Investment treaty arbitration as a species of global administrative law

European Journal of International Law

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 121-150

  Van Harten, Gus ^a   Loughlin, Martin ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645894171     PISSN: 09385428     EISSN: 14643596     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ejil/chi159     Document Type: Article

References (228)

1. See Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, 'The Emergence of Global Administrative Law', 68 Law & Contemporary Problems (2005) 15.
2. R. Dolzer and M. Stevens, Bilateral Investment Treaties (1995), at 126.
3. UNCTAD, Bilateral Investment Treaties in the Mid-1990s (1998), at 8-10
4. Parra, 'ICSID and Bilateral Investment' (2000) 17(1) ICSID News 7.
5. UNCTAD, Bilateral Investment Treaties - 1959-1999 (2000), at 1 and 4 (reporting that the number of BITS quintupled during the 1990s, from 385 in 1989 to 1,857 by 1999, involving 102 countries in 1989 and 173 countries in 1999). According to UNCTAD, there are now nearly 2,200 BITS in force, the bulk of which provide for compulsory investment arbitration.
6. North American Free Trade Agreement, 17 Dec. 1992, 32 ILM (1993) 296 and 605 (entered into force 1 Jan. 1994) (hereinafter 'NAFTA'), Arts 1116 and 1117.
7. Energy Charter Treaty, 17 Dec. 1994, 35 ILM (1996) 509, Art. 26.
8. UNCTAD, Trends in International Investment Agreements: An Overview, UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements (1999), at 33-34. Before the 1990s, nearly all investment treaties were concluded between capital-exporting and capital-importing states, usually based on model BITS adopted by the major capital-exporting countries.
9. See, e.g., Guzman, 'Why LDCs Sign Treaties That Hurt Them: Explaining the Popularity of Bilateral Investment Treaties', 38 Va J Int'l L (1998) 639
10. Hallward-Driemeier, 'Do Bilateral Investment Treaties Attract Foreign Direct Investment? Only a Bit... and They Could Bite', World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3121 (2003).
11. Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Ltd v Arab Republic of Egypt (Jurisdiction) (14 Apr. 1988), 3 ICSID Rep 131 (hereinafter SPP);
12. e.g. Asian Agricultural Products Ltd (AAPL) v Sri Lanka (Merits) (27 June 1990), 4 ICSID Rep 246, 30 ILM (1991) 577 (hereinafter AAPL).
13. Parra, supra note 3.
14. The growth of ICSID arbitration is only part of the explosion in investment arbitration. For one, it does not include cases in which an investor and a state have settled a dispute after the investor threatened a claim, but before the claim was registered by ICSID. More importantly, ICSID is the only international arbitration forum that is required to publicize investor claims. Other forums, such as the ICC's International Court of Arbitration or ad hoc tribunals established under the UNCITRAL Rules, normally presume that claims should remain confidential unless both disputing parties agree otherwise. Thus, it is not possible to assess the full extent to which the use of investment arbitration has expanded.
15. Salacuse, 'Toward a Global Treaty on Foreign Investment: The Search for a Grand Bargain' in N. Horn (ed.), Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes (2004), at 68-70.
16. There are notable variations among investment treaties including differences in scope, the definition of investment standards, and the relevant arbitration rules and arbitration institutions: UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2004 (2004), at 53-86.
17. Schneiderman, 'Investment Rules and the New Constitutionalism', 25 Law & Social Inq (2000) 757, at 769-770 and 781.
18. United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 10 June 1958, 330 UNTS 3 (entered into force 7 June 1959) (hereinafter 'New York Convention'). See A.J. Van den Berg, The New York Convention of 1958 (1981).
19. A. Redfern and M. Hunter, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (1999), at 137 and 449. 'Recognition' of an arbitration award by a court serves to bar fresh proceedings by the other disputing party; 'enforcement' refers to the court's application of legal sanctions, including seizure of property and other assets, forfeit of bank accounts, or imprisonment.
20. UNCTAD, supra note 3, at 62-64 and 97-98.
21. Convention for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, 18 Mar. 1965, 4 ILM (1965) 524 (entered into force 14 Oct. 1966) (hereinafter 'ICSID Convention'). See generally C. Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (2001).
