Barcelona Traction: A Friend of Investment Protection Law

Baltic Yearbook of International Law

Volumn 8, Issue , 2008, Pages 105-133

  Paparinskis, Martinš ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79956298010     PISSN: 15696456     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1163/22115897-90000033     Document Type: Article

References (166)

1. UNCTAD, Bilateral Investment Treaties 1995-2006: Trends in Investment Rulemaking (United Nations, New York and Geneva, 2007) p. 1, visited on 14 October 2007.
2. UNCTAD, Bilateral Investment Treaties 1995-2006: Trends in Investment Rulemaking (United Nations, New York and Geneva, 2007) p. 1, visited on 14 October 2007.
3. See T. Weiler, NAFTA Investment Law and Arbitration: Past Issues, Current Practice, Future Prospects (Transnational Publishers, Ardsley, N.Y., 2004).
4. As discussed in Yaung Chii OO Trading PTE v. Government of the Union of Myanmar, 31 March 2003, ASEAN Arbitral Tribunal, Case No. ARB/01/1, Award, paras. 20-25.
5. See C. Ribeiro (ed.), Investment Arbitration and Energy Charter Treaty (Juris Publishing, 2006).
6. T. Waelde, 'International Investment Law: An Overview of Key Concepts and Methodologies', 4:4 Transnational Dispute Management (2007) pp. 48-49, note 104.
7. E.g. the reference to customary law of expropriation in 2004 US Model BIT Annexes A and B, visited on 14 October 2007.
8. visited on 25 November 2007.
9. visited on 14 October 2007.
10. Case Concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of Congo) 24 May 2007, ICJ, Judgment on Preliminary Objections, para. 88, visited on 14 October 2007.
11. E. Borchard, Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad (The Banks Law Publishing Co., New York, 1915) pp. 349 et seq.
12. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co, Limited (New Application) (Belgium v. Spain), 5 February 1970, ICJ, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 3.
13. CMS Gas Transmission v. Argentine Republic, 17 July 2003, ICSID Tribunal, Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, para. 44.
14. F. A. Mann, 'Foreign Investment in the International Court of Justice: the ELSI Case', 86 American Journal of International Law (1992) p. 92.
15. Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. U.K.), 30 August 1924, PCIJ, Judgment on Preliminary Objections, P.C.I.J. Reports, Series A, No. 2, p. 12
16. Panevezys Saldutiskis Railway case (Estonia v. Lithuania), 28 February 1939, PCIJ, Judgment on Preliminary Objections, P.C.I.J. Reports, Series A/B, No. 76, p. 16
17. Borchard, supra note 11, pp. 366-398.
18. J. L. Brierly, The Law of Nations, 6th ed. (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1963) p. 277.
19. Article 1, and only adding Article 19 with recommended (and non-binding) practices in the exercise of diplomatic protection, 2006
20. Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection with Commentaries, Vol. II, Part II Yearbook of the International Law Commission (2006) pp. 24, 25, 94-100.
21. LFH Neer and Pauline Neer (USA) v. United Mexican States, 4 RIAA (1926) pp. 60, 61.
22. R. Jennings, 'State Contracts in International Law', 37 British Yearbook of International Law (1961) p. 180.
23. J. M. Jones, 'Claims on Behalf of Nationals who are Shareholders in Foreign Companies', 26 British Yearbook of International Law (1949) pp. 225, 226-228.
24. C. Parry, 'Some Considerations upon the Protection of Individuals in International Law', 90 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International (1956) p. 703
25. K. A. Al-Shawi, The Role of the Corporate Entity in International Law (Overbeck Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1957) pp. 33-35.
26. R. Jennings, 'General Course on Principles of Public International Law', 121 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International (1967) p. 487.
27. Borchard, supra note 10, respectively pp. 457-616 and 617-626.
28. H. Walker, 'Provisions on Companies in United States Commercial Treaties', 50 American Journal of International Law (1956) pp. 373, 376.
29. M. M. Whiteman, Damages in International Law (United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1937).
30. Walker, supra note 25, pp. 379, 380;
31. R. R. Wilson, 'Postwar Commercial Treaties of the United States', 43 American Journal of International Law (1949) pp. 262, 265, 266;
32. R. R. Wilson, 'Property-Protection Provisions in United States Commercial Treaties', 45 American Journal of International Law (1951) pp. 83, 103, 104;
33. R. R. Wilson, 'Access-to-Courts Provisions in United States Commercial Treaties', 47 American Journal of International Law (1953) pp. 20, 41, 42.
