–256
Ivcher-Bronstein v Peru Judgment of the IACtHR of 6 February 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50n217
Massacres of El Mozote v El Salvador Judgment of the IACtHR of
25 October 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54n242, 55–56n255–256
Memoli v Argentina Judgment of the IACtHR of 22 August 2013. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127–28n233
Santo Domingo Massacre v Colombia Judgment of the IACtHR of
30 November 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54n242–243, 55–56n255, 176–77n96
Velásquez Rodríguez v Honduras Judgment of the IACtHR of
29 July 1988. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55n252, 55n253, 122n205
Inter-State Arbitration
France–U S Claims Commission 1880
Joseph Chourreau v US (French–US Claims Commission 1880) Moore,
Digest 921;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36n110
US–C hile Claims Commission 1901

Andrew Moss v Chile, No 25 (US–Chilean Claims Commission 1901) Moore,
Digest 921. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36n110
Edward Du Bois v Chile No 2 (US–Chilean Claims Commission 1901) Moore,
Digest 921. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36n110
Peter Bacigalupi v Chile No 42 (US–Chilean Claims Commission 1901) Moore,
Digest 894. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36–37n111
France–V enezuela Mixed Claims Commission

French Company of Venezuelan Railroads (France v Venezuela) (1904)
10 RIAA 285. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32n82, 154–55n145
Germany–V enezuela Mixed Claims Commission

Bischoff Case (1903) 10 RIAA 420. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100–1n83
Wenzel Case (Germany v Venezuela) (1903) 10 RIAA 428. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27n53
Kummerow, Otto Redler and Co, Fulda, Fischbach, and Friedericy Cases
(Germany v Venezuela) (1903) 10 RIAA 369. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26n48, 31n79
Italy–V enezuela Mixed Claims Commission

Sambiaggio Case (Italy v Venezuela) (1903) 10 RIAA 499. . . . . . . . . 25n41, 25–26, 25–26n44,
28–29n61, 48–49n200, 89–90n6
Poggioli Case (Italy v Venezuela) (1903) 10 RIAA 669 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126–27n221
Spain–Venezuela Mixed Claims Commission

Mena Case (Spain v Venezuela) (1903) 10 RIAA 748. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155n147
UK–V enezuela Mixed Claims Commission

Aroa Mines Case (Great Britain v Venezuela) (1903) 9 RIAA 402. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111–12n155
xviii Table of Cases
Puerto Cabello and Valencia Railway Company (Great Britain v Venezuela)

(1903) 9 RIAA 510. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32n82
Santa Clara Estates Case (Supplementary Claim) (1903) 9 RIAA 455. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27n53
US–V enezuela Mixed Claims Commission

Dix Case (US v Venezuela) (1903) 9 RIAA 113. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36–37n118
Heny Case (US v Venezuela) (1903) 9 RIAA 113. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36–37n119
Upton Case (US v Venezuela) (1903–1905) 9 RIAA 235. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114n165
NAFTA Arbitral Panel

Cross-Border Trucking Services (Mexico v US) Case No USA-MEX-98-2008-01
(NAFTA Ch 20 Arb Trib Panel Decision, 6 February 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220–21n136
UK–U S Arbitral Tribunal

Parsons Case (Great Britain v US) (1925) 6 RIAA 165. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126–27n221
US–M exico General Claims Commission

Chapman (US v Mexico) (1930) 4 RIAA 632. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28–29n63, 55–56n254
Chase Case (US v Mexico) (1928) 4 RIAA 337. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95–96n52
Dickson Car Wheel Co (US v Mexico) (1931) 4 RIAA 669. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100–1n83
GL Solis (US v Mexico) (1928) 4 RIAA 358 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28–29n60, 155–56n151
Janes (US v Mexico) (1926) 4 RIAA 82. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28–29n64
Kennedy Case (US v Mexico) (1927) 4 RIAA 194 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95–96n52
Lillie Kling v Mexico (1930) 4 RIAA 575. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160–61n178
Mallen (US v Mexico) (1927) 4 RIAA 175 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28–29n63
Massey (US v Mexico) (1927) 4 RIAA 155. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28–29n64, 95–96n52
Minnie East Case (US v Mexico) (1930) 4 RIAA 646. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95–96n52
Morton Case (US v Mexico) (1929) 4 RIAA 428 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95–96n52
Sewell Case (US v Mexico) (1930) 4 RIAA 626. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95–96n52
Way Case (US v Mexico) (1928) 4 RIAA 391. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95–96n52
Youmans (US v Mexico) (1926) 4 RIAA 110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28–29n64
Other Inter-S tate Arbitrations

Adams Case, Moore Digest 893. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36–37n115
Alexander Barrington v Mexico, No 365 (1868) Moore, History and
Digest 3674. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36n110
Arbitration Regarding the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between
Guyana and Suriname (17 September 2007) 30 RIAA 113. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183–84n132
Buckingham Case (1933) Hackworth, Digest 480. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28–29n61
Claire Case (France v Mexico) (1929) 5 RIAA 516. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122n205
Case of Bain (Great Britain v US) Moore, Digest 850. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25–26n43
Case of Maza and Larrache (Spain v US) (1884) Moore, Digest 895. . . . . . . . . . . . . 36–37n113
Case of the Montijo (US v Colombia) (1875) Moore, History and Digest 1421. . . . . . . . 27n52
Claims by the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company et al against the US,
Moore Digest 893. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36–37n113
De Brissot Case, Moore, History and Digest 3040. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28–29n61
Don Pacifico Case (Great Britain v Greece) Moore, History and Digest 1421 . . . . . . 25–26n43
Ecuador v United States UNCITRAL, Request for Arbitration, 28 June 2011 . . . . 220–21n135
Hardman Case (Great Britain v US) (1910) 7 AJIL 897 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36–37n114
Mox Plant Case (Ireland v UK) PCA Case no 2002-01, Procedural Order No 3,
24 June 2003, 126 ILR 310. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183–84n129
Pinson (France v United Mexican States) (1928) 5 RIAA 327. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32n82
Table of Cases xix
Rainbow Warrior Affair Case (New Zealand v France) (1990) 20 RIAA 217. . . . . . 154–55n140
Republic of Italy v Republic of Cuba Ad hoc Arbitration, Final Award,
15 January 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220–21n134
Republic of Italy v Republic of Cuba Ad hoc Arbitration, Interim Award,
15 March 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220–21n134
Spanish Zone of Morocco (Great Britain v Spain) (1924) 2 RIAA 615. . . . . . 28n55, 28–29n60,
28–29n61, 30n73, 36–37n116, 42–43, 42–43n155, 48–49n200,
111–12n156, 114n165, 155n147, 155–56n152
Venezuelan Steam Transportation Company Case (US v Venezuela) (1892) Moore,
History and Digest 1693 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27n52
William Moore Case (US v Nicaragua) (1900) Moore, Digest 914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36–37n118
Wilson’s Case (Spanish Claims Commission 1881) Moore, Digest 894. . . . . . . . . . 36–37n111
Wipperman Case, Moore, History and Digest 3040. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28–29n61
Conciliation Commission
In re Rizzo (1955) 22 ILR 317. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97–98n59
Ousset (1945) 22 ILR 312. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97–98n59
Mixed Arbitrations
Ad hoc arbitration
Eureko BV v Poland Ad hoc Arbitration, Partial Award, 19 August 2005. . . . . . . . . 90–91n20
Libyan American Oil Company (LIAMCO) v Libyan Arab Republic (1981)
62 ILR 140. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211n88
Mohamed Al-Kharafi & Sons Co v Libya Ad hoc Arbitration, Award, 22 March
2013, 380. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4–5n14, 208n72, 209
International Centre for the Settlement of Investment