22. ICSID, Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings in ICSID, revised 26 Sept. 1984 and 1 Jan. 2003 (original rules 1968), reprinted in ICSID, Convention, Regulations and Rules (2003), at 93 (hereinafter 'ICSID Rules').
23. E.g., NAFTA, supra note 5, Art. 11 24(1).
24. P.T. Muchlinski, Multinational Enterprises and the Law (1999), at 551-553.
25. Schreuer, supra note 18, at 191-224.
26. ICSID Convention, supra note 18, Art. 25.
27. Put differently, the notion of an investment dispute under the ICSID Convention overlaps with the concept of a commercial dispute under the New York Convention: SGS Société Générale de Surveillance v Philippines (Jurisdiction) (29 Jan. 2004), 16(3) World Trade and Arb Mat (2004) 91, at para. 10.
28. E.g., the International Court of Arbitration of the ICC or the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
29. ICSID Rules, supra note 19; Rules Governing the Additional Facility for the Administration of Proceedings by the Secretariat of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, revised 1 Jan. 2003 (original rules 1978), 1 ICSID Reports 213 (hereinafter 'ICSID Additional Facility Rules'), available at www.worldbank.org/icsid/ facility-archive/1.htm; Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, UN GA Res 31/98, UN GAOR, 31st Session, Supp. No. 17, UN Doc. A/31/17, chap. V, sect. C (1976) (hereinafter 'UNCITRAL Rules'); Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, revised 1 Jan. 1998 (original rules 1922) (hereinafter 'ICC Rules'), available at www.iccwbo.org/court/ english/arbitration/rules.asp; and Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, revised 1 Apr. 1999, available at www.sccinstitute.com/uk/Rules.
30. E.g., the President of the International Court of Justice or the Secretary General of the United Nations.
31. Paulsson, 'Arbitration without Privity', 10 ICSID Rev (1995) 232, at 232-233.
32. Case Concerning the Payment of Various Serbian Loans Issued In France (France v Serbia) (1921), PCIJ Ser A, No. 20, para. 41.
33. W. Peter, Arbitration and Renegotiation of International Investment Agreements (1995), at 167-169.
34. E.g. Status of Eastern Carelia, Advisory Opinion (1923), PCIJ Ser B, No. 5, 27
35. Ambatielos Claim (Greece v United Kingdom) (1956), 12 RIAA 83 (hereinafter Ambatielos), at 103.
36. Mavrommattis Palestine Concessions (Greece v Great Britain) (1924), PCIJ Ser A, No 2, 12
37. M.O. Hudson, International Tribunals (1944), at 67-69 and 198.
38. Ambatielos, supra note 30, at 118-119
39. Interhandel Case (Switzerland v United States) [1959] ICJ Rep 6, at 26-27
40. C. Eagleton, The Responsibility of States in International Law (1928), at 70
41. Okowa, 'Admissibility and the Law on International Responsibility' in M.D. Evans (ed.), International Law (2004), at 493-494.
42. The exception is the Central American Court of Justice of 1907-1918: See Hill, 'Central American Court of Justice' in R. Dolzer et al. (eds), Encyclopedia of Public International Law (1987), i, 41-42.
43. M. Sornarajah, The Settlement of Foreign Investment Disputes (2001), at 19-20.
44. See Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co (Belgium v Spain) [1970] ICJ Rep 3, 9 ILM (1970) 227
45. Elettronica Sicula SpA (United States v Italy) [1989] ICJ Rep 14
46. and Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (United Kingdom v Iran) [1952] ICJ Rep 93.
47. E.g., the Alabama Claims Arbitration established after the American Civil War, the Mixed Tribunals and Claims Commissions after World War I, the Iran-United States Claims Commission after the Islamic revolution in Iran, and the UN Compensation Commission after the Gulf War of 1990-1991; J. Collier and V. Lowe, The Settlement of Disputes in International Law (1999), chaps 1 and 3.
48. Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain and the United States, 19 Nov. 1794, 52 Cons TS 243 (entered into force 28 Oct. 1795). H. Neufeld, The International Protection of Private Creditors From the Treaties of Westphalia to the Congress of Vienna (1971), at 68-77.
49. Established by the Declaration of the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria Concerning the Settlement of Claims by the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Claims Settlement Declaration), 19 Jan. 1981 (hereinafter 'Algiers Declaration'), Art. II(1); R.B. Lillich and D.B. Magraw, The Iran-United States Tribunal: Its Contribution to the Law of State Responsibility (1998).
