The requirement of continuous corporate nationality and customary international rules on foreign investments: The Loewen case

Italian Yearbook of International Law

Volumn 14, Issue , 2005, Pages 225-236

  Acconci, Pia ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TERAMO   (Italy)

^b British Institute of International and Comparative Law   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34447517378     PISSN: 03915107     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1163/221161304X00091     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (48)

1. 1 Para. 217 of the 2003 ICSID Award. This Award, as well as the other ICSID decisions mentioned in this paper, are available at the ICSID website, http://www.worldbank.org/icsid.
2. 7 Para. 1, ibidem. For a criticism of the Tribunal’s findings see generally WERNER, “Does the Loewen Award Endanger the Credibility of the NAFTA Dispute Settlement Mechanism?”, The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 2005, p. 79 ff.;
3. MENDELSON, “Does the Loewen Award Endanger the Credibility of the NAFTA Dispute Settlement Mechanism?”, ibidem, p. 83 ff.
4. In favour of the ICSID Award cf. LEGUM, “Does the Loewen Award Endanger the Credibility of the NAFTA Dispute Settlement Mechanism?”, ibidem, p. 89 ff.;
5. CARVER, “Does the Loewen Award Endanger the Credibility of the NAFTA Dispute Settlement Mechanism?”, ibidem, p. 95 ff.
6. 8 See, in particular, the second Article 1128 Submission of Canada of 27 June 2002 and the third Article 1128 Submission of Mexico of 2 July 2002.
7. 9 Para. 16 of TLGI’s Response to “the Article 1128 Submissions of Canada and Mexico on Matters of Jurisdiction and Competence” of 19 July 2002. In this regard, TLGI particularly referred to the ICSID Awards on the Mihaly case of 15 March 2002, para. 24, and on the CSOB case of 24 May 1999, paras. 29 and 31.
8. 10 Para. 225 of the 2003 ICSID Award. See also the 2002 US “Memorial on Matters of Jurisdiction and Competence arising from the Restructuring of the Loewen Group, Inc.”, espec. pp. 2 and 13.
9. 11 Para. 229 of the 2003 ICSID Award.
10. 15 See, in particular, the 2000 “Special Addendum concerning Continuous Nationality and the Transferability of Claims” prepared by the rapporteur on diplomatic protection of the International Law Commission, Professor John Dugard (A/CN.4/506/Add.1), as well as Articles 5 and 10 of the Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection approved within the International Law Commission on 24 May 2004 (A/CN.4/L.647).
11. 16 Para. 234 of the 2003 ICSID Award.
12. 17 According to the ICSID Convention, only the date on which the parties to a dispute consented to submit the dispute to ICSID conciliation or arbitration is relevant to determine the nationality of a company for ICSID jurisdictional purposes. However, in the Tradex case the ICSID Tribunal took a different decision.
13. 18 In particular, para. 235 of the 2003 ICSID Award.
14. 22 Cf. ACCONCI, “Determining the Internationally Relevant Link between a State and a Corporate Investor”, The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 2004, p. 139 ff.
15. 23 See ORREGO VICUÑA, “Changing Approaches to the Nationality of Claims in the Context of Diplomatic Protection and International Dispute Settlement”, ICSID Review, 2000, p. 340 ff., espec. p. 353. However, the ICSID Decision on Jurisdiction of 29 April 2004 in the Tokios Tokèles case refers to a completely different view. According to this Decision, incorporation is still the standard rule in customary international law to determine corporate nationality (espec. paras. 69-70).
16. 24 Cf. GAILLARD, “CIRDI. Observations”, JDI, 2003, p. 230 ff., espec. pp. 232-233;
17. PAULSSON, “Continuous Nationality in Loewen”, Arbitration International, 2004, No. 2, p. 213 ff.;
18. MENDELSON, cit. supra note 7, pp. 85-86;
19. IDEM, “Runaway Train: The ‘Continuous Nationality’ Rule from the Panavezys-Saldutiskis Railway case to Loewen”, in WEILER (ed.), Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law, London, 2005, p. 97 ff.