Disputes (ICSID)
AES Summit Generation Ltd v Republic of Hungary ICSID Case no ARB/07/22,
Award, 2 September 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91–92n27
Aguas del Tunari SA v Republic of Bolivia ICSID Case no ARB/02/3. . . . . . . . . . . . 198–99n20
Al Jazeera Media Network v Arab Republic of Egypt ICSID Case no ARB/16/1
(pending). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3–4n6, 198–99n23
Amco Asia Corp and Others v The Republic of Indonesia Award, 20 November 1984, 1
ICSID Rep 413 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90–91n17
American Manufacturing & Trading, Inc (AMT) v Republic of Zaire ICSID
Case no ARB/93/1, Award, 21 February 1997. . . . . . . . . 90–91n21, 103n98, 106–7n123,
108n133, 111n147, 121n197, 122n203, 123n209,
210–11n82, 212–13n95, 212–13n98, 222–23n140
Ampal-America Israel Corp v Arab Republic of Egypt ICSID Case no ARB/12/11,
Decision on Liability, 21 February 2017 . . . . . . . . . . 3–4n6, 90–91n22, 105nn.111–113,
106, 155–56n150, 155–56n152, 156–57n154, 156–57n155, 235n10
Archer Daniels Midland Company v Mexico ICSID AF Case no ARB/(AF)/04/5,
Award, 21 November 2007,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159–60n172
Asian Agricultural Products Ltd (AAPL) v Republic of Sri Lanka ICSID Case no
ARB/87/3, Award, 27 June 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1n2, 90–91n23, 96–97n58, 98–99n72,
102n93, 103n102, 106–7n123,111n147, 111n148, 115–16n174, 119n187,
119–20, 121, 122n202, 123n208, 163n8, 166, 166–67n27, 167n21, 168–69n42,
170–71n57, 173n69, 175n84, 176–77n90, 176–77n97, 180–81, 182n122, 188,
191–92, 192–93n179, 194, 198–99n23, 210n81, 216n114, 222–23n140, 236n12, 238
xx Table of Cases
Autopista Concesionada de Venezuela v Venezuela ICSID Case no ARB/00/5,

Award, 23 September 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156–57n155, 198–99n20
Azurix Corp v the Argentine Republic ICSID Case no ARB/01/12, Award,
14 July 2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91–92n27, 94n47, 101–2n89, 126–27n224
Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi AS v Islamic Republic of Pakistan ICSID
Case no ARB/03/29, Award, 27 August 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130–31n249, 131–32n256
Bear Creek Mining Corp v Peru ICSID Case no ARB/14/21, Award,
30 November 2017. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101–2n89, 147n92, 148n98, 183–84n133
Bernardus Funnekotter and Others v Republic of Zimbabwe ICSID Case no ARB/05/
6, Award, 22 April 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106–7n124, 108n132
Bernhard von Pezold and Others v Zimbabwe ICSID Case no ARB/10/15, Award,
28 July 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90–91n17, 102n93, 106–7n124, 183–84n132
Biwater Gauff Ltd v United Republic of Tanzania ICSID Case no ARB/05/22, Award,
24 July 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . 91–92n27, 96n54, 98–99n69, 99, 122–23n207, 130–31n249
Burlington Resources Inc v Ecuador ICSID Case no ARB/08/5, Decision on Liability,
14 December 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101–2n89
Cargill v Mexico ICSID Case no ARB(AF)/05/2, Award, 18 September 2009. . . . 159–60n173
CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentine Republic ICSID Case no ARB/01/8,
Award, 12 May 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106–7n125, 110, 110n144, 137n24, 137n25,
137n26, 138n30, 147n92, 150n109, 150–51n112, 151–52n118, 151–52n119,
151–52n121, 152n123, 152–53n125, 152–53n127, 210n80, 230n5
CMS, Decision on Annulment, 25 September 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . 137n24, 147n91, 149n107,
152–53n126
Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Vivendi Universal SA v Argentine Republic
ICSID Case no ARB/97/3, Award, 20 August 2007. . . . . . 91–92n27, 94n47, 125–26n216
Compañia del Desarrollo de Santa Elena, SA v Costa Rica ICSID Case no ARB/96/1,
Final Award, 17 February 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125–26n216
Consortium RFCC v Morocco v Kingdom of Morocco ICSID Case no ARB/00/6,
Award, 22 December 2003 . . . . . . . . 106–7n126, 107–8n131, 110–11n146, 110–11n150
Continental Casualty Company v The Argentine Republic ICSID Case no ARB/03/9A,
Award, 5 September 2008 . . . . . . . . . 137n24, 137n26, 140n44, 140–41n47, 144–45n76,
145–46n85, 147n91, 148n100, 151–52n119, 152–53n126
Corn Products Int’l Inc v Mexico ICSID AF Case no ARB/(AF)/04/1, Decision on
Responsibility, 15 January 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159–60n173
David Minnotte and Robert Lewis v Republic of Poland ICSID Case no
ARB(AF)/10/1, Award, 16 May 2014. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160n174
Duke Energy Electroquil Partners v Republic of Ecuador ICSID Case no ARB/04/19,
Award, 18 August 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130–31n249, 131n251
EDF International SA and Others v Argentine Republic ICSID Case no ARB/03/23,
Award, 11 June 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106–7n125, 150n109, 151–52n119
El Paso Energy v Argentina ICSID Case no ARB/03/15, Award,
31 October 2011 . . . . . . 102n93, 103–4n103, 106–7n125, 111n151, 122–23n206, 152n123
Enron Corp v Argentine Republic ICSID Case no ARB/01/3, Award,
22 May 2007,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93n41, 106–7n125, 111n151, 137n24, 137n25, 139n35,
143n67, 147n92, 150–51n112, 151–52n118, 151–52n119,
151–52n120, 151–52n121, 152n123
Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v Ghana ICSID Case no ARB/07/24,
Award, 18 June 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160n174
Hussain Sajwani and Others v Arab Republic of Egypt ICSID Case no ARB/11/16 . . . . . . 3–4n6
Iberdola Energia v Guatemala ICSID Case no ARB/09/5, Award,
17 August 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182–83n127
Table of Cases xxi
Impregilo SpA v Argentine Republic ICSID Case no ARB/07/17, Award,

