Similarity in the eye of the beholder: Revisiting the application of rules governing jurisdictional conflicts in the Lauder/CME cases

Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation: The Fordham Papers

Volumn 1, Issue , 2008, Pages 119-138

  Shany, Yuval ^a  

^a HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84966712915     PISSN: 22107053     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1163/ej.9789004167384.i-336.56     Document Type: Review

References (97)

1. See, e.g., Richard L. Revesz, "Specialized Courts and the Administrative Lawmaking System", 138 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1111 (1990);
2. Kazuo Sugeno, "The Birth of the Labor Tribunal System in Japan: A Synthesis of Labor Law Reform and Judicial Reform", 25 Comp. Lab. L. & Pol'y J. 519 (2004);
3. Paul B. Stephan III, "Courts with Income Tax Jurisdiction: An International Comparison", 8 Va. Tax Rev. 233, 234-44 (1988).
4. For a discussion, see Yuval Shany, Regulating Relations Between National and International Courts 146 (2007).
5. See, e.g., Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113, 163 (1895);
6. Dallal v. Bank Mellat, [1986] 1 Q. B, 441, 461-62;
7. Amchem Products Inc. v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board), [1993] 102 D. L. R. (4th) 96.
8. Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, Mar. 25, 1957, 298 U. N. T. S. 3, as revised on Dec. 24, 2002, 2002 O. J. (C325) 33.
9. Case C-459/03 Commission v. Ireland, [2006] E. C. R. I-04635.
10. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 21 I. L. M. 1261 (1982).
11. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, E. T. S. 5 (hereinafter ECHR).
12. Convention on the Settlement of Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, Mar. 18, 1965, 575 U. N. T. S. 159.
13. North American Free Trade Agreement, Dec. 17, 1992, art. 1121(1) (b) (2), 32 I. L. M. 289 and 605 (1993).
14. ICSID Model Clauses, ICSID Doc. ICSID/5/Rev. 2 (1993).
15. Convention on Conciliation and Arbitration Within the CSCE [Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe], Dec. 15, 1992, 32 I. L. M. 551 (1993).
16. Rights of Minorities in Upper Silesia (Minority Schools) (Germany v. Poland), 1928 P. C. I. J. (ser. A), No. 15, at 23.
17. North American Dredging Company of Texas (U. S. v. Mexico), 4 R. I. A. A. 26, 33 (1926).
18. See, e.g., Compania de Aquas del Aconquija, S. A. v. Argentina, 40 I. L. M. 426 (2001) [hereinafter Vivendi I];
19. SGS Societe Generale de Surveillance S. A. v. Philippines, decision of Jan. 29, 2004, available at http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/cases/SGSvPhil-final.pdf.
20. Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Ltd. v. Egypt, 3 ICSID Rep. 101 (1985) (jurisdiction) [hereinafter SPP].
21. SGS v. Philippines, supra note 17, at ¶ 128.
22. See, e.g., Amco Asia, Pan American Development Ltd. v. Indonesia, 1 ICSID Rep. 389, 549 (1983);
23. Trail Smelter (U. S. v. Canada), 3 R. I. A. A. 1907, 1950 (1941);
24. Waste Management Inc. v. Mexico, 41 I. L. M. 1315, 1322 (2002).
25. Treaty Concerning the Reciprocal Encouragement and Protection of Investment (Czech-United States), Oct. 22, 1991, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/43557.pdf [hereinafter Czech-United StatesUnited States BIT].
26. Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (Czech-Netherlands), Apr. 29, 1991, http://www.unctad.org/sections/dite/iia/docs/bits/czech netherlands.pdf [hereinafter Czech-Dutch BIT].
27. For a discussion of the lis alibi pendens rule, see Yuval Shany, The Competing Jurisdictions of International Courts and Tribunals 239-45 (2003).