50. Take the example of the Iran-US Claims Tribunal. In 1981, after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran and the United States consented to the compulsory arbitration of claims by each other's nationals arising out of 'debts, contracts..., expropriations or other measures affecting property rights', allowing foreign nationals to make direct claims before the Tribunal if they each amounted to US$250,000 or more, and if they were 'outstanding' on 19 Jan. 1981: Algiers Declaration, supra note 37, Art. II. Thus, the Tribunal had compulsory jurisdiction over a certain body of individual claims, limited to a roughly two-year period following the revolution.
51. Redfern and Hunter, supra note 16, at 21-22.
52. Wälde, 'Investment Arbitration Under the Energy Charter Treaty - From Dispute Settlement to Treaty Implementation', 12 Arb Int'l (1996) 429, at 434-136.
53. Muchlinski, supra note 21, at 173, 501-514.
54. E.g., CME Republic BV v Czech Republic (Merits) (13 Sept. 2001), 14(3) World Trade and Arb Mat (2002) 109 (hereinafter CME (Merits)), para. 410
55. CME Republic BV v Czech Republic (Damages) (14 Mar. 2003), 15(4) World Trade and Arb Mat 83 and 245 (hereinafter CME (Damages)), paras 398 and 412-113
56. UNCTAD, Dispute Settlement: Investor-State, UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements (2003), at 32-34
57. Been and Beauvais, 'The Global Fifth Amendment: NAFTA's Investment Protections and the Misguided Quest for an International "Regulatory Takings" Doctrine', 78 NYU L Rev (2003) 30, at 83-86.
58. Eagleton, supra note 32, at 79, 96, and 100
59. Okowa, supra note 32, at 493-194.
60. Exceptions to the duty to exhaust local remedies are customarily limited to circumstances in which an effective local remedy was unavailable: Certain Norwegan Loans (France v Norway) [1957] ICJ Rep 9, at 39.
61. E.g., CMS Gas Transmission Company v The Argentine Republic (Jurisdiction) (17 July 2003), 42 ILM (2003) 788, paras 78 and 80
62. Azurix Corp v The Argentine Republic (Jurisdiction) (8 Dec. 2003), 16(2) World Trade and Arb Mat (2004) 111, at paras 99-100
63. Siemens AG v The Argentine Republic (Jurisdiction) (3 Aug. 2004), ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, available at http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/ SiemensJurisdiction-English-3August2004.pdf, at paras 151 and 160.
64. Weiss, 'Invoking State Responsibility in the Twenty-first Century', 96 AJIL (2002) 798, at 811-812
65. Greenwood, 'The Law of War (International Humanitarian Law)' in M.D. Evans (ed.), International Law (2004), at 817.
66. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 21 ILM (1982) 1261 (entered into force 16 Nov. 1994), Arts 187(c) and 188(2); Arts 5(4) and 13(15) (Annex III) permit individuals to make claims before the International Sea-Bed Disputes Chamber, but only in contractual disputes.
67. E.g. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 16 Dec. 1966, 999 UNTS 171, 61 AJIL (1967) 870 (entered into force 23 Mar. 1976), Art. 41 (providing for an optional system of claims by states parties) and (First) Optional Protocol (1966) (providing for an optional system of individual petitions leading to consideration and an expression of views by an international committee, but not individual claims leading to compulsory arbitration or a damages award).
68. European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), 4 Nov. 1950, Eur TS 5, 213 UNTS 222 (entered into force 3 Sept. 1953), Art. 34.
69. American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), 1144 UNTS 123 (entered into force 18 July 1978), Art. 44.
70. ECHR, supra note 48, Art. 41.
71. Costa, 'The Provision of Compensation Under Article 41 of the European Convention on Human Rights' (Address to the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 7 Dec. 2001), at 1-3 and 16-17.
72. ACHR, supra note 49, Arts 61(1) and 63(1).
73. E.g., Tabacalera Boquerón SA v Paraguay (1997),
74. Inter-Am Comm HR, Rep. No. 47/97, Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: 1987, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.98/Doc.7/rev. (1998) 225, at paras 25 and 36.