20. 25 Paras. 229 and 230 of the 2003 ICSID Award.
21. 26 Cf., in general, GECK, “Diplomatic Protection”, in BERNHARDT (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Amsterdam/New York/Oxford, 1987, Vol. 10, p. 99 ff., pp. 109-110
22. ; WYLER, La règle dite de la continuité de la nationalité dans le contentieux international, Paris, 1990;
23. ontinuous Nationality of Claims Principle: Its Historical Development and Current Relevance to Investor-State Investment Disputes”, The George Washington International Law Review, 2004, p. 783 ff.
24. th ed., Oxford, 2003, p. 461).
25. 28 See the Gould Marketing, Inc.; Oil Field of Texas, Inc.; Mobil Oil Iran, Inc.; and Arthur J. Fritz & Co. cases.
26. 29 For a slight criticism of the ICSID case-law on the so-called “critical dates” for ICSID jurisdiction cf. SCHREUER, The ICSID Convention. A Commentary, Cambridge, 2001, pp. 324-332.
27. 30 Part D of the Decision on jurisdiction (Resubmitted Case) of 10 May 1988.
28. 31 See the Report of 29 September 2000 on the tenth instalment of E3 claims as to the claim of ABB Schaltanlagen GmbH (S/AC.26/2000/18).
29. 32 See the Report of 22 June 2001 on the thirteenth instalment of E3 claims as to the claim of NCC International AB (S/AC.26/2000/12).
30. 33 See some reports on E3 claims, such as the Report of 30 September 1999 on the fourth instalment of such claims as to the claim of Snamprogetti S.p.A. (S/AC.26/1999/14); the Report
31. of 29 September 2000 on the tenth instalment of such claims as to the claim of ABB Lumus Crest, Inc. (S/AC.26/2000/18); the Report of 15 March 2001 on the eighteenth instalment of such claims as to the claims of Intergraph Corporation and Parsons, de Leuw, Inc. (S/AC.26/2001/3); and the Report of 22 June 2001 on the seventh instalment of E2 claims as to the claim of Telstra Corp., Ltd. (S/AC.26/2001/11). Cf. CROOK, “The United Nations Compensation Commission – A New Structure to Enforce State Responsibility”, AJIL, 1993, p. 144 ff.
32. 34 See para. 97 of the Award on Jurisdiction of 22 November 2002.
33. 35 See paras. 183-184 of the Award of 9 January 2003.
34. 36 See espec. para. 229 of the 2003 ICSID Award.
35. 37 Generally, cf. GUZMAN, “Why LDCs Sign Treaties that Hurt Them: Explaining the Popularity of Bilateral Investment Treaties”, Virginia Journal of International Law, 1998, p. 639 ff., espec. pp. 686-687.
36. 38 In particular, see paras. 59 and 62 of the UNCITRAL Award in respect of Damages of 31 May 2002.
37. 39 See para. 117 of the ICSID Award of 11 October 2002.
38. 40 See, particularly, paras. 497-498 of the UNCITRAL Final Award of 13 March 2003.
39. 41 Cf. LOWENFELD, “Investment Agreements and International Law”, Columbia JTL, 2003, p. 123 ff., pp. 129-130;
40. HINDELANG, “Bilateral Investment Treaties, Custom and a Healthy Investment Climate”, The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 2004, p. 789 ff.;
41. SCHWEBEL, “The Influence of Bilateral Investment Treaties on Customary International Law”, ASIL Proceedings, 2004, p. 27 ff.;
42. SALACUSE and SULLIVAN, “Do BITs Really Work?”, Harvard ILJ, 2005, p. 67 ff., espec. pp. 112-115.
43. 42 Cf. SCHACHTER, “General Course in Public International Law”, RCADI, 1982-V, Vol. 178, p. 9 ff., pp. 82-85;
44. BATTAGLINI, “L’equità infra legem nei giudizi internazionali”, in Studi di diritto internazionale in onore di Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz, Napoli, 2004, Vol. I, p. 265 ff., espec. pp. 277, 287-293.
45. 43 See note No. 2 of the Notice of Petition to Vacate submitted by Raymond Loewen.
46. 46 Paras. 237-238 of the 2003 ICSID Award. In this respect, see also para. 65 of the ICSID Decision on Jurisdiction in the Tokios Tokèles case,
47. 47 Para. 239 of the 2003 ICSID Award. See also paras. 19-22 of the Decision on Respondent’s Request for a Supplementary Decision issued by the same ICSID Tribunal on 13 September 2004. Cf. WEILER, “Dodging Bullets-A First Look at the Final Award in The Loewen Group and Raymond Loewen v. U.S.A.”, The Journal of World Investment, 2003, p. 659 ff.
48. 48 Para. 239 of the 2003 ICSID Award.