28. See Bin Cheng, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals 121 (1987).
29. See UNCITRAL Rules, art 15(1), (G. A. Res. 31/98(Dec. 15, 1976)), http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral-texts/arbitration/1976Arbitration rules.html: "Subject to these Rules, the arbitral tribunal may conduct the arbitration in such manner as it considers appropriate, provided the parties are treated with equality and that at any stage of the proceedings each party is given a full opportunity of presenting his case."
30. Czech Republic v. CME Czech Republic B. V., 42 I. L. M. 919, 967 (2003).
31. CME Czech Republic B. V. v. Czech Republic, Partial Award, at ¶¶ 419(Sept. 13, 2001), available at http://www2004.mfcr.cz/static/Arbitraz/en/PartialAward. pdf.
32. Lauder v. Czech Republic, Award, at ¶ 177(Sept. 3, 2001), available at http://www2004.mfcr.cz/static/Arbitraz/en/FinalAward.pdf.
33. See CME, supra note 29, at ¶ 412;
34. See, e.g., ECHR, art. 6;
35. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, art. 14, 999 U. N. T. S. 171.
36. See, e.g., Azinian v. Mexico, 39 I. L. M. 537, 552 (2000) ("A denial of justice could be pleaded if the relevant courts refuse to entertain a suit");
37. National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC) v. Israel, decision of Feb. 1, 2005(Cour de Cassation, France), excerpts available at http://www.kluwerarbitration. com ("the impossibility for a party to access the court (or arbitral tribunal) entrusted with the settlement of that party's claim to the exclusion of all other State jurisdictions, and thus to exercise a right pertaining to international public policy, established by the principles of international arbitration and Art. 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, is a denial of justice").
38. See Christoph C. Schreuer, Decisions of International Institutions before Domestic Courts (1981) 329.
39. See also Christoph H. Schreuer, "Concurrent Jurisdiction of National and International Tribunals", 13 Hous. L. Rev. 508, 526 (1975-1976).
40. Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germany v. Poland), 1925 P. C. I. J. (ser. A) No. 6, at 20;
41. Benvenuti and Bonfat Srl. v. Congo, 1 ICSID Rep. 330, 340 (1980);
42. China Navigation Co. Ltd. (U. K.) v. U. S. (The "Newchwang"), 6 R. I. A. A. 64, 65 (1921);
43. Cases 172, 228/83 Hoogovens Greop v. Commission, [1985] E. C. R. 2831, 2846;
44. Waste Management, supra note 20, at 1322;
45. Convention on the Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Sept. 27, 1968, art. 27, 29 I. L. M. 1413(1990), as updated by Council Regulation 44/2001 of Dec. 22, 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, 2001 O. J. (L 12) 1 [hereinafter Brussels Judgments Convention];
46. Restatement of the Law (Second), Judgments §§ 17, 24.
47. Comm. 75/80 Fanali v. Italy, U. N. Doc. CCPR/C/18/D/75/1980, at ¶ 7. 2 (Mar. 31, 1983) (an electa una via rule covers claims by the same individual "or someone else who has the standing to act on his behalf");
48. Drouot assurances SA v. Consolidated Metallurgical Industries, 1998 ECR I-3075, at ¶ 23 (suggesting that the claim in question would have been blocked had the litigating interests of the related parties had been identical and indissociable).
49. See also August Reinisch, "The Use and Limits of Res Judicata and Lis Pendens as Procedural Tools to Avoid Conflicting Dispute Settlement Outcomes", 3 Law & Prac. Int'l Courts and Tribunals 37, 57-60 (2004) (arguing that the "economic approach" to investment disputes, which focuses on the economic realities and not on the formal identities of the parties, supports a flexible approach to the "same parties" test).
50. See, e.g., Canadian Model BIT 2004, art. 26(1) (e), available at http://ita.law. uvic.ca/documents/Canadian2004-FIPA-model-en. pdf
51. See also the Central America-Dominican Republic-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), Aug. 5, 2004, art. 10. 18(2) (b), available at http://www.ustr.gov/Trade-Agreements/Bilateral/CAFTA/CAFTA-DR Final Texts/Section Index.html.