75. D. Shelton, Remedies in International Human Rights Law (1999), at 221-223.
76. ECHR, supra note 48, Art. 35
77. ACHR, supra note 49, Art. 46(1).
78. More precisely, damages must be available as a remedy before the domestic courts of the Member States, subject to the overriding jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in matters of EC law: Cases 6 and 9/90 Francovich and Bonifaci v Republic of Italy [1991] ECR I-5357, [1993] 2 CMLR 66 (hereinafter Francovich), paras 35 and 40.
79. P. Craig and G. De Búrca, EU Law-Text, Cases, and Materials (3rd edn, 2003), at 257-274.
80. The Francovich doctrine applies to legislative acts and omissions (Cases C-46 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Germany; R. v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd. and Others [1996] ECR I-1029, [1996] 1 CMLR 889 (hereinafter Brasserie du Pêcheur)), administrative decisions (Case C-5/94 R v Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, ex parte Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd [1996] ECR I-2553), judicial decisions (Case C-224/01 Köbler v Austria [2003] ECR I-10239, [2003] 3 CMLR 28), and acts of subnational governments (Case C-424/97 Salomone Haim v Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Nordrhein [2000] ECR I-5123).
81. Brasserie du Pêcheur, supra note 56, at 990 (finding various fault-based factors relevant to the issue of whether a breach was sufficiently serious, including: The clarity and precision of the rule breached; the measure of discretion left by that rule to the national or Community authorities; whether the infringement and the damage caused were intentional or involuntary; whether any error of law was excusable or inexcusable; the fact that the position taken by a Community institution may have contributed towards the omission; and the adoption or retention of national measures or practices contrary to Community law).
82. Case C-352/98 Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission [2000] ECR I-5291.
83. Francovich, supra note 55, at para. 43.
84. C. Harlow and R. Rawlings, Law and Administration (1997), at 632-633.
85. M. Lunney and K. Oliphant, Tort Law (2000), at 524-525.
86. Fairgrieve, 'The Human Rights Act 1998, Damages and Tort Law' [2001] Pub Law 695, at 698-699
87. Tridimas, 'Liability for Breach of Community Law: Growing Up and Mellowing Down?', 38 CML Rev (2001) 301, at 317-321 and 331-332.
88. E.g., Blad v Bamfield (1674), 3 Swan 604, 36 ER 992
89. Duke of Brunswick v King of Hannover (1844), [1848] 6 Beav 1
90. Oetjen v Central Leather Co, 246 US 297 (1918), at 303-304.
91. Denza, 'The Relationship Between International and National Law' in Evans (ed.), supra note 46, at 415.
92. Leahy, 'Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Issued by the Additional Facility of the International Centre of Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)', 2 J Int'l Arb (1985) 15, at 15-16
93. Redfern and Hunter, supra note 16, at 474 and 481.
94. Indeed, one reason for the decision to locate ICSID within the World Bank was to add weight to ICSID awards, given the World Bank's influence over host states' access to international credit: I. Delupis, Finance and Protection of Investments in Developing Countries (1973), at 3.
95. Although enforcement and recognition under the ICSID Convention is possible only where both the host state and the investor's home state are parties to that treaty.
96. Supra note 26.
97. ICSID Convention, supra note 18, Arts 54 and 53(1).
98. See also ICSID Additional Facility Rules, supra note 26, Art. 53(4).
99. Once an award has been recognized and enforced by the courts of a state party to the ICSID Convention, the New York Convention, or the Inter-American Convention, the investor may seek execution of the award against the respondent state's assets in the enforcing state's territory.
100. New York Convention, supra note 15, Arts I, III, and V.
101. Finally, the award may also be enforced under the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, 30 Jan. 1975, 14 ILM (1975) 336 (hereinafter 'Inter-American Convention'), which contains provisions (Arts 1, 4, and 5) that are similar to those under the New York Convention.
102. Shelton, supra note 53, at 90.
103. Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945 [1945] USTS No 993, [1946] UKTS No 67, [1945] Can TS No. 7, Art. 94(2) (entered into force 24 Oct. 1945). D. J. Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law (5th edn, 1998), at 989.
104. Republic of Ecuador v Occidental Exploration and Production Company [2005] EWHC 774, at paras 76 and 84 (Comm. Ct.);
105. Brower, Brower II, and Sharpe, 'The Coming Crisis in the Global Adjudicative System', 19 Arb Int'l (2003) 415, at 419.