34. P. Allott, Eunomia: A New Order for a New World (OUP, Oxford, 1990) pp. 5-13;
35. P. Allott, Health of Nations (CUP, Cambridge, 2002) pp. 415, 416
36. P. Allott, 'Language, Method and the Nature of International Law', in his book Towards the International Rule of Law: Essays in Integrated Constitutional Theory (Cameron May, London, 2006) pp. 163-228.
37. V. V. Veeder, 'The Lean Goldfields Arbitration: The Historical Roots of Three Ideas', 47 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1995) pp. 768-770.
38. W. E. Beckett, 'Diplomatic Claims in Respect of Injuries to Companies', 17 Transactions of the Grotius Society (1932) p. 194.
39. G. Fitzmaurice, 'The Meaning of the Term "Denial of Justice"', 13 British Yearbook of International Law (1932) p. 93;
40. Beckett, supra note 30, pp. 175, 188;
41. Jennings, supra note 19, p. 179.
42. de Gallaix, 'La nationalité des sociétées commerciales', in International Law Association's Report of the Thirty-Ninth Conference 1936 (Richard Clay & Sons, Limited, Bungay, 1937) pp. 76-91.
43. S. Rosenne (ed.), 'League of Nations Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law [1925-1928]', Vol. I (Oceana Publications Inc., New York, 1972) pp. 251-254.
44. C. Staker, 'Determining Corporate Personality for International Law Purposes', 56 British Yearbook of International Law (1992) p. 156.
45. E.g. Beckett, supra note 30, pp. 185-187.
46. E.g. P. de Vischer, 'La protection diplomatique des personnes morales', 102 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International (1961) pp. 436-439.
47. Jones, supra note 20, pp. 225-258.
48. L. Caflisch, La Protection des Sociétés Commerciales et des Intérêts Indirects en Droit International Public (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1969).
49. D. Harris, 'Protection of Companies in International Law in the Light of the Nottebohm Case', 18 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1969) pp. 275-317.
50. De Vischer, supra note 35, pp. 446-462.
51. Barcelona, supra note 12, para. 36.
52. Pan American Energy LLC and BP Argentina Exploration Company v. Argentine Republic, 17 July 2003, ICSID Tribunal, Case No. ARB/03/13, Decision on Preliminary Objection, para. 216.
53. Barcelona, supra note 12, paras. 59-63.
54. Barcelona in Dugard's Fourth Report on Diplomatic Protection, UN Doc. A/CN.4/530.
55. E.g. R.B. Lillich, 'The Rigidity of Barcelona', 65 American Journal of International Law (1971) pp. 552-557;
56. S. D. Metzger, 'Nationality of Corporate Investment under Investment Guaranty Schemes - the Relevance of Barcelona Traction', 65 American Journal of International Law (1971) p. 541;
57. C. De Visscher, 'La notion de reference (renvoi) au droit interne dans la protection diplomatique des actionnaires de sociétés anonymes', 7 Revue Belge de Droit International (1971) p. 6;
58. F. A. Mann, 'The Protection of Shareholder's Interests in the Light of the Barcelona Traction Case', 66 American Journal of International Law (1972) pp. 273, 274;
59. F. A. Mann, 'Foreign Investment in the International Court of Justice: The ELSI Case', 86 American Journal of International Law (1992) p. 92.
60. G. Sacerdoti, 'Barcelona Traction Revisited: Foreign-Owned and Controlled Companies in International Law', in Y. Dinstein (ed.), International Law at a Time of Perplexity: Essays in Honour of Shabtai Rosenne (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, 1989) pp. 700, 701.
61. L. Caflisch, 'Protection of Corporate Investment Abroad (Barcelona Traction)', 31 ZAORV (1971) p. 196;
62. M. D. de Velasco, 'La protection diplomatique des sociétés et des actionnaires', 141 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International (1974) pp. 161, 162.
63. G. Abi-Saab, 'The International Law of Multinational Corporations', Annales d'Etudes Internationales (1971) pp. 115
64. R. Higgins, 'Aspects of the Case Concerning Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Ltd.', 11 Virginia Journal of International Law (1970-1971) p. 341.
