Last updated 2nd August 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. As we resolve the issues resulting from this, we are also experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
On April 3, 2015, the ICSID tribunal in Venoklim Holding B. V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela issued the first public decision to consider the effect of a state’s denunciation of the ICSID Convention (Convention