106. Under NAFTA, Chap. 11, a tribunal must locate the seat of an arbitration in a NAFTA state that is a party to the New York Convention: NAFTA, supra note 5, Art. 1130. Up to June 2005, eight arbitrations under NAFTA Chap. 11 were located in Canada, seven in the United States, and none in Mexico.
107. The domestic law of the seat of the arbitration may also determine other issues, such as whether the arbitration agreement was valid (in the absence of an agreement of the parties to apply another law to determine this issue); and whether the composition of the arbitration tribunal and the arbitration procedure were lawful (in the absence of an agreement of the parties on these matters). See Peter, supra note 29, at 284-285
108. W.M. Reismann, Systems of Control in International Adjudication and Arbitration (1992), at 127.
109. New York Convention, supra note 15, Art. V.
110. Ibid.
111. See also Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 21 June 1985, UNCITRAL, UN Doc. A/40/17, Annex I, 24 ILM (1985) 1302 (hereinafter 'UNCITRAL Model Law'), Arts 34 and 35.
112. New York Convention, supra note 15, Art. V(1)(e).
113. E.g., Sonatrach v Ford Bacon & Davis Inc (1990) 11 YB Comm'l Arb 370
114. Hilmarton I (1995) 20 YB Comm'l Arb 663
115. Chromalloy Aeroservices v Arab Republic of Egypt, 939 F Supp 907 (DDC 1996);
116. Reismann, supra note 75, at 113-116.
117. Redfern and Hunter, supra note 16, at 415, 484-485.
118. ICSID Convention, supra note 18, Arts 53-55
119. New York Convention, supra note 15, Art. V;
120. Inter-American Convention, supra note 70, Arts 4-5.
121. E.g., UNCITRAL Model Law, supra note 77, Arts 34-35
122. Report of the Secretary-General: Analytical Commentary on Draft Text of a Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, UN Doc. A/CN.9/264 (25 Mar. 1985), 16 YB UNCITRAL (1985) 104, para. 44.
123. E.g., Federal Arbitration Act, 9 USC chap. 1, sect. 10 (governing actions in a US federal court to vacate awards (chap. 1, sect. 10) and to recognize and enforce awards under the New York Convention (chap. 2, sect. 207) and the Inter-American Convention (chap. 3, sect. 304)); Commercial Arbitration Act, RSC 1985, chap. 17 (2nd Supp), Arts 34-36 (Schedule, Commercial Arbitration Code); Código de Comercio, Tit. IV, c. 1-9 (Commercial Arbitration), as amended 1989 and 1993, Arts 1415-1463.
124. See also Mustill, 'Arbitration: History and Background', 6 J Int'l Arb (1989) 43, at 51-53
125. Kierstead, Referral to Arbitration Under Article 8 of the UNCITRAL Model Law: The Canadian Approach', 31 Can Bus LJ (1998) 98, at 100-102
126. Reismann, supra note 75, at 125-126
127. NAFTA Advisory Committee on Private Commercial Disputes (D. Enix-Ross and D.W. Rivkin), Summary of U.S. Arbitration Law (1995), at 1
128. Tenenbaum, 'International Arbitration of Trade Disputes in Mexico - The Arrival of the NAFTA and New Reforms to the Commercial Code', 12 J Int'l Arb 53, 59-60 and 73-74.
129. Scodro, 'Arbitrating Novel Legal Questions: A Recommendation for Reform', 105 Yale LJ (1996) 1927, at 1929-1937
130. Reymond, 'The Channel Tunnel Case and the Law of International Arbitration', 109 LQR (1993) 337, at 341.
131. United Mexican States v Metalclad Corporation (2001) 89 BCLR (3d) 359, 38 CELR 284, 13(5) World Trade and Arb Mat 219, at paras 50-56
132. United Mexican States v Marvin Roy Feldman Karpa (2003) 16(2) World Trade and Arb Mat 167, at paras 77-86 (Ont SCJ), aff'd 193 OAC 216, 248 DLR (4th) 443, at paras 34-13 (Ont CA);
133. Attorney General of Canada v S.D. Myers, Inc [2004] 3 FCR 368, 5 CELR (3d) 166 (FCTD), at paras 42-44.
134. M.-F. Houde and K. Yannaca-Small, Relationships between International Investment Agreements, OECD Working Paper on International Investment No. 2004/1 (2004), at 4.