65. AES Corporation v. Argentine Republic, 26 April 2005, ICSID Tribunal, Case No ARB/02/17, Decision Jurisdiction, para. 25.
66. C. McLachlan et al, International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles (OUP, Oxford, 2007) p. 138.
67. Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, 8 June 1960, ICJ, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1970, pp. 150, 171.
68. visited on 21 May 2007.
69. D. Di Pietro, 'The Use of Precedents in ICSID Arbitrations: Regularity or Certainty?', 10 International Arbitration Law Review (2007) pp. 92
70. G. Kaufmann-Kohler, 'Arbitral Precedent: Dream, Necessity or Excuse?', 23:3 Arbitration International (2007), pp. 357
71. Saluka Investment BV v. Czech Republic, 17 March 2006, UNCITRAL Tribunal, Partial Award, para. 241.
72. See a number of Latvian BITs, available at visited on 21 October 2007).
73. Article 1(7)(a)(ii), visited 16 October 2007.
74. visited 21 May 2007.
75. V. Lowe, 'Changing Dimensions of International Investment Law', Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper 04/2007, pp. 60, 110, visited on 16 October 2007.
76. M. Paparinskis, 'Škirejtiesu judikatura ieguldijumu aizsardzibas lietas' (Investment Protection Arbitral Case Law), 7 Likums un Tiesibas (Law and Right) (2005) pp. 122
77. A. Sinclair, 'The Substance of Nationality Requirements in Investment Treaty Arbitration', 20 ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal (2005) pp. 357, 378-388.
78. C. F. Amerasinghe, 'Jurisdiction Ratione Personae Under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States', 47 British Yearbook of International Law 1974-1975, p. 255
79. C. Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (CUP, Cambridge, 2001), p. 276.
80. Malaysian Historical Salvors Sdn, Bhd v. Malaysia, 28 May 2007, ICSID Tribunal, Case No ARB/05/10, Award, paras. 42-106
81. A. Broches, 'The Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States', 136 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International (1972) p. 361.
82. Tokios Tokeles v. Ukraine, 29 April 2004, ICSID Tribunal, Case No. ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, Dissenting Opinion.
83. Cf. Sinclair, supra note 66, p. 360
84. R. Wisner and N. Gallus, 'Nationality Requirements in Investor-State Arbitration', 5 Journal of World Investment and Trade (2004) pp. 927, 944
85. S. Alexandrov, 'The 'Baby Boom' of Treaty-Based Arbitrations and the Jurisdiction of ICSID Tribunals: Shareholders as 'Investors' and Jurisdiction Ratione Temporis', in 4 The Law and Practice of International Court and Tribunals (2005) p. 39, pp. 38-40 (supporting the majority).
86. Diallo, supra note 10, para. 64.
87. Alexandrov, supra note 74, pp. 19-59
88. C. Schreuer, 'Shareholder Protection in International Investment Law', 2:3 Transnational Dispute Management (2005).
89. R. Dolzer and M. Stevens, Bilateral Investment Treaties (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, 1995) p. 28.
90. N. Rubins, 'The Notion of 'Investment' in International Investment Arbitration', in N. Horn (ed.) Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes: Procedural and Substantive Legal Aspects (Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 2004) pp. 283- 324.
91. V. Lowe, 'Shareholders' Right to Control and Manage: From Barcelona Traction to ELSI', in N. Ando et al. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda, vol. I (Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 2002) pp. 278-280.
92. E.g. Alex Genin, Eastern Credit Limited, Inc. and A.S. Baltoil AS v. Republic of Estonia, 25 June 2001, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/2, Award, para. 324.
93. Gami Investments, Inc. v. Mexico, 15 November 2004, UNCITRAL Case, Final Award, para. 33.
94. CMS Gas Transmission v. Argentine Republic, 25 September 2007, ICSID ad hoc annulment committee, Case No. ARB/01/8, Annulment Decision, paras. 73, 75.
95. Siemens A.G. v. Argentine Republic, 3 August 2004, ICSID Tribunal, Case No. ARB/02/8, Decision on Jurisdiction, paras. 137-144.
96. Enron and Ponderossa Assets v. Argentine Republic, 14 January 2004, ICSID Tribunal, Case No. ARB/01/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, paras. 52-56.
97. Lauder v. Czech Republic, 3 September 2001, UNCITRAL Tribunal, Final Award, para. 154.
98. Aguas del Tunari, S. A. v. Republic of Bolivia, 21 October 2005, ICSID Tribunal, Decision on Respondent's Objections to Jurisdiction, paras. 214-333.
