ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 446-484

446Jurisdiction — Investment — Derivative transactions — Interpretation — Claims to money used to create an economic value — Claims to money associated with an investment — Whether a hedging agreement constituted an investment under the BITJurisdiction — Investment — Territorial requirement — Derivative transactions — Whether a hedging agreement satisfied the condition of territorial nexus to the host StateJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Derivative transactions — Salini test — Contribution to economic development — Regularity of profit and return — Whether a hedging agreement constituted an investment — Whether all five elements of the Salini test were legal criteria for an investment under ICSID jurisdictionJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Derivative transactions — Ordinary commercial transaction — Contingent liability — Whether a hedging agreement was an ordinary commercial transaction or a contingent liabilityJurisdiction — Contract — State-owned entity — Municipal law — Whether a hedging agreement was void because the transaction was outside a State-owned entity’s statutory authorityState responsibility — Attribution — Judicial acts — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — Whether a superior court was an organ of the host StateState responsibility — Attribution — Central bank — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — Whether a central bank was an organ of the host StateState responsibility — Attribution — State-owned entity — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 — Whether a State-owned entity was an organ of the State — Whether actions of a State-owned entity were attributable to the State as an exercise of governmental authority — Whether a State-owned entity was acting under instructions or the direction and control of the StateFair and equitable treatment — Judicial acts — Due process — Interim order — Political motive — Whether court orders violated the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether public statements of a senior judge evidenced the political motive of court ordersFair and equitable treatment — Autonomous standard — Interpretation — Minimum standard of treatment — Whether the standard of fair and equitable treatment was materially different from customary international law447Fair and equitable treatment — Government investigation — Due process — Bad faith — Transparency — Whether a central bank’s investigation violated the standard of fair and equitable treatmentExpropriation — Indirect expropriation — Contract — Derivative transaction — Substantial deprivation — Debt recovery — Municipal law — Whether the subsistence of a contractual debt and the possibility to claim under the chosen law of a third State prevented a finding of expropriation — Whether the possibility of recovery in a third State was to be assessed as a prerequisite in the cause of action of expropriation or as a matter of causation and quantumExpropriation — Indirect expropriation — Contract — Substantial deprivation — Legitimate regulatory authority — Proportionality — Whether an interference with contractual rights was an exercise of the host State’s legitimate regulatory authority — Whether the regulatory measures were proportionateRemedies — Damages — Causation — Contract — Debt recovery — Whether the claimant suffered damages if it had the possibility to recover a contractual debt in the courts of a third StateCosts — Indemnity — Egregious breach — Bad faith — Whether the egregious nature of the host State’s breaches of its international obligations meant the claimant was entitled to full recovery of its costs, legal fees and expenses


Author(s):  
Salacuse Jeswald W

This chapter examines the consequences of treaty violations for states and the remedies available to an investment when a host state fails to provide the treatment it has promised. It first considers the fact that most investment treaties do not specifically state the consequences of a state’s breach of treaty provisions. However, on issues not specifically covered by treaty, all investment treaties authorize tribunals to apply customary international law in making decisions, including determining compensation for investments affected by the breach of treaty provisions. The chapter then discusses the application of customary international law on state responsibility and investment treaty remedies in general, citing the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in particular. Finally there is a discussion of valuation techniques used to determine the amount of damages.due to injured investors.


Author(s):  
Jure Zrilič

This chapter explores the defence tools that a host state can use against conflict-related investment claims. The first part analyses security exceptions which have been introduced to investment protection law after the Second World War. While it is widely believed that such exceptions provide for the most persuasive safeguard of the state’s security interests, it is argued that their effectiveness will depend on the wording of the provision, determining their scope, the degree of autonomy given to a state in responding to a security threat, and their relationship with other treaty provisions. The chapter addresses these aspects. The second part focuses on the defences in the general law of state responsibility (necessity, force majeure, and countermeasures), explaining why their potential as a defence is limited.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document