Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T15:26:02.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glamis Gold, Ltd. v. United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Stephan W. Schill
Stephan W. Schill*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 104 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 253 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Glamis Gold, Ltd. v. United States, Award (NAFTA Ch. 11 Arb. Trib. June 8, 2009).

2 North American Free Trade Agreement, Dec. 17, 1992,Can.-Mex.-U.S„ 107 Stat. 2006, 32ILM 289 & 605 (1993).

3 Neer (United States) v. Mexico, Opinion, Oct. 15, 1926, 4 U.N.R.I.A.A. 61-62.

4 Mining claims under that law constitute property rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. See paras. 36-39.

5 The CDCA was established under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, 43 U.S.C.A. §§1701-1784. The act establishes a land-use management system for public lands that is based on balancing competing land uses. It recognizes the national interest in developing economically sound and stable mining industries, while also aiming to protect the lands’ scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values. The FLPMA’s land-use management system for the CDCA is implemented through the CDCA Plan. See Glamis Gold, Award, paras. 41-50.

6 Quoting 43 U.S.C.A. §1781(f).

7 A permit for surface-mining operations, as well as reclamation according to government-issued guidelines, was also required at state level. See paras. 72—75.

8 The ACHP’s recommendation triggered the withdrawal of Imperial County from new mining activities, although valid existing rights to mine were not affected. See paras. 128-35.

9 Quoting, Rudolf Dolzer Expropriation and Nationalization , in 4 Encyclopedia of Public International Law 319 (Rudolf, Bernhardt ed., 1995).Google Scholar

10 Quoting Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of The United States §712, am. (g) (1986).

11 See NAFTA Free Trade Commission, Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions (July 31, 2001), at http://www.in ternational.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/disp-diff/NAFTA-Interpr.aspx?lang=en.

12 For the purpose of determining custom, the tribunal therefore discarded arbitral awards that interpreted a treaty- based standard of fair and equitable treatment standard—in particular, the decision in Técnicas Medioambientales Teemed, S.A. v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, Award, para. 154 (May 29, 2003), which is widely seen as presenting a fair definition of that standard.

13 Mondev Int’l Ltd. v. United States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2, Award, paras. 116, 127 (Oct. 11, 2002), 6 ICSID Rep. 192 (2004), 42 ILM 85 (2003).

14 S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Canada, Partial Award, para. 263 (NAFTA Ch. 11 Arb. Trib. Nov. 13, 2000).

15 Int’l Thunderbird Gaming Corp. v. Mexico, Award, para. 194 (NAFTA Ch. 11 Arb. Trib. Jan. 26, 2006).

16 See Charles, N. Brower & Stephan, Schill Is Arbitration a Threat or a Boon to the Legitimacy of International Investment Law? 9 Chi. J. Int’l L. 471, 483–89 (2009)Google Scholar (with further references).

17 See also Stephan, Schill “Fair and Equitable Treatment” As an Embodiment of the Rule of Law (Institute for International Law and Justice Working Paper 2006/6 (Global Administrative Law Series)), at http://www.iilj.org/ publications/2006-6Schill.asp Google Scholar (arguing that the jurisprudence of investment tribunals on fair and equitable treatment can be summarized under a primarily institutional and procedural concept of the rule of law).

18 See, e.g., paras. 762 (“[I]t is not for an international tribunal to delve into the details of and justifications for domestic law. If Claimant, or any other party, believed that Solicitor Leshy’s interpretation of the undue impairment standard was indeed incorrect, the proper venue for its challenge was domestic court.”), 779 (“It is not the role of this Tribunal, or any international tribunal, to supplant its own judgment of underlying factual material and support for that of a qualified domestic agency.”).

19 See Mojtabakazazi, Burden of Proof and Related Issues 44-50 (1995); Anna, Rlddell & Brendan, Plant, Evidence Before The International Court of Justice 145–47 (2009).Google Scholar

20 See Hollin, Dickerson Minimum Standards , in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Rüdiger, Wolfrum ed.), at http://www.mpepil.com.Google Scholar

21 See Stephan, Schill The Multilateralization of International Investment Law 331 n. 156 (2009).Google Scholar

22 In the NAFTA context see Mondev, supra note 13, paras. 117,125, ADFGroup Inc. v. United States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/l, Award, paras. 179-86 (Jan. 9, 2003), 18 ICSID REV. 195 (2003), 6 ICSID REP. 470 (2004), and Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Award, paras. 91-99 (Apr. 30, 2004). Outside the NAFTA context see Saluka Investments BV v. Czech Republic, Partial Award, para. 291 (UNCITRAL Mar. 17, 2006), Azurix Corp. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Award, para. 361 (July 14, 2006), Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, para. 592 (July 24, 2008), and Rumeli Telekom AS. v. Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, Award, para. 611 (July 29, 2008).

23 See also Stephan, Schill Crafting the International Economic Order: The Public Function of Investment Treaty Arbitration and Its Significance for the Role of the Arbitrator , 23 Leiden J. Int’l L. 401 (2010).Google Scholar