99. F. O. Vicuna, 'The Protection of Shareholders under International Law: Making State Responsibility More Accessible', in M. Ragazzi (ed.), International Responsibility Today (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, 2005) p. 162.
100. F. O. Vicuna, 'Changing Approaches to the Nationality of Claims in the Context of Diplomatic Protection and International Dispute Settlement', 15 ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal (2005) pp. 355- 361;
101. L. J. Lee, 'Barcelona Traction in the 21st Century: Revisiting its Customary and Policy Underpinnings 35 Years Later', 42 Stanford Journal of International Law (2006) pp. 237
102. P. Acconci, 'Determining the Internationally Relevant Link Between a State and a Corporate Investor - Recent Trends Considering the Application of the 'Genuine Link' Test', 5 Journal of World Investment & Trade, pp. 139
103. D. J. Bederman, 'Lump Sum Agreements and Diplomatic Protection', in ILA 2002 Report on Diplomatic Protection of Persons and Property, p. 20.
104. B. Stern, 'La protection diplomatique des investissements internationaux', 117 Journal du Droit International (1990) pp. 897, 935
105. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co, Limited (New Application) (Belgium v. Spain), I.C.J. Pleadings, Vol. II, p. 542, emphasis added.
106. Reparations for the Injuries Suffered in the Service to the United Nations, I.C.J. Pleadings 1949, p. 111.
107. G. van Harten, 'Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law: A Return to the Gay Nineties', 4:5 Transnational Dispute Management (2007) pp. 12-44.
108. K. J. Vandevelde, 'A Brief History of International Investment Agreements', 12 U.C. Davis Journal of International Law and Policy (2005) pp. 157
109. J. W. Salacuse, 'The Treatification of International Investment Law: A Victory of Form over Life? Or Crossroads Crossed?', 3:3 Transnational Dispute Management (2006).
110. K. J. Vandevelde, United States Investment Treaties: Policy and Practice (Deventer, Kluwer, 1992) pp. 45, 46;
111. M. Sornarajah, 'State Responsibility and Bilateral Investment Treaties', 20 Journal of World Trade Law (1986), pp. 79, 87;
112. 'Legal Principles and Practices Relating to Private Foreign Investment (Hackney)', 77 ASIL Proceedings (1983) p. 296;
113. Enron v. Argentine Republic, 14 January 2004, ICSID Tribunal, Case No. ARB/01/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, paras. 303-345.
114. Vandevelde, supra note 96, pp. 169, 170.
115. K. S. Gudgeon, 'Arbitration Provisions of U.S. Bilateral Investment Treaties', 20 Studies in Transnational Legal Process (1985) pp. 41
116. Cf. Z. Douglas, 'The Hybrid Foundations of Investment Treaty Arbitration', 74 British Yearbook of International Law (2003) pp. 167-180
117. C. Leben, 'La responsabilité internationale de l'État sur le fondement des traités de promotion et de protection des investissements', 50 Annuaire français de droit international (2004) pp. 691-697.
118. M. Mendelson, 'Runaway Train: The 'Continuous Nationality' Rule from the Panevezys-Saldutiskis case to Loewen', in T. Weiler (ed.), International Investment Law and Arbitration (Cameron May, London, 2005) pp. 97-150.
119. CMS committee decision, supra note 84, paras. 119-136.
120. B. Simma and D. Pulkowski, 'Of Planets and Universe: Self-Contained Regimes in International Law', 17 European Journal of International Law (2006) pp. 483, 506.
121. C. McLachlan, 'The Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention', 54 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2005) pp. 279 et seq.
122. Saluka, supra note 58, para. 254.
123. 2006 Conclusions of the Work of the ILC Study Group on the Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, visited on 30 October 2007.
124. E.g. the customary law rule on compensation, ADC Affiliate Limited and ADC & ADMC Management Limited v. The Republic of Hungary, 2 October 2006, ICSID Tribunal, Case No. ARB/03/16, Award, paras. 479-500.
125. R. Y. Jennings, 'What is International Law and How Do We Tell It When We See It?', in Collected Writings of Sir Robert Jennings, vol. 2, (Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 1998) pp. 730, 736;
126. M. Mendelson, 'The Formation of Customary International Law', 272 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International (1998) pp. 155, 329, 330.
