Abstract
As the number of investment arbitrations under the Energy Charter Treaty has soared in recent years, parties and arbitrators have faced arguments concerning its Article 21 on taxation measures, which had seldom been applied before.
In 2014, the tribunal ruling on the Yukos trilogy held that even though Article 21 excludes taxation from the scope of the treaty, the carve-out could apply “only to bona fide taxation actions, i.e., actions that are motivated by the purpose of raising general revenue for the State”. Article 21 also provides that in cases regarding expropriation “[t]he Investor or the Contracting Party alleging expropriation shall refer the issue of whether the tax is an expropriation or whether the tax is discriminatory to the relevant Competent Tax Authority. Failing such referral by the Investor” in cases of investor-state arbitration, the tribunal “shall make a referral to the relevant Competent Tax Authorities”. The Yukos tribunal considered said referral to be a futile exercise when it is unequivocal that the host State acted in bad faith towards the foreign investor. As a consequence of the Yukos trilogy, the Energy Charter Secretariat has published a report on the issue that recommends potential amendments to clarify Article 21. A number of investor-state arbitral tribunals have also addressed these issues since the Yukos trilogy.
Taking a public international law approach, this article critically explores awards and decisions rendered by those tribunals, paying particular attention to their findings on Article 21 vis-à-vis the sovereign power to tax. This article concludes that recent awards dealing with Article 21 arguments have struck an appropriate balance between the prerogatives of States and their obligations under the Energy Charter Treaty. Thus, the article affirms that no amendment seems necessary.
The State as 'Black Box' and the Market as Regulator: A Comment on Anne Van Aaken's 'Effectuating Public International Law Through Market Mechanisms'