21 June 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106–7n125, 111n151
Inceysa Vallisoletana v Republic of El Salvador ICSID Case no ARB/03/26, Award,
2 August 2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160n174
Joseph Houben v Republic of Burundi ICSID Case no ARB/13/17, Award,
20 May 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90–91n17, 102n93, 105n110
LESI SpA and ASTALDI SpA v People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria ICSID Case no
ARB/05/3, Award, 12 November 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90–91n22, 104n107, 106–7n123,
111n147, 121–22n198, 191n171
LG&E Energy Corp v Argentine Republic ICSID Case no ARB/02/1, Decision on
Liability, 3 October 2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106–7n125, 137n24, 138n30, 143n67,
144n73, 147n92, 150n109, 151–52n116, 151–52n118, 151–52n119
Liman Caspian Oil BV and NCL Dutch Investment BV v Republic of Kazakhstan
ICSID Case no ARB/07/14, Award, 22 June 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160n174
Maffezini v The Kingdom of Spain ICSID Case no ARB/97/7, Award,
13 November 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129n244
Marvin Feldman v Mexico ICSID Case no ARB(AF)/99/1, Award,
16 December 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99–100n76, 125–26n220
Metal--Tech v Uzbekistan ICSID Case no ARB/10/3, Award, 4 October 2014 . . . . . 182–83n128
Metalclad Corp v Mexico ICSID Case no ARB(AF)/97/1, Award,
30 August 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125–26n216
Metalpar SA and Buen Aire SA v Argentine Republic ICISD Case no ARB/03/5,
Award, 6 June 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128–29n23
MTD Equity Sdn Bhd and MTD Chile SA v Republic of Chile ICSID Case no
ARB/01/7, Award, 25 May 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129n244
MTD Equity v Republic of Chile ICSID Case no ARB/01/7, Decision on
Annulment, 21 March 2007,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183–84n131
Niko Resources Ltd v Republic of Bangladesh and Others ICSID Case no ARB/10/18,
Decision on Jurisdiction, 19 August 2013. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160n174
Noble Ventures Inc v Romania ICSID Case no ARB/01/11, Award,
12 October 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90–91n19
Pantechniki SA Contractors & Engineers v The Republic of Albania ICSID
Case no ARB/07/21, Award, 30 July 2009. . . . . . . . 90–91n21, 103–4n105, 130–31n249,
131n251, 155–56n151, 191n171
Parkerings--Compagniet AS v Republic of Lithuania ICSID Case no ARB/05/8,
Award, 11 September 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95–96n52, 96n54, 122–23n207,
130–31n249, 131–32n256
Patrick Mitchell v Democratic Republic of Congo ICSID Case no ARB/99/7,
Award, 9 February 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125–26n216, 126–27n226, 127n229–231,
127–28n234, 128–29n238, 182n122, 198–99n23, 211n83
Patrick Mitchell v Democratic Republic of Congo ICSID Case no ARB/99/7,
Annulment Decision, 1 November 2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125–26n214, 127n229–230,
145–46n82, 145–46n84, 147n92, 148n101, 152–53n125, 211n84
Philip Morris et al v Uruguay ICSID Case no ARB/10/7, Award, 8 July 2016. . . . . 99–100n76,
99–100n79, 101–2n89, 102n92, 125–26n220
Phoenix Action, Ltd v Czech Republic ICSID Case no ARB/06/5, Award,
15 April 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160n174
Plama Consortium Ltd v Republic of Bulgaria ICSID Case no ARB/03/24,
Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 February 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63n39, 160n174
PSEG Global v Turkey ICSID Case no ARB/02/5, Award,
19 January 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91–92n31, 93–94n42
xxii Table of Cases
Quiborax SA and Non Metallic Minerals v Bolivia ICSID Case no ARB/06/2, Award,
16 September 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99–100n76, 125–26n220
Renée Rose Levy de Levi v Peru ICSID Case no ARB/10/17, Award,
26 February 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99–100n76, 125–26n220
RSM Production Corp v Central African Republic ICSID Case no ARB/07/02,
Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, 7 December 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156–57n155
Rumeli Telekom v Kazakhstan ICSID Case no ARB/05/16, Award, 29 July 2008. . . . . 91–92n26
Rusoro Mining Ltd v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela ICSID Case no ARB(AF)/12/5,
Award, 22 August 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91–92n31
SAUR International SA v Argentine Republic ICSID Case no ARB/04/4, Decision on
Jurisdiction and Liability, 6 June 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160n174
Sempra Energy International v Argentine Republic ICSID Case no ARB/02/16,
Award, 28 September 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106–7n125, 130–31n249, 137n24, 137n25,
137n26, 138n30, 139n35, 143n67, 147n92, 151–52n118,
151–52n119, 151–52n121, 152n123, 154–55n136, 230n5
SGS v Paraguay ICSID Case no ARB/07/29, Decision on Jurisdiction,
12 February 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182–83n128
Siag and Vecchi v Egypt ICSID Case no ARB/05/15, Award, 11 May 2009. . . . . . . . . . . 209n75
Siemens AG v Argentine Republic ICSID Case no ARB/02/8, Award,
17 January 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94n45
Southern Pacific Properties Ltd v Arab Republic of Egypt ICSID Case no ARB/84/3,
Award, 20 May 1992. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125–26n216
Suez v Argentine Republic ICSID Case no ARB/03/17, Decision on Liability,
30 July 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91–92n26, 91–92n30, 93–94n42, 106–7n125, 163–64n9
Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed SA v The United Mexican States ICSID Case no
ARB(AF)/00/2, Award, 29 May 2003. . . . . . . 90–91n18, 99–100n76, 101–2n89, 102n93,
103n99, 125–26n220, 126–27n224, 130–31n249, 130–31n250, 191n170
The Loewen Group, Inc and Raymond Loewen v United States of America ICSID Case
no ARB(AF)/98/3, Award, 26 June 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165n17
The Rompetrol Group BV v Romania ICSID Case no ARB/06/3, Award,
6 May 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182–83n127
Total SA v Argentine Republic ICSID Case no ARB/04/1, Decision on Liability,
27 December 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106–7n125, 111n151
Toto Costruzioni Generali SpA v Lebanon ICSID Case no ARB/07/12, Award,
7 June 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131–32n254
Tulip Real Estate and Development Netherlands BV v Republic of Turkey ICSID Case
no ARB/11/28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183–84n134
Urbaser v Argentina ICSID Case no ARB/07/26, Award, 8 December 2016. . . . 183–84n133,
183–84n134
Utsch and Others v Arab Republic of Egypt ICSID Case no ARB/13/37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3–4n6
Vivendi v Argentina ICSID Case no ARB/97/3, Decision on Annulment,
3 July 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182–83n128
Waste Management Inc v United Mexican States ICSID Case no ARB(AF)/00/3,
Award, 30 April 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129n244
Wena Hotels Ltd v Arab Republic of Egypt ICSID Case no ARB/98/4, Award,
8 December 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90–91n16, 95–96n52, 102n93, 126–27n225
World Duty Free Company Ltd v Republic of Kenya ICSID Case no ARB/00/7,
Award, 4 October 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160n174
International Chamber Of Commerce (ICC)

Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd v the Republic of Yemen and the Yemen
Ministry of Oil and Minerals ICC Arbitration no 19299/MCP, Award,
10 July 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156–57n155
Table of Cases xxiii
National Oil Corporation v Sun Oil ICC Case no 4462/1985 and 1987, XVI Yearbook
Commercial Arbitration 54–78 (1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156–57n155
Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)

Achmea BV v Slovakia UNCITRAL, PCA Case no 2008-13, Final Award, 7
December 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126–27n227
Active Partners Group Ltd v The Republic of South Sudan PCA Case no 2013/4,
Award, 27 January 2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210n79
Aeroport Belbek LLC and Kolomoisky v Russian Federation UNCITRAL, PCA Case
no 2015-07. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3–4n8
Copper Mesa Mining v Republic of Ecuador PCA Case no 2012-2, Award,
15 March 2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90–91n18, 91–92n31, 160–61n180, 198–99n22
Devas et al v India PCA Case no 2013-09, Award on Jurisdiction and Merits,
25 July 2016. . . . . . . . . . 143n67, 144–45n75, 144–45n76, 145n78, 147n91, 152–53n126
Everest Estate LLC et al v Russian Federation UNCITRAL, PCA Case no 2015-36,
Award, 2 May 2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3–4n8
JSC CB PrivatBank and Finilon LLC v Russian Federation UNCITRAL, PCA
Case no 2015-21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3–4n8
Les Laboratoires Servier, SAS Biofarma, SAS, Arts et Techniques du Progrès
SAS v Poland PCA, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 14 February 2012. . . . . . . . . 125–26n220
Lugzor and Others v Russian Federation UNCITRAL, PCA Case no 2015-29 . . . . . . . . 3–4n8
NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine et al v Russian Federation UNCITRAL, PCA Case no
2017-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3–4n8
Peter Allard v Barbados PCA Case no 2012-06, Award, 27 June 2016 . . . . 91–92n31, 102n93
PJSC Ukrnafta v Russian Federation UNCITRAL, PCA Case no 2015-34. . . . . . . . . . . . 3–4n8
Stabil LLC and Others v Russian Federation UNCITRAL, PCA Case no 2015-35. . . . . . . 3–4n8
Yukos Universal Ltd v The Russian Federation UNCITRAL, Final Award,
18 July 2014. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160n175, 160n176
UNCITRAL
AWG Group Ltd v Argentine Republic UNCITRAL, Decision on Liability,
30 July 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106–7n125, 151–52n119
BG Group plc v Republic of Argentina UNCITRAL, Final Award,
24 December 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91–92n26, 93n41, 106–7n125, 111n151, 230n5
Chemtura Corp v Canada UNCITRAL, Award, 2 August 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99–100n76,
125–26n217, 125–26n220
CME Czech Republic BV v Czech Republic UNCITRAL, Partial Award,
13 September 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91–92n27, 103–4n103, 214n106
Frontier Petroleum Services v Czech Republic UNCITRAL, Award,
12 November 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95–96n52, 96n54, 102n93, 122–23n207
Lauder v Czech Republic UNCITRAL, Final Award, 3 September 2001. . . . . . . . . . 91–92n27,
99–100n76, 102n93, 103–4n103, 125–26n220
Methanex Corp v United States of America UNCITRAL, Award, 3 August 2005,
Part IV, Chapter D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125–26n217
National Grid plc v Argentine Republic UNCITRAL, Award,
3 November 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106–7n125, 130–31n249
Oxus Gold v Uzbekistan UNCITRAL, Award, 17 December 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91–92n26
Petroleum v Czech Republic UNCITRAL, Final Award, 12 November 2010. . . . . 130–31n250
Saluka Invs BV v Czech Republic UNCITRAL, Partial Award,
17 March 2006. . . . . . . . . . . 91–92n26, 93n41, 93–94n42, 93–94n43, 94n48, 98–99n68,
99, 99–100n76, 99–100n79, 102n92, 102n93, 125–26n217, 125–26n220
SD Myers v Canada UNCITRAL Arbitration, First Partial Award,
13 November 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126–27n224
xxiv Table of Cases
Tatneft v Ukraine UNCITRAL, Award, 29 July 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90–91n17, 91–92n31