135. Waste Management Inc v United Mexican States (Merits) (30 Apr. 2004), 43 ILM (2004) 967, 16(4) World Trade and Arb Mat (2004) (hereinafter Waste Management No. 2), at para. 80
136. Tokios Tokelès v Ukraine (Jurisdiction) (29 Apr. 2004), 16(4) World trade and Arb Mat (2004) 75 (hereinafter Tokios), at paras 24, 28, and 36.
137. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v United Mexican States (Jurisdiction) (17 July 2003), 15(6) World Trade and Arb Mat (2003) 3, at para. 5
138. Mondev International Ltd v United States of America (Merits) (11 Oct. 2002), 42 ILM (2003) 85, 15(3) World trade and Arb Mat (2003) 273, at para. 79.
139. Wena Hotels Ltd v Egypt (Jurisdiction) (25 May 1999), 41 ILM (2002) 881, 888
140. Tokios, supra note 4, at paras 21 and 38.
141. Investment treaties adopt different definitions of 'investor', but virtually all make access to investment arbitration available to both natural and legal persons who qualify as investors.
142. Peterson, 'Bilateral Investment Treaties and Development Policy-Making' (Report for the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Nov. 2004), at 24-26.
143. CME (Damages), supra note 42, at para. 650 (summary of the decision).
144. Dolzer and Stevens, supra note 2, at 33-36.
145. Waste Management No. 2, supra note 86, at para. 80.
146. Amco Asia Corp v Indonesia (Jurisdiction) (25 Sept. 1983), 23 ILM (1983) 351, at para. 14
147. Société Ouest-Africaine des Bétons Industriels v Senegal (Merits) (25 Feb. 1988), 6 ICSID Rev (1991) 125, 17 YB Com Arb (1986) 42, at 48.
148. CME (Merits), supra note 42, at para. 396
149. CME (Damages), supra note 42, at paras 432-433.
150. Tokios, supra note 86, at paras 21 and 38.
151. UNCTAD, Scope and Definition, UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements (1999), at 37-38.
152. The presiding arbitrator is normally appointed, in the absence of agreement between the disputing parties, by a designated appointing authority.
153. Fuller, 'Consideration and Form', 41 Colum L Rev (1941) 799, at 806-808
154. Redfern and Hunter, supra note 16, at 135.
155. Chayes, 'The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation', 89 Harv LRev (1976) 1281, at 1294-1295 and 1302.
156. Report of the Secretary-General: Possible Features of a Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, UN Doc. A/CN.9/207 (14 May 1981), (1981) 12 YB UNCITRAL 77 (hereinafter Preliminary Model Law Report), at 78.
157. Redfern and Hunter, supra note 16, at 7 and 247
158. Fortier, 'Delimiting the Spheres of Judicial and Arbitral Power', 80 Can Bar Rev (2000) 143, at 147-148.
159. Redfern and Hunter, supra note 16, at 135.
160. Rau, 'Integrity in Private Judging', (1997) 38 South Texas LRev (1997) 455, at 486-187.
161. But see Yu and Shore, 'Independence, Impartiality, and Immunity of Arbitrators - U.S. and English Perspectives', 52 ICLQ (2003) 935, at 965-967.
162. Y. Dezaley and B.G. Garth, Dealing in Virtue: International Commercial Arbitration and the Construction of a Transnational Legal Order (1996), at 27-30.
163. United States, Department of Commerce, Office of the Chief Counsel for International Commerce, International Arbitration (1998);
164. Redfern and Hunter, supra note 16, at 23-25.
165. Redfern and Hunter, supra note 16, at 12-13.
166. Preliminary Model Law Report, supra note 101, at 78.
167. Bucher, 'Court Intervention in Arbitration' in R. Lillich and C.N. Brower (eds.), International Arbitration in the 21st Century: Towards Judicialization and Uniformity? (1994), at 29.
168. Redfern and Hunter, supra note 16, at 431-132 and 471-174.
169. Yu and Shore, supra note 104, at 964.
170. Fiss, 'Against Settlement', 93 Yale LJ (1984) 1073, at 1085-1086
171. Scodro, supra note 83, at 1947-1949.
172. As demonstrated by the number of states that have ratified the New York Convention (more than 120) and passed domestic legislation based on the UNCITRAL Model Law (more than 40).
