Of Contracts and Treaties in the Global Market

Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law

Volumn 8, Issue , 2005, Pages 341-357

  Vicuña, Francisco Orrego ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85180114726     PISSN: 13894633     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1163/187574104x00076     Document Type: Chapter

References (59)

1. C. Witz, “L’internationalité et le contrat”, Revue Lamy Droit des Affaires 46 (2002), as reprinted in: Lamy, “Le Contrat International”, (2002), 3-6.
2. P. Kahn, “L’internationalité du point de vue de l’ordre transnational”, Revue Lamy Droit des Affaires 46 (2002), as reprinted in: Lamy, see above.
3. P. Lagarde, “L’internationalité du point de vue de l’ordre international”, Revue Lamy Droit des Affaires 46 (2002), as reprinted in: Lamy, see note 1, 1-3.
4. Lagarde, see note 3, 1-6.
5. Convention on the Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods (1964) (Ulis, UNIDROIT), ; Convention relating to a Uniform Law on the Formation of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1964) (Ulf, UNIDROIT), .
6. United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 1980, .
7. Witz, see note 1, 3-6.
8. See, for example, the United Nations Convention on the Limitation Period in the International Sale of Goods 1980 (New York, 1974/ Vienna, 1980); the Convention on Agency in the International Sale of Goods (Geneva, 1983); and the United Nations Convention on Independent Guarantees and Stand-by Letters of Credit (New York, 1995), , and discussion by Witz, see note 1, 3-6, note 21.
9. UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Law, 2004, and reference to the 1994 edition by Kahn, see note 2, 2-5, note 8.
10. O. Lando/ H. Beale, Principles of European Contract Law, 2000, and discussion by Witz, see note 1, 3-7.
11. C. von Bar, Le groupe d’études sur un code civil européen, Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé 53 (2001), and discussion by Witz, see note 1, 3-7,8.
12. Kahn, see note 2, 2-5.
13. P. Lalive, “Ordre Public Transnational (ou réellement international) et arbitrage international”, Revue de l’Arbitrage 1986/87, 329 et seq., and discussion by Kahn, see note 2, 2-7.
14. Witz, see note 1, 3-9.
15. P. Weil, “Problèmes relatifs aux contrats passés entre un Etat et un particulier”, RdC 128 (1969), 95 et seq. (101).
16. See generally J.F. Lalive, “Contrats entre Etats et personnes privées”, RdC 182 (1983), 9 et seq., and discussion by H. Grigera Naón, “El Estado y el Arbitraje Internacional con Particulares”, Revista Jurídica de Buenos Aires II-III (1989), 127 et seq. (130-138).
17. Weil, see note 15, 124, 130.
18. F.V. García-Amador, The Changing Law of International Claims, 1984, 387-395.
19. Weil, see note 15, 158.
20. Weil, see note 15, 188.
21. I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 1990, 326-336.
22. Grigera-Naón, see note 16, 140-155.
23. E. Silva Romero, “ICC Arbitration and state Contracts”, Bulletin, International Court of Arbitration 13 (2002), 34 et seq.
24. See generally C. Schreuer, The ICSID Convention. A Commentary, 2001.
25. P. Weil, “The state, the Foreign Investor, and International Law: the no longer stormy Relationship of a Ménage à Trois”, ICSID Review, Foreign Investment Law Journal 15 (2000), 401 et seq.
26. E. Obadia, “ICSID, Investment Treaties and Arbitration: Current and Emerging Issues”, in: G. Kaufmann-Kohler/ B. Stucki, Investment Treaties and Arbitration, 2002, 67 et seq.
27. J. Paulsson, “Arbitration without Privity”, ICSID Review, Foreign Investment Law Journal 10 (1995), 232 et seq.
28. I.F.I. Shihata/ A.R. Parra, “The Experience of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes”, ICSID Review, Foreign Investment Law Journal 14 (1999), 299 et seq.
29. Lanco International Inc. v. The Argentine Republic, Preliminary Decision on Jurisdiction of 8 December 1988, ILM 40 (2001), 457 et seq.
30. Lanco, ibid., para. 40.
31. Salini v. Morocco, Decision on Jurisdiction of 16 July 2001, ILM 42 (2003), 606, and see Decision paras 25-27.
32. Lauder v. Czech Republic, Final UNCITRAL Award of September 2001, paras 161, 163, as published in .
33. Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal v. Argentine Republic (Case No. ARB/97/3), Decision on Application for Annulment of 3 July 2002, ILM 41 (2002), 1135 et seq. (Vivendi Annulment), para. 113.
34. Vivendi Annulment, ibid., para. 98.
35. Vivendi Annulment, see note 33, para. 101.
36. Wena Hotels Ltd. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4), Decision on Application for Annulment rendered on 5 February 2002, ILM 41 (2002), paras 31, 35, Decision of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Annulment.
37. Lauder, see note 32.
38. Alex Genin and others v. Republic of Estonia (ICSID Case No. ARB/99/2), Award of the Tribunal of 25 June 2001; Decision on Claimants’ Request for Supplementary Decisions and Rectification of 4 April 2002, available at: .
39. Compañia de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. v. The Republic of Argentina (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3), Award of 21 November 2000, 16 ICSID Rev.—FILJ 641 (2001).
40. CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Republic of Argentina (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8), Decision on Jurisdiction of 17 July 2003, ILM 42 (2003), 788 et seq.
41. Azurix Corp. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12), Decision on Jurisdiction of 8 December 2003, para. 145, International Law in Brief available at .
42. Vivendi Annulment, see note 33.
43. CMS, see note 40, para. 80; Azurix, see note 41, para. 89.
44. SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13), Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction of 6 August 2003; 18 ICSID Rev.—FILJ 301 (2003), para. 162.
45. SGS v. Philippines, (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6), Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction of 29 January 2004, para. 163.
46. SGS v. Pakistan, see note 44, para. 173.
47. SGS v. Philippines, see note 45, para. 128.
48. Maffezini v. Spain, ICSID Award of 13 November 2000. This case came to settle the discussion initiated by both the ICJ and the Commission of Arbitration in the Ambatielos Claim, RIAA 12 (1963), 87 et seq. (107).
49. Fedax v. Venezuela, Decision of the ICSID Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction of 11 July 1997.
50. R. Higgins, “The Taking of Property by the State: Recent Developments in International Law”, RdC 177 (1982), 259 et seq. (263).
51. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corp. (1947) 2 All ER 680, (1948) 1 KB 223.
52. Preston v. IRC (1985) 2 All ER 327, (1985) AC 835.
53. R. v. North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan (2000) 3 All ER 850.
54. M. Elliott, “Case and Comment, House of Lords Decisions”, CLJ 59 (2000), 421 et seq.
55. R. v. North and East Devon Health Authority, see note 53, para. 57.
56. R. v. North and East Devon Health Authority, see note 53, para. 65.
57. World Bank Administrative Tribunal, Bigman Reports, 1999, Decision No. 209; Prescott Reports, 2001, Decision No. 253, para. 25.
58. Institut de Droit International, Resolution on Contemporary Aspects concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of States, article 2 (d), Annuaire, (1991) II, 64, 266.
59. H. Fox, The Law of State Immunity, 2002, 298-300.