52. See, e.g., Azurix Corp. v. Mexico, 43 I. L. M. 262, 280 (2004).
53. See also Comm. R.13/56, Casariego v. Uruguay, U. N. GAOR, 37th Sess., Supp. 40, at 185, 187 (Report of the HRC, 1981);
54. Comm. R.2/10, Altesor v. Uruguay, U. N. GAOR, 37th Sess., Supp. 40, at 122, 125 (Report of the HRC, 1982);
55. Comm. 74/1980, Estrella v. Uruguay, U. N. GAOR, 38th Sess., Supp. 40, at 150, 156 (Report of the HRC, 1983) (in all three cases, the committee held that parallel proceedings alleging violations of the applicants' rights cannot be blocked by a lis alibi pendens rule since they were filed by unrelated third parties).
56. See El Paso Energy International Co. v. Argentina, Decision on jurisdiction, Apr. 27, 2006, at ¶¶ 79-81, available at http://www.investmentclaims.com/decisions/El-Paso-Energy-Argentina-Jurisdictional-Decision. pdf;
57. Olgúin v. Paraguay, Award, at ¶¶ 60-62(July 26, 2001), available at http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/cases/Olgun-award-en. pdf.
58. Gleeson v. J Wippel & Co. Ltd., [1977] 3 All E. R. 54, 60 (Ch. Div.) ("I do not say that one must be the alter ego of the other: but it does seem to me that, having due regard to the subject-matter of the dispute, there must be a sufficient degree of identification between the two to make it just to hold that the decision to which one was party should be binding in proceedings to which the other is party. It is in that sense that I would regard the phrase 'privity of interest' ") (emphasis added);
59. Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. Rayner & Keeler Ltd., [1967] 1 A. C. 853 (H. L.) ("There does, however, seem to me to be a possible extension of the doctrine of privity as commonly understood.
60. Joost Pauwelyn, "How to Win a World Trade Organization Dispute Based on Non-World Trade Organization Law?", 37 J. World Trade 997, 1018 (2003).
61. See, e.g., Genin v. Estonia, Award, at ¶ 332(June 25, 2001), available at http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/cases/genin. pdf (majority shareholder investor's claim is not the same as the owned corporation's claim);
62. Enron Corp. v. Argentina, Decision on jurisdiction, at ¶ 98(Jan. 14, 2004), available at http://www.asil.org/ilib/Enron. pdf (ICSID).
63. See, e.g., National Grid Plc. v. Argentina, Decision of June 20, 2006, at ¶ 169, available at http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/NationalGrid-Jurisdiction-En. pdf (UNCITRAL) ("The Tribunal recalls the fact that National Grid is not a party to the Concession Contracts, in which the Concessionaires agreed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts in Argentina's federal capital.").
64. See, e.g., Factory at Chorzów (Poland v. Germany), 1927 P. C. I. J. (ser. A) No. 9, at 29-30 (jurisdiction).
65. A v. B, excerpts in Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards 1974-1985, at 11, 13 (1990).
66. See, e.g., Elettronica Sicula S.p. A. (ELSI) (U. S. v. Italy), 1989 I. C. J. 15, 45-46;
67. Case 144/86, Gubisch Maschinenfabrik v. Palumbo, [1987] E. C. J. 4861, 4876 (competing claims need not be entirely identical);
68. Delgado (U. S. v. Spain), 3 International Arbitrations to Which the United States Has Been a Part 2196, 2199 (John Bassett Moore ed., 1881);
69. Empresas Luchetti S. A. v. Peru, Award, at ¶ 53(Feb. 7, 2005), available at http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/cases/lucchetti-award.pdf (two disputes that have the same source or origin are to be regarded as the same dispute);
70. App. 16717/90, Pauger v. Austria, 80 D&R 24 (1995);
71. Comm. 452/1991, Glaziou v. France, UNGAOR, 51st Sess., Supp. 40(II), at 277, 281 (adopting a "substantially the same issues" standard);
72. Methanex Corp. v. U. S., Determination of June 30, 2000, Doc. A/14/SEM/99-001/06/14(3), at5-7(CEC Secretariat), available at http://www.cec.org/files/pdf/sem/99-1-DET-E1.pdf;