127. the discussion of this case law in Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic, 28 September 2007, ICSID Tribunal, Case No. ARB/02/16, Award, paras. 328-397).
128. McLachlan et al, supra note 54, p. 153.
129. F. Berman, 'The Relevance of the Law on Diplomatic Protection in Investment Arbitration', in F. Ortino et al (eds.) Investment Treaty Law: Current Issues II (BIICL, London, 2007) p. 71.
130. Barcelona, supra note 12, para. 90.
131. R. Dolzer and M. Stevens, Bilateral Investment Treaties (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995) pp. 1, 129, 130;
132. G. Sacerdoti, 'Bilateral Treaties and Multilateral Instruments on Investment Protection', 269 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International (1997) pp. 298-302, 436 et seq.
133. CMS, supra note 13, para. 43.
134. Pleadings, supra note 93, pp. 540, 541.
135. J. Paulsson, 'Arbitration Without Privity', 10 ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal (1995) pp. 232, 232-257.
136. I. Shihata, 'Towards a Greater Depoliticization of Investment Disputes: The Roles of ICSID and MIGA', 1 ICSID Review - FILJ (1986) pp. 1 et seq.
137. E. Lauterpacht, 'The World Bank Convention on the Settlement of International Investment Disputes', in Recueil d'études de droit international en hommage à Paul Guggenheim (Imprimerie de la Tribune de Genève, Genève, 1968) pp. 642, 664;
138. Broches, supra note 70, p. 349.
139. E. J. de Aréchaga, 'International Responsibility', in M. Sorensen (ed.) Manual of Public International Law (London, Macmillan, 1968) p. 531.
140. Berman, supra note 113, pp. 82-83.
141. Barcelona, supra note 12, p. 57, para. 3.
142. C. de Visscher, 'La notion de référence (renvoi) au droit interne dans la protection diplomatique des actionnaires de sociétés anonymes', 7 Revue Belgue de Droit International (1971) p. 6
143. Berman, supra note 113, p. 69.
144. Stern, supra note 91;
145. Diallo, declaration du juge ad hoc Mahiou, para. 4, visited 20 October 2007.
146. P. Juillard, 'L'arrêt de la Court Internationale de Justice (Chambre) du 20 juillet 1989 dans l'affair de l'Elettronica Sicula (États-Unis c. Italie), procès sur un traité, ou procès d'un traité?', 35 Annuaire Francais de Droit International (1989) pp. 276
147. Diallo, supra note 10, para. 87.
148. Diallo, Pleadings (Pellet), p. 37, para. 11, visited on 24 May 2007
149. Diallo, supra note 10, paras. 86-91.
150. Pan American, supra note 41, para. 218.
151. ADC, supra note 109, para. 357;
152. Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Republic of Argentina, 3 August 2006, ICSID Tribunal, Case No. ARB/03/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, para. 50;
153. Pan Amerian, supra note 40, paras. 216, 217;
154. Continental Casualty Company v. Republic of Argentina, 22 February 2006, ICSID Tribunal, Case No. ARB/03/9, Decision on Jurisdiction, para. 82;
155. Camuzzi International S.A. v. Republic of Argentina, 11 May 2005, ICSID Tribunal, Case No. ARB/03/2, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction;
156. Sempra Energy International S.A. v. Republic of Argentina, 11 May 2005, ICSID Tribunal, Case No. ARB/02/16, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, paras. 151- 153;
157. GAMI, supra note 83, paras. 29, 30;
158. Siemens v. Republic of Argentina, 3 August 2004, ICSID Tribunal, Case No. ARB/02/8, Decision on Jurisdiction, para. 141;
159. LG&E v. Republic of Argentina, 30 April 2004, ICSID Tribunal, Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, para. 52;
160. Tokios, supra note 72, footnote 44;
161. Enron, supra note 86, para. 46.
162. CMS committee decision, supra note 84, para. 69.
163. C.K. Hall, 'UN Convention for State Immunity: The Need for a Human Rights Protocol', 55 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2006) pp. 411 et seq.
164. See de Aréchaga, supra note 121.
165. ILC Articles on Diplomatic Protection, supra note 17, Article 17;
166. J. Kokkot, 'The Role of Diplomatic Protection in the Field of the Protection of Foreign Investment', in ILA 2002 Report on Diplomatic Protection of Persons and Property, p. 31.