Ulysseas v Ecuador UNCITRAL, Final Award, 12 June 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122–23n206
Yosef Maiman and Others v Arab Republic of Egypt, UNCITRAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3–4n6
Other Mixed Arbitration

Eastern Sugar v Czech Republic SCC Case no 088/2004, Partial Award,
27 March 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93–94n42, 93–94n44, 122–23n206
Occidental Exploration and Production Company v Ecuador (I) LCIA Case no UN3 4
67, Final Award, 1 July 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230n5
United States Military Tribunal at Nuremberg

Hostage case (US v List et al) (American Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1948)
11 NMT 1253, 1295–96. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42–43n154, 128–29n240
DOMESTIC COURTS
Canada
In re Francis v The Queen 1955 ILR 591, 603, 4 DLR 760 (1955). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67n64
Israel
The Public Committee against Torture in Israel et al v The Government
of Israel et al Supreme Court of Israel (Judgment, 11 December 2006)
(Targeted Killing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174–75n77, 178n103, 178n106, 188–89n159
Italy
Lanificio Branditex v Soceita Azais e Vidal (1971) Court of Cassation, Joint Session,
No 3147, reported in 1 Italian Ybk of Intl L (1975) 232. . . . . . . . 73–74n103, 76–77n118
Netherlands
Contra Prince Salm-Salm v The State of the Netherlands and the Nederlands
Beheers-Instituut District Court of The Hague, 28 June 1954. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114n169
Utermöhlen, Re (1948) AD 1949, No 129. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71–72n88, 76–77n119
United Kingdom
Adams v Naylor [1946] 2 All ER 241, [1946] AC 543. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117–18n183
Masinimport v Scottish Mechanical Light Industries Ltd, 30 January 1976,
ILR, vol 74, 559. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69–70n76
Sutton v Sutton, Court of Chancery, 29 July 1830, BILC, vol 4, 367–68. . . . . . . . . . . 65–66n56
United States of America

Arakawa v Clark (1947) 79 F Supp 468. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68n70, 69
Brown v Maryland, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat) 419, 442–43 (1827) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99–100n74
Brownell v San Francisco, 271 F.2d 974 (1954). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59–60n23
Clark v Allen, 331 US 503 (1947) 513. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59–60n23, 66n60
Doe I v Unocal Corp, 395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198–99n24
Jaragua Iron Co v US, 212 US 297. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36–37n114
Johnson v United States, 170 F.2d (9th Cir, 1948) 767, 770. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117–18n184
Karnuth v US (1929) 279 US 231. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67n62, 67–68
Meier v Schmidt (1948) 150 Neb 383, 34 N.W.2d 400. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70–71n82, 71–72
Table of Cases xxv
Skeels v US, 72 F Supp (W D La, 1947) 372 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117–18n184

Society for Propagation of the Gospel v Town of New Haven (1823)
21 US 8, 464. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65–66n55
Techt v Hughes, 229 NY 222 (1920). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58n9, 62, 62n38, 66n57
US v Marks, 187 F.2nd (9th Cir, 1951) 724. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117–18n184
Table of Instruments and Legislation
INTERNATIONAL Protocol to the Convention for the