73. SGS v. Philippines, supra note 17, at ¶ 128.
74. Cf. Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), 1998 I. C. J. 437, 467 (Canada's reservation with relation to disputes over conservation measures cannot be bypassed by way of presenting the dispute as a dispute over enforcement measures);
75. Commission v. Ireland, [2006] E. C. R. I-4635, at ¶ 120 ("the Convention provisions on the prevention of marine pollution relied on by Ireland, which clearly cover a significant part of the dispute relating to the MOX plant, come within the scope of Community competence which the Community has elected to exercise by becoming a party to the Convention" (emphasis added)).
76. Compania de Aquas del Aconquija, S. A. v. Argentina, 41 I. L. M. 1135 (2002) [hereinafter Vivendi II].
77. Southern Bluefin Tuna (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan), 38 I. L. M. 1624, 1632 (1999);
78. Southern Bluefin Tuna (Australia and N. Z. v. Japan), 39 I. L. M. 1359, 1388 (2000);
79. MOX Plant (Ireland v. U. K.), 41 I. L. M. 405, 413 (2002);
80. MOX Plant (Ireland v. U. K.), 42 I. L. M. 1187 (2003);
81. Access to Information under Article 9 of the OSPAR Convention (Ireland v. U. K), 42 I. L. M. 1118, 1136 (2003).
82. SGS v. Philippines, supra note 17, at ¶ 128.
83. Societe Generale de Sureveillance S. A.. (SGS) v. Pakistan, 42 I. L. M. 1290 (2003).
84. Pan American Energy LLC v. Argentina, Decision on preliminary objections (July 27, 2006), available at http://ita.law.uvic. ca/documents/PanAmericanBPJurisdiction-eng.pdf.
85. Thirty Hogsheads of Sugar v. Boyle, 13 U. S. (9 Cranch) 191, 198 (1815);
86. Dallal, [1986] 1 Q. B. at 461-62;
87. Anne-Marie Slaughter, "A Global Community of Courts", 44 Harv. Int'l L. J. 191, 206-10 (2003).
88. For a comprehensive survey of domestic cases that discussed the status and application of the principle of comitas gentium, see Lambertus Erades, Interactions Between International and Municipal Law: A Comparative Case Law Study 17-40 (Malgosia Fitzmaurice & Cees Flinterman eds., 1993).
89. SGS v. Philippines, supra note 17, at ¶¶ 162, 175;
90. Brussels Judgments Convention, supra note 36, art. 28;
91. Allan Rosas, "With a Little Help from My Friends: International Case-Law as a Source of Reference for the EU Courts", 5 The Global Community: Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 203, 230 (2005);
92. Robert B. Ahdieh, "Between Dialogue and Decree: International Review of National Courts", 79 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 2029, 2051-52 (2004).
93. But see Ahlström Osakeytiön v. Commission, [1988] E. C. R 5193, 5244 (comity cannot deprive the EC of jurisdiction to apply its competition rules).
94. See, e.g., Mexico-Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, WTO Doc. WT/DS308/AB/R, at ¶¶ 44-57 (2006) (AB Report);
95. SPP, supra note 18, at 128 (claimant is "entitled" to pursue the case if consent to jurisdiction is established);
96. SGS v. Pakistan, supra note 55, at 1323 ("This Tribunal is bound to exercise its jurisdiction" (emphasis added)).
97. SGS v. Philippines, supra note 17, at ¶ 162.