173. Redfern and Hunter, supra note 16, at 5 and 22.
174. In some cases a private arbitration may affect third parties or the state, although the degree to which this is the case is usually regulated by the state. Since the 1980s, the US Supreme Court has adopted a pro-arbitration stance by allowing the arbitration of disputes that engage the interests of third parties and the general public: E.g., Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v Soler Chrysler Plymouth Inc, 473 US 614, at 627-637 (1985).
175. Carver, 'The Strengths and Weaknesses of International Arbitration Involving a State as a Party: Practical Implications', 1 Arb Int'l (1985) 179, at 180
176. S.J. Toope, Mixed International Arbitration - Studies in Arbitration Between States and Private Persons (1990), at 391-400.
177. See Bank of United States v Planter's Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheat 904, 907 (US 1824);
178. Trendtex Trading Corp v Central Bank of Nigeria [1977] QB 529, at 557-558 (CA).
179. Early ICSID arbitrations were all founded on consents recorded, in the traditional manner, by a clause in an investment contract: See, e.g., Holiday Inns SA v Morocco (Jurisdiction) (12 May 1974), 1 ICSID Rep 645
180. Kaiser Bauxite Company v Jamaica (Jurisdiction) (6 July 1975), 1 ICSID Rep 296
181. Adriano Gardella v Côte d'Ivoire (Merits) (29 Aug. 1979), 1 ICSID Rep 283
182. AGIP SpA v People's Repubic of Congo (Merits) (30 Nov. 1979), 1 ICSID Rep 306, 21 ILM (1982) 726.
183. E.g., SPP, supra note 9, at 161.
184. E.g., AAPL, supra note 9, at paras 2-6.
185. Paulsson, supra note 28, at 256
186. Wälde, supra note 40, at 434-136.
187. When the consent is given in domestic legislation, it is subject to domestic law and can be withdrawn or amended according to domestic law: Delupis, supra note 65, at 27. On the other hand, when the consent is given in a treaty, it is subject to the terms of the treaty and can be withdrawn or amended only with the consent of the states parties or by abrogation of the treaty.
188. W.I. Jennings, The Law and the Constitution (1959), at 312
189. Cohen and Smith, 'Entitlement and the Body Politic: Rethinking Negligence in Public Law', 64 Can Bar Rev (1986) 1, at 5-6.
190. D. Lemieux and A. Stuhec, Review of Administrative Action Under NAFTA (1999), at 151-152.
191. Many investment treaties include, in the definition of investor, those entities that are seeking to make an investment in the host state: E.g., NAFTA, supra note 5, Art. 1139 ('investor of a Party').
192. Tollefson, 'Metalclad v. United Mexican States Revisited: Judicial Oversight of NAFTA's Chapter Eleven Investor-State Claim Process', 11 Minn J Global Trade (2002) 183, at 204-205.
193. Marvin Roy Feldman Karpa v United Mexican States (Merits) (16 Dec. 2002), 15(3) World Trade and Arb Mat (2003) 157.
194. For a taste of the debate on the degree to which treaty-based investment arbitration constrains the state, and on the costs and benefits, see, e.g., M. Barlow and T. Clark, MAI: The Multilateral Agreement on Investment and the Threat to Canadian Sovereignty (1997);
195. Schneidermann, supra note 14
196. Brower and Steven, 'Who Then Should Judge? Developing the International Rule of Law under NAFTA Chapter 11', 2 Chicago J Int'l L (2001) 193
197. Laird, 'NAFTA Chapter 11 Meets Chicken Little', 2 Chicago J Int'l L (2001) 223.
198. Werner, 'The Trade Explosion and Some Likely Effects on International Arbitration', 14(2) J Int'l Arb (1997) 5, at 9-10
199. Cremades and Cairns, 'The Brave New World of Global Arbitration', 3 J World Investment (2002) 173, at 208.
200. Schneiderman, supra note 14, at 771-772
201. Werksman, Baumert, and Dubash, 'Will International Investment Rules Obstruct Climate Protection Policies?' (Report for the World Resources Institute, Apr. 2001);
202. Park, 'Arbitration and the Fisc: NAFTA's "Tax Veto"', 2 Chicago J Int'l L (2001) 231, at 236-238
203. Epps and Flood, 'Have We Traded Away the Opportunity for Innovative Health Care Reform? The Implications of the NAFTA for Medicare', 47 McGill LJ (2002) 747, at 781-787.