INSTRUMENTS Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms
Treaties (adopted 20 March 1952,
African (Banjul) Charter on Human entered into force 18 May 1954)
and Peoples’ Rights (adopted 213 UNTS 262
27 June 1981, entered into force Art 1 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51n222, 53
21 October 1986) (1982) Convention on the Recognition and
21 ILM 58 . . . . . . . . . 49–50, 49–50n214 Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral
Art 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51n222 Awards of 1958 (adopted on 10
Art 27(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51–52n225 June 1958, entered into force on
Agreement between India and USSR 7 June 1959) 330 UNTS 3 (New
(28 September 1959) York Convention). . . . . . . . . . . . . 70n77
Art 9 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63n42 Convention on the Settlement of
Agreement between Eritrea and Investment Disputes between
Ethiopia (12 December 2000) States and Nationals of Other
2138 UNTS 94. . . . . . . . . . . 219–20n127 States (ICSID Convention)
American Convention on Human (adopted on 18 March 1965,
Rights (adopted 22 November entered into force on 14 October
1969, entered into force 18 July 1966) 575 UNTS 159. . . . . . . 70, 70n78
1978) 1144 UNTS 123. . . . . . . . . 49–50, Art 42. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183–84n131
49–50n213 Convention Relative to the Rights
Art 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51n222 of Aliens Signed at the Second
Art 27(1). . . . . . . . . . 51–52n225, 52n227 International Conference
Association Agreement between the of American States (Mexico
EU and Egypt (2001). . . . . . . . . 138–39 City, 1902) in Yearbook of the
Art 83. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138–39n34 International Law Commission,
Association Agreement between the 1956, Vol II, UN Doc A/CN.4/
EU and Tunisia (1995) SER.A/1956/Add.1. . . . . . . . . 24–25n37
Art 87. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138–39n34 Cooperation Agreement between the
Convention for the Protection of European Economic Community
Human Rights and Fundamental and the Socialist Federal Republic
Freedoms (adopted 4 November of Yugoslavia (signed on 2 April
1950, entered into force 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81–82, 84
3 September 1953) 213 Preamble. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81–82n146
UNTS 222. . . . . . 49–50, 49–50n212, 51 Art 1 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81–82n146
Art 2 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53–54n237 Declaration Renouncing the Use,
Art 2(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188–89 in Time of War, of Explosive
Art 3 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52n228 Projectiles Under 400 Grammes
Art 8 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Weight, Saint Petersburg (entered
Art 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52n229, 53n232 into force 11 December
Art 15(1). . . . . . . . . . 51–52n225, 52n227 1868) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35n105, 41n144
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
“They must have seen those fellows haul you into their boat,”
Ned suggested.
“Naturally, they did. But that won’t make dad feel any easier. Yes,
we want to get back home!”
However, there seemed to be no prospect of that in the
immediate future. The storm continued unabated and no boats
passed Rattlesnake Island, at least near the shore the two captives
dared approach. They might have had better luck on the other side,
for there lay the usual channel, but the scoundrels’ motorboat was
there and the fugitives, therefore, must keep away.
At last, Ned’s watch, which had not been taken from him,
indicated noon.
“Whew!” exclaimed the young manager when he saw the time.
“We ought to eat, Tom, and get into some kind of shelter.”
“Yes, that’s so,” agreed Tom, who was as miserable as was his
chum. “And if I’m not mistaken, we passed some sort of a cave back
there. Let’s head for it.”
They came to a small cavern under an overhanging ledge of
rock, and into this the two wanderers gratefully crawled. They did not
explore to see how far back the cave extended, but when they found
some dry wood near the entrance they built a fire and took off some
of their wet garments. As these were hung on sticks near the blaze,
to dry out, the young men, sitting near the grateful heat, took out
their packages of food.
Luckily, they had wrapped the victuals in waxed paper taken from
some of the cracker boxes supplied them for their first meal by their
captors. So that now the improvised lunch was fairly dry. It was
rather limited in its bill of fare, however, and Tom and Ned would
gladly have parted with all the spare change in their pockets for a
cup of hot coffee. However, such a luxury was beyond their reach, so
they made the best of what they had.
The rain kept up all that afternoon, and once the two were warm
from their cave fire and their garments fairly dry, they decided
against venturing out again into the downpour.
“It may stop by morning,” Tom suggested, “and by morning more
boats will be out and we’ll have a better chance of signaling one.”
“What! Stay here all night?”
“Why not?” chuckled Tom. “Do you know a better place?”
“You win!” agreed Ned. “We’ll camp out here.”
This they did, gathering some dried leaves farther back in the
cave, and in these they burrowed, finding the warmth grateful from
the chill of the storm.
It was still raining in the morning, but not as hard as before, when
Tom and Ned awakened and made a very light breakfast. Then,
when they were able to catch a glimpse of the sun, which came out
about an hour after they had finished their limited meal, they again
made a trail toward the shore farthest removed from the dock to
which the scoundrels had tied up.
They soon came out on a sandy beach and into the full glare of a
hot sun after the storm. The cheering beams of Old Sol both warmed
and invigorated them.
“Now if we can only see a boat we’ll be all right,” said Tom.
They did not have long to wait. A motor craft came chugging into
view and by dint of shouts and the waving of Ned’s shirt, which that
young man gladly stripped off as a signal flag, the man in the boat
saw the castaways and headed in toward them. The boatman
proved to be Gill Marsh, a fisherman for whom Tom had more than
once done favors, and Mr. Marsh gladly agreed to take the young
men to Shopton.
“Though what you were doin’ on Rattlesnake Island is more’n I
can figger out,” said the mystified Mr. Marsh.
“We’re not very good at figuring, ourselves, this morning,” said
Tom, with a glance at Ned. They saw no reason for telling what had
happened until they had had a chance to capture the scoundrels, for
to attempt this they were determined.
In a short time they were landed at a dock not far from the Swift
shops, and Tom was soon in telephonic communication with Mr.
Jackson, who was both surprised and delighted to hear from his
missing employer.
“Ned’s safe, too!” Tom said. “Get word to his folks as soon as you
can.”
“That’s what I’ll do, Mr. Swift!” said the shop superintendent. “But
where have you been? We’ve had the police for miles around
looking for you two. What happened?”
“It’s a long story. I’ll tell you later,” Tom said. “But how are things
at the shop?”
“Well, we’ve had some trouble, and that fellow Greenbaum——”
But there, to Tom’s disgust, the connection was broken, nor, do
what he would to attract the operator, could he restore it again.
“We’ve got to hurry back, Ned!” exclaimed the young inventor.
“Those scoundrels are still at their tricks!”
CHAPTER XII
GREENBAUM THREATENS
More than ever anxious, as much by what Mr. Jackson had left
unsaid as by what had come to him over the wire before the
interruption, Tom Swift hailed a taxicab and in it rode to his home,
stopping, since it was on his way, to let Ned Newton off at the latter’s
home.
“Don’t talk too much—outside your own family circle—of what
happened, Ned,” was the warning Tom gave his chum as they
parted.
“I won’t. But you aren’t going to let the matter drop here, are
you?”
“I should say not! But I want to swoop down on those fellows
before they know it.”
Tom found his father excited by the sudden news over his son’s
safety, but it was a joyous reaction after the dismal news brought
back by Mr. Damon and Koku, following the episode of the
motorboat chase.
“What happened after I left you?” Tom asked Mr. Damon, who
had been pretty constantly at the Swift home following the
kidnapping of the young inventor and his manager.
“After you left us?” repeated the eccentric man somewhat
dazedly. “You mean——?”
“I mean after I fell overboard,” said Tom, with a smile.
“Oh, yes. Well, neither Koku nor I knew how to manage the Gull,
and your friend Bill Tagg wasn’t any better off, bless my rudder!” said
Mr. Damon. “So we just let her run, and she slued around so much
and acted so queerly after you were taken aboard the other boat that
some fellows in a sailboat came to our aid. We told them what had
happened—without going too much into your private affairs, Tom—
and one of the men got aboard the Gull and brought us back to the
dock where we started from. Then I hurried here to tell your father.”
“Then I got in touch with the police,” said Mr. Swift, taking up the
story, “for I guessed that those aboard that other boat were your
enemies, Tom. But the police didn’t know where to look. So what
with you gone and nothing heard of Ned, we were in a great stew.”
“I can imagine it,” Tom said. “Of course you had no way of really
knowing Ned was aboard the other boat, though I suppose from
what happened and the sight of the bound figure in the bottom of the
Turtle, you might have guessed Ned was aboard.”
“I surmised it,” assented Mr. Damon. “But we had no idea where
they were taking you.”
“No, you couldn’t know that,” said Tom. “Well, we got away from
the scoundrels, and the next thing is to catch them.”
Having given his father and Mr. Damon a hasty description of
what had happened to him and Ned, Tom Swift set about the work of
running down the miscreants.
The police were notified of the return of the young inventor, and a
squad of officers was sent to Rattlesnake Island. Tom did not go, for
he felt the need of rest. Besides, there were things at home which
needed his attention.
“What was it you started to tell me when we were cut off, Mr.
Jackson?” Tom asked his superintendent after the police had
departed for the island.
“You mean about Greenbaum?”
“Yes. Is he still here?”
“Well, he is, Mr. Swift; and I hope I’m not going against your
wishes when I say I wish he wasn’t.”
“Not at all, Mr. Jackson. I have no desire to keep that man if he
isn’t doing what is right, though I must admit that he is a good
workman.”
“I agree with you there. But after what happened you must use
your own judgment about keeping him on.”
“What happened?”
“Well, he and I quarreled.”
“What did Greenbaum do?” Tom asked. He knew he need not
ask what his superintendent had done, for Garret Jackson was
thoroughly dependable.
“I found him sneaking around your private room, Tom—the room
where you have been doing those experiments of late. I don’t know
what they are and I don’t want to know until the right time comes. But
I felt pretty sure you didn’t want Greenbaum to be prying in there.”
“No more I do!”
“That’s what I thought. So when I saw him come out of that room
the second time, after you had gone to find Ned, I called him to
account for it.”
“What did he say?”
“That you told him to go in there to experiment.”
“That was untrue!” cried Tom.
“So I guessed. So I took the liberty of putting a new lock on the
place—a lock that fellow couldn’t pick if he wanted to, and he came
at me hot and heavy. We had a quarrel, and I’m glad you’re here to
settle it.”
“And I’ll settle it mighty quick!” exclaimed Tom. He was in his
private office now, in a part of the shop somewhat removed from his
secret experimental laboratory. Pushing a button that summoned a
messenger, Tom bade the boy send Greenbaum in. And when the
man sauntered in, smiling and seeming very confident of himself, the
young inventor said:
“Get your time from the cashier and pack your things.”
“What for?” demanded Greenbaum, with a quick change of
countenance.
“Because you’re through here.”
“Through, Mr. Swift! Why, you gave me a contract and you can’t
fire me off-hand this way without telling me why! It isn’t fair!”
“It’s fair enough, and you know it!” declared Tom. “The only
contract you had was that I said I’d keep you as long as your work
was satisfactory. Well, it isn’t. It’s far from satisfactory.”
“You mean on that magnetic gear shift? I can show you, Mr. Swift,
that——”
“No, it isn’t the gear shift. I’m going to drop that. It’s your own
private work of trying to sneak in and fathom my secrets. That’s all.
You are through. Get your time and clear out! Mr. Jackson was right
in his surmise.”
“Oh, so Jackson has been talking about me, has he?”
“I’m not answering any of your questions,” retorted Tom. “The
sooner you leave the premises the better. And don’t come back!”
For a moment Greenbaum stood looking squarely at Tom Swift
whose eyes never faltered under the gaze of the angry man. Then
Greenbaum asked with great deliberation:
“Is that your last word, Mr. Swift?”
“Yes.”
“Well, all I’ve got to say is that maybe you’ll be sorry for this some
day! Maybe you’ll be sorry!”
There was a distinct threat in Greenbaum’s words.
“What do you mean?” cried Tom in anger starting from his chair.
“How dare you threaten me?”
Greenbaum made no answer, but turned and went out of the
office. Tom was about to follow, for he did not want the fellow to think
he could thus defy him, when the telephone on the desk rang out
sharply.
CHAPTER XIII
MR. DAMON DANCES
“Hello! Hello!” the young inventor called into the transmitter.
“What is it?”
He did not recognize the voice at first, but the speaker soon
identified himself as Joe Corrigan, the officer in charge of the squad
of men who had gone to Rattlesnake Island in an endeavor to
apprehend the three men.
“But they had flew the coop, Mr. Swift,” reported Joe Corrigan.
“Not hide nor hair of ’em on the place.”
“Did you find the house?”
“Oh, sure! And we saw where you and Mr. Newton broke out. But
the men must have skipped right after they found you had got away.”
“I suppose so. What about their boat?”
“No trace of that, either. I’m sorry we didn’t get ’em!”
“I hardly thought you would—it was just a chance,” Tom retorted.
“But we’re not going to give up,” declared Corrigan. “We’ll catch
’em yet!”
Tom had his doubts on this subject, but he did not express them.
“Wish you lots of luck!” he called over the wire.
He was sure, however, that Snogg, Janner and Torpy were but
the tools in the hands of more powerful men, men who would keep
themselves well hidden, and that though the ruffians might be
apprehended in time, little or nothing would be learned from them.
They would take the blame and say nothing of the men who had
hired them, probably being well paid for any punishment they might
suffer.
“Well, so much for that,” said Tom when he had ruminated over
what Corrigan had reported. “Now about Greenbaum. That’s more
serious. I can’t let him get away with threatening me like that.”
However, when Tom hurried out to intercept Greenbaum he found
that the fellow had packed his belongings and hurried away.
“That was quick work,” reflected Tom. Then, as he thought the
matter over, he was pretty sure that Greenbaum had anticipated
what was coming to him and had accordingly made his
arrangements for a speedy departure. “I only hope he didn’t get into
the laboratory to do more damage to my talking-picture machine
before he lighted out.”
He was reassured, however, when he found Koku on guard at the
door of the laboratory which still needed a bit of work to restore it to
the spick-and-span condition it was in before the explosion.
“Did anybody try to get in here just now, Koku?” asked Tom,
thinking the giant might have prevented Greenbaum from a last and
dangerous call.
“Nobody come right away,” the giant reported. “But yesterday him
try come in and Mr. Jackson say I to stay here. So Koku stay.”
“That’s the idea!” exclaimed Tom approvingly. “Don’t let any one
in here except my father, Ned Newton or me—not even Mr. Jackson
for a while. Those scoundrels might get hold of my superintendent
and try to torture something out of him if they thought he knew,” Tom
said to himself. “It’s best to keep the secret among as few as
possible until I’m ready to spring it. I want you to guard this place
well, Koku,” went on Tom. “Especially at night.”
“Me guard!” grunted the giant. “Nobody git past without me punch
him—but no punch you, Master, nor Mr. Ned.”
“No, please don’t punch us, or my father,” begged Tom, with a
smile. Well he knew the weight of that mighty fist.
Thinking it not worth while to follow the man, Tom posted a notice
to the effect that Greenbaum had been discharged and gave orders
that he was not again to be admitted to the works on any pretext.
For the last few years the Swift plant had been surrounded by a
high and strong fence, which was further defended against
marauders by electrically charged wires. These wires did not carry a
high enough current, under ordinary circumstances, to cause death,
but the shock they could administer to unauthorized persons seeking
to gain admittance was severe enough to deter them.
Having seen to the safety of the plant in general, Tom, after
telephoning to Ned the result of the police visit to Rattlesnake Island,
began to prepare for the resumption of work on his talking-picture
apparatus. It was not long before the destroyed parts had been
remade and he was about ready to start experimenting again.
“Well, Ned,” said Tom to his helper one day about two weeks
after their strenuous experiences, “are you ready to be an actor
again?”
“You mean in the song and dance line—trying to make my voice
and image come through solid walls?”
“That’s the idea. I have my machine set up again after the
explosion, and I think I’m nearer the solution than ever before. I’ve
made a lot of changes. In a way, the fire and blast didn’t mean such
a total loss, after all. It helped put me on a new track.”
“That’s good. Well, I’m ready for you as soon as I get this
statement off to the bank. What’s the idea, Tom, borrowing so much
money on notes?”
“Got to have it, Ned,” and the young inventor seemed a bit put
out by the question.
“Is it for this new invention?”
“Yes.”
“Well, why not sell some of your securities? Money is high now,
and to borrow it I’ve got to make statements to the bank that disclose
a lot of your private dealings. Of course, they’re in safe hands, but
——”
“Go ahead and get the money, Ned. We’ll need all that and more.
I’ve sunk a lot in this invention, but I’ll get it all back again, and more
too. No use spoiling the ship for a pennyworth of tar, you know.”
“Yes, I know, Tom. And if you’re sure you’re on the right track
——”
“I’m never sure of anything in this world, Ned. But I know one
thing, if I don’t pull out of this a winner, the banks will be asking a lot
more questions than they have.”
“As bad as that?” asked Ned, struck by his friend’s serious
manner.
“As bad—or as good. It depends on how you look at it. But I’ll
leave the finances to you. I’m going to try out some new ideas now
as soon as you can get into the broadcasting room.”
Tom called the room where Ned did his acting under the battery
of electric lights his “broadcasting studio.” In a measure this was
what it was, for vocal sounds and instrumental music were broadcast
from it in the manner familiar to all who own a radio set.
But what Tom was trying to do, and which he found not at all
easy, was to broadcast the sight of Ned and the song, making sight
and sound synchronized. He wanted to perfect a radio receiver with
an added apparatus by which, on a screen attached to the sounding
cabinet, a person could view the person or persons doing the
singing, dancing, or whatever form of activity was being presented.
This of course was not to be confounded with some moving and
“talking” pictures, which are a combination of films and phonograph
records, working simultaneously. By Tom’s machine, when perfected,
one would be enabled to see and hear an actual theater play, a
complete vaudeville show, or even a complete operatic performance.
When Ned finished his financial work he went to the studio and
there he remained until far into the night while Tom, in his laboratory,
watched the metallic glass screen and changed and adjusted
switches, eliminators, tubes and different forms of electrical currents,
endeavoring to capture not only Ned’s voice but his image.
“Well, how did it go, Tom?” asked Ned, coming to the laboratory
after a bell signal told him work for the night was over.
“Somewhat better, I’m glad to say. I could see you much more
plainly. Your voice was very clear. It’s only the vision apparatus that
needs improving. How did you make out?”
“Oh, I don’t mind it. But why did you send some one to look
through the windows at me?”
“Look through the windows at you?” exclaimed Tom. “I didn’t! You
must be dreaming!”
“Indeed, I’m not. Two or three times, while I was singing and
dancing, I saw faces peering in at me. I thought you had some men
checking up.”
“No, indeed!” cried Tom. “Ned, I believe the spies are at work
again!”
This seemed very possible when the two compared notes.
Though Koku on guard outside the laboratory had reported no
suspicious persons around, this much could not be said of the room
where Ned performed.
“We’ll guard that, too!” decided Tom, and the next time when a
“show” was put on, Eradicate was on duty to see that no one
approached the windows.
Who the unbidden spectators could have been Tom had no idea,
but he guessed they were emissaries from the men seeking to
discover his secret.
As the days went on Tom Swift became more and more
convinced that he was being closely watched by men who had a vital
reason for discovering his secret. That these men were those
interested in moving pictures and theatrical shows was certain. Tom
realized what it would mean if their form of entertainment could be
presented in even the humblest home in connection with the
broadcasting of music, once his invention was successful.
It was one night when Ned had been performing a long time and
when the results were not as satisfactory as at first that Tom, sinking
wearily back in his chair and wondering what was wrong, heard a
commotion in the corridor outside his private laboratory.
“No go in! No go in!” Koku’s big voice boomed.
“Nonsense! Of course I’m going in!” another voice responded.
“Bless my toothbrush, but I want to see Tom.”
“Come on in, Mr. Damon!” called out the young inventor, as a
new and daring idea came to him. “It’s all right, Koku,” he went on to
the giant. “Let Mr. Damon in. Look here,” said Tom, addressing his
eccentric friend, “can you sing and dance?”
“Why—bless—well, I don’t know, Tom. I used to,” and Mr. Damon
chuckled. “I once was given to taking part in amateur minstrels. But
is this a joke or a serious question?”
“It’s serious business. Just as you came along I happened to
think that perhaps what I need at the visual sending end is a contrast
of color. That might solve the problem, the difference in light rays—
red at one end of the spectrum and violet at the other. It’s worth
trying. But I need two performers. Ned’s in there now. He has on a
violet suit—regular clown’s outfit. Will you put on a red one and
help?”
“I’ll do anything, Tom, but eat onions. I hate ’em! Never could
touch the things. So outside of that I’m at your service. I just stopped
in casually on my way home and——”
“You’re just in time!” interrupted Tom. “This thing is giving me the
dingbats, or it will if I don’t solve it soon. Come on, I’ll have to pass
you in, for Eradicate is on guard.”
Ned, who was resting after his singing and dancing, attired in a
violet-colored suit, as Tom had said, welcomed Mr. Damon. Tom
quickly explained his new plan, and when Koku and Eradicate had
made sure no interlopers were around, the new experiments were
begun.
“But what’s it all about?” asked Mr. Damon as, in his red suit, he
joined Ned in the song and dance. It may be said, in passing, that
Mr. Damon was much funnier than he suspected. In spite of his
anxiety over the outcome, Tom could not help chuckling as he
watched the little rehearsal before going back to his laboratory.
“That’ll do excellently,” he said, as he observed his eccentric
friend shuffle about the improvised stage. “Keep it up now, and I’ll
see how it comes through.”
Under the glare of the powerful lights in the broadcasting studio,
Mr. Damon and Ned danced and sang while with an anxious heart
Tom Swift hurried back to the laboratory to see if the faint image on
the metallic glass screen was any brighter.
CHAPTER XIV
KOKU IS DRUGGED
The young inventor, hastening along the corridor between his