204. S.D. Myers, Inc v Government of Canada (Merits) (12 Nov. 2000), 40 ILM (2001) 1408, 15(1) World Trade and Arb Mat (2003) 184
205. Metalclad Corporation v United Mexican States (Merits) (30 Aug. 2000), 40 ILM (2001) 36, 13(1) World Trade and Arb Mat (2001) 45
206. The Loewen Group, Inc and Raymond L. Loewen v United States of America (Merits) (26 June 2003), 42 ILM (2003) 811, 15(5) World Trade and Arb Mat (2003) 97.
207. Joseph Charles Lemire v Ukraine (Settlement), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/ 1, available at http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/Lemire-Award.pdf;
208. Empresas Lucchetti, SA and Lucchetti Peru, SA v Republic of Peru (Jurisdiction) (7 Feb. 2005), ICSID Case No. ARB/03/4, available at http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/luchetti.pdf, at paras 18-21
209. Occidental Exploration and Production Company v Republic of Ecuador (Merits) (1 July 2004), London Court of International Arbitration Administered Case No. UN 3467, available at http://ita.law.uvic.ca/ documents/Oxy-EcuadorFinalAward_001.pdf, at para. 32.
210. E.g., CMS Gas Transmission Company v The Argentine Republic (Merits) (12 May 2005), ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, available at http://ita.law.uvic.ca/ documents/CMS_FinalAward.pdf, at paras 53-56
211. Camuzzi International SA v The Argentine Republic (Jurisdiction) (10 June 2005), ICSID Case No. ARB/03/7, available at http://ita.law.uvic.ca/ documents/camuzzijurisdiction.pdf, at para. 10.
212. Michelman, 'Property, Utility, and Fairness: Comments on the Ethical Foundations of "Just Compensation" Law', 80 Harv LRev (1067) 1165, at 1168-1169.
213. E.g., Canada, Mexico, and the United States found it necessary expressly to authorize the public release of arbitration awards and documents in investment arbitrations under NAFTA: Free Trade Commission (NAFTA), Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions (31 July 2001), 13(6) World Trade and Arb Mat (2001) 139, available at www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/NAFTA-Interpr-en.asp. The United States Congress also modified the US Administration's trade negotiating authority under the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (Div. B, Title XXI, Trade Act of 2002, Pub L No. 107-210, 116 USC 933, s. 2102(3) (2002)) in response to concerns about public access and representation in investment arbitration.
214. Dezaley, 'Between the State, Law, and the Market: The Social and Professional Stakes in the Construction and Definition of a Regulatory Arena' in W.W. Bratton et al. (eds), International Regulatory Competition and Coordination (1996), at 84-86.
215. Wai, 'Transnational Liftoff and Juridical Touchdown: The Regulatory Function of Private International Law in an Era of Globalization', 40 Colum J Transnat'l L (2002) 209, at 217.
216. Republic of Ghana v Telekom Malaysia Berhad, DC The Hague, 18 Oct. 2004 and 5 Nov. 2004, Nos HA/RK 2004.667 and HA/RK 2004.788 (concluding that a party-nominated arbitrator in an investment arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules could not concurrently act as counsel to an unrelated party in an ICSID annulment proceeding that raised similar legal issues).
217. See also Cosbey et al., 'Investment and Sustainable Development' (Report by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2004), at 6.
218. Rau, supra note 104, at 488 and 521.
219. Sornarajah, 'Power and Justice in Foreign Investment Arbitration', 14(3) J Int'l Arb (1997) 103, at 117.
220. Maniruzzaman, 'Internationalization of Foreign Investment Agreements - Some Fundamental Issues of International Law', 1 J World Investment (2000) 293, at 311
221. Sornarajah, 'The Clash of Globalisations and the International Law on Foreign Investment' (Presentation to the Centre for Trade Policy and Law, Ottawa, 12 Sept. 2002), 15, available at http://www.carleton.ca/ ctpl/papers/sornarajah.doc, at 18.
222. See supra, at 27-28.
223. See supra, at 10-11.
224. See supra, at 11-13.
225. See supra, at 15-17.
226. See supra, at 18-19.
227. See supra note 134
228. more generally, see Chayes, supra note 100.