broadcasting studio and the laboratory where the new machine was
set up, passed the giant Koku who sat on a stool not far from Tom’s
door. Here the big man had taken his place each night while the
testing was going on. With him on guard, Tom felt secure against
intrusion by any of the plotters.
“Getting tired, Koku?” asked Tom, pausing on the threshold of his
laboratory. “It isn’t much fun for you to be sitting there.”
“Not much tired. Master,” was the reply, “But Koku like do
something—smash somebody—fight. No fun sit here nodding do.”
“No, it isn’t much fun doing nothing, I’ll admit,” said Tom. “And if it
ever comes to a fight, Koku, you shall have a share in it. But it looks
now as though the rascals would leave us alone. It won’t be much
longer now, I think, I’m on the verge of success.”
“That good,” Koku answered. He did not, perhaps, understand all
Tom had said, but he had been associated with the young inventor
long enough to know when Tom spoke of success that it meant
pleasure for the “Master.” For this Koku was glad. “Maybe you make
new airship go back Koku’s country?” the giant asked.
“No, this isn’t an airship I’m working on now,” Tom said, knowing
it would be of no use to explain to the simple mind of the giant what
the invention really was. “But would you like to go back to your own
land of giants, Koku?”
“Sometimes Koku think maybe he like to go,” was the slow
answer. “But Koku like it here, too. Sometimes get hungry for fash,”
and he named a peculiar fruit that the giants of his land were
especially fond of. Tom and Ned, on their voyage which had resulted
in the capture of Koku, had seen how passionately eager the big
men were for this fruit. They would go to almost any length to get it.
And Tom had an idea how Koku must long for some now and then in
a land where no fash was to be had. It Was a species of melon with
a peculiar taste and odor. Neither Tom nor Ned had any liking for
fash, but the giants seemed to thrive upon it.
“Some day, Koku,” the young inventor half promised as he
stepped into his laboratory to start anew the test, this time under
different circumstances, “I may take another airship trip to your
country and let you have all the fash you want.”
“By golly, Master, that be good time for me!” cried the giant with a
happy laugh.
As Tom walked over to the apparatus by which he hoped to
produce such startling results, the telephone bell on the instrument
that connected the laboratory with the broadcasting studio rang hard.
“Hello! What’s the matter?” Tom asked, over the wire.
“How long do you want us to keep at this thing?” asked the
laughing voice of Ned Newton. “I—oh, dear—whew—I can’t stand
this much longer, Tom!” and he went off into another fit of merriment.
“Why, what’s the matter?” asked the wondering inventor.
“Oh, it’s my partner in the red suit!” chuckled Ned. “He’s cutting
up such funny antics that I can’t dance or sing for laughing. How is it
coming through?”
“I haven’t connected up yet,” Tom answered. “I will in a minute. I
was talking to Koku. He’s hungry for fash.”
“For fash!” exclaimed Ned wonderingly.
“Yes. Don’t you remember those peculiar melons that had such a
funny smell and taste? The giants were crazy about them.”
“Oh, yes,” Ned answered. “I’d forgotten all about them. But get on
with the show. I happen to have a date with Helen to-night.”
“I’ll soon release you,” promised Tom. “So Mr. Damon is cutting
loose, is he?”
“You ought to see him!” chuckled the other performer, and even
then Tom caught, over the telephone, snatches of comic songs Mr.
Damon was practicing—recollections of his amateur minstrel days.
“All right—get set!” advised the inventor. “I’m going to turn on the
power now. Keep toward the middle of the stage, for I haven’t got a
very wide screen and the focus is narrow. If you get too far to either
side I may lose the image and can’t tell whether I’m getting you or
not.”
“Sure!” was the succinct answer of Ned. Then Tom made the
adjustments, turned on the power, and waited.
A moment later there came from his loud speaker the tones of
Ned and Mr. Damon singing a selection from one of the latest comic
operas. The musical accompaniment came from an electrical piano
in the studio.
“That’s the best and clearest broadcasting I’ve gotten yet!” said
Tom, with satisfaction.
“But that’s the easiest part of it. Now will the images of the
performers come on the screen clearly? That’s the decisive test.”
Anxiously, he turned the switch that controlled the projection of
moving objects. There was a hissing sound, a slight humming, and
then a soft glow illuminated the metallic glass screen in front of Tom
Swift. It suffused to a milky whiteness and then, as upon the silver
screen in a moving picture theater, but in miniature size, there was
projected before Tom’s eyes the figures of Ned and Mr. Damon going
through the movements of an eccentric dance as they sang.
For a moment Tom wanted to shout in delight, for, perhaps due to
the fact that the performers wore contrasting garments of red and
violet, the images projected were clearer than any Tom had yet
succeeded in getting through by means of his new wireless
apparatus.
“I believe I’ve struck it!” he whispered.
Then he began to laugh, for Mr. Damon certainly was funny. He
even seemed to know that Tom, in a distant room, could see him, for
the odd man winked one eye and made gestures at Tom as though
the young inventor were personally before him.
“Ha! Ha!” chuckled Tom. “I must get dad in to see this. He’ll
believe in it now.” For, up to this time, Mr. Swift had been rather
skeptical, though he was fully in sympathy with Tom’s aims. “And I’d
like to show it to Mary,” mused the young inventor, as he sat there
enjoying what really was a team vaudeville sketch without either of
the artists being in the room with him. Their song, the music, and
even the shuffling of their feet came plainly to him through the loud
speaker, while the image was shimmering on the metallic glass
screen almost as plainly as though Tom had been in the studio. Of
course the image was in reduced size. The screen was about three
feet square, and life-sized figures cannot be shown on that.
“But in time I can get them full size,” Tom decided. “Oh, but this is
good! I can see success now, though it still must be a little clearer to
make it a positive thing and in natural colors.”
Then he bethought him that Ned and Mr. Damon must be tired,
for they had been keeping steadily at it for nearly an hour while Tom
tried different combinations of lights and currents of various
intensities in order to get the best effects.
“Guess I’ll ’phone them that they can let up now,” decided the
young inventor. “They must be tired. And Ned wants to go see
Helen. By the same token I’d better give Mary a call, I guess. I’ve
been rather neglecting her of late—too busy over this invention.”
Then another thought came to Tom—that he would have the girls
and perhaps their parents come to the studio to take a look at the
result he had accomplished. True, it was not yet perfected; but he
knew his friends would keep his secret until he could complete the
patent applications.
“Yes, I’ll give the girls a show,” decided Tom. “They sure will enjoy
Mr. Damon’s singing and dancing. Gosh, but he’s funny!”
Tom shut off the power. The image faded from the screen which
turned from milky whiteness to the blackness of pitch. Then the
voices of the performers died away as Tom cut off the radio.
He was about to step to the telephone to advise his friends of his
almost complete success and to tell them to cease their efforts when
a noise out in the corridor attracted his attention.
“Maybe they’ve decided to quit of their own accord,” mused Tom.
He opened the door of his laboratory and stepped into the hall.
He saw nothing of Ned or Mr. Damon approaching and at once
became aware of a peculiar odor. At first he could not account for it,
thinking, for a moment, that his father might be at work in the
chemical laboratory farther down the corridor. But after a second
deep breath Tom knew it was no chemical he smelled.
“It—it’s—fash!” he murmured. “The peculiar melon fruit that Koku
was wishing for. But how in the world could that smell get here?
There isn’t any fash within hundreds of miles—yes, even thousands!
How Koku could get any——”
He paused. There was a dark object on the floor near where the
giant had been sitting on guard. Tom switched on a brilliant overhead
light. It illuminated the place where Koku had been sitting, but the
giant was no longer in his chair. He was sprawled on the floor, an
inert lump of flesh, while, not far from him, was one of those peculiar
melons, or fash fruits, of which the giants of that far-off, strange land
were so fond.
“Can I be dreaming?” gasped Tom. “How did this happen? Koku
must be drugged! How did he get that fash? And what does it all
mean?”
As he started forward a noise behind him attracted his attention.
CHAPTER XV
A SINISTER WARNING
Like an electrical flash it came into the mind of Tom Swift that
there was something wrong here—something terribly and
dangerously wrong. The drugged giant—nothing less than a drug
could account for the helplessness of Koku—the appearance of that
strange fruit, the noise behind—all these were warnings not to be
ignored.
So, though his first impulse was to hasten to the aid of the giant,
when he heard that noise back of him Tom turned.
He was only just in time. He had a glimpse of a figure gliding
toward him out of the shadows, for that part of the corridor was not
brightly lighted. And the figure was that of the man lately discharged
—Greenbaum!
With uplifted hand, in which was some sort of a weapon Tom
could not distinguish, Greenbaum glided toward him. Tom was taken
so by surprise and was so off his guard because of what had
happened to Koku that he might have fallen a victim to Greenbaum.
But at that moment occurred an interruption and a diversion that
saved the situation, and perhaps Tom’s life. The door farther down
the corridor opened and Mr. Damon and Ned, preceded by
Eradicate, who had been serving as guard there, came out. The two
performers, receiving no answer to their telephonic signal, had rightly
concluded that Tom had finished experimenting for the night.
“At the same time I thought something might be wrong when you
didn’t answer,” Ned explained later.
At any rate, the two performers and Eradicate were now
hastening toward the young inventor. In a trice they realized that Tom
was about to be attacked. But before the knife in Greenbaum’s hand
could descend, the man received some missile full in the face with
such crashing force that he staggered back. He dropped the knife,
and with a cry of pain darted away, being lost to sight in the shadows
of the hall.
“Good shot!” cried Ned.
“Bless my rubber boot, Eradicate hit the scoundrel with a shoe!”
exclaimed Mr. Damon.
“Dat’s whut I done!” chuckled the negro. “I didn’t have nothin’
else, so I tuck off mah shoe!”
Eradicate had big feet and wore heavy brogans, so the hobnailed
sole and heel made as effective a weapon for the purpose as could
be desired.
Recovering from the astonishment into which the unexpected
attempt on his life had thrown him, Tom Swift turned about and
darted into the lower part of the hall in pursuit of Greenbaum. But he
was too late. The slight start which the man had, served him in good
stead and he made his escape. Though Tom sounded the alarm and
got many of his night watchmen on the job, they could not capture
the intruder.
Not until it was made certain that he was no longer on the
premises did Tom turn his attention to Koku. Eradicate, however, had
begun to minister to his fellow guard. Though there was jealousy
between the two because each one desired to serve Tom alone,
when one was in trouble the other always showed a friendly spirit.
“Somebody done chlo’fo’m him!” was Eradicate’s opinion, when
Tom and Ned came back from the unsuccessful chase after
Greenbaum, to find the giant just recovering consciousness. There
was a dazed look on his face, but his eyes opened wider as he saw
the fash melon on the floor near where he had fallen from his chair.
“Koku no dream then,” he murmured.
“What happened?” asked Tom, when he had sent several men to
find out, if possible, how Greenbaum had eluded the guard and the
electrically charged fence and so had gained entrance to the private
laboratory.
Then the giant, whose immense bulk was proof against any
ordinary means of making him unconscious, told what had taken

Full download The Protection of Foreign Investment in Times of Armed Conflict Jure Zrilic file pdf all chapter on 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Full download The Protection of Foreign Investment in Times of Armed Conflict Jure Zrilic file pdf all chapter on 2024

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Full download The Protection of Foreign Investment in Times of Armed Conflict Jure Zrilic file pdf all chapter on 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Protection of Foreign Investment in

Times of Armed Conflict Jure Zrilic

Detention in non-international armed conflict 1st

Homophobic Violence in Armed Conflict and Political

National and International Civilian Protection

The Omega Theory : A New Physics of Earthquakes. Jure

Territorial Status in International Law Jure Vidmar

Rebel Courts: The Administration of Justice by Armed

The Handbook of European Defence Policies and Armed

Financial Times Guide to Investment Trusts, The:

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

Library of Congress Control Number: 2019941501

The book is based on my doctoral thesis, completed in 2016 and defended in

INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS

Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ)

International Court of Justice (ICJ)

Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Federal Republic of Germany v Ireland) (Jurisdiction)

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)

World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body

Iran–​United States Claims Tribunal

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)

Eritrea–​Ethiopia Claims Commission (EECC)

European Court of Justice (ECJ)/​Court of Justice of the

European Commission and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Yarrow et al v United Kingdom App no 9266/​81, Decision (EComHR,

Inter-​American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR)

US–​C hile Claims Commission 1901

France–​V enezuela Mixed Claims Commission

Germany–​V enezuela Mixed Claims Commission

Italy–​V enezuela Mixed Claims Commission

Spain–Venezuela Mixed Claims Commission

UK–​V enezuela Mixed Claims Commission

Puerto Cabello and Valencia Railway Company (Great Britain v Venezuela)

US–​V enezuela Mixed Claims Commission

NAFTA Arbitral Panel

UK–​U S Arbitral Tribunal

US–​M exico General Claims Commission

Other Inter-​S tate Arbitrations

International Centre for the Settlement of Investment

Autopista Concesionada de Venezuela v Venezuela ICSID Case no ARB/​00/​5,

Impregilo SpA v Argentine Republic ICSID Case no ARB/​07/​17, Award,

International Chamber Of Commerce (ICC)

Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)

Tatneft v Ukraine UNCITRAL, Award, 29 July 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90–​91n17, 91–​92n31

Other Mixed Arbitration

United States Military Tribunal at Nuremberg

United States of America

Skeels v US, 72 F Supp (W D La, 1947) 372 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117–​18n184

INTERNATIONAL Protocol to the Convention for the

You might also like

Iran–United States Claims Tribunal

Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission (EECC)

European Court of Justice (ECJ)/Court of Justice of the

Yarrow et al v United Kingdom App no 9266/81, Decision (EComHR,

Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR)

US–C hile Claims Commission 1901

France–V enezuela Mixed Claims Commission

Germany–V enezuela Mixed Claims Commission

Italy–V enezuela Mixed Claims Commission

UK–V enezuela Mixed Claims Commission

US–V enezuela Mixed Claims Commission

UK–U S Arbitral Tribunal

US–M exico General Claims Commission

Other Inter-S tate Arbitrations

Autopista Concesionada de Venezuela v Venezuela ICSID Case no ARB/00/5,

Impregilo SpA v Argentine Republic ICSID Case no ARB/07/17, Award,

Tatneft v Ukraine UNCITRAL, Award, 29 July 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90–91n17, 91–92n31

Skeels v US, 72 F Supp (W D La, 1947) 372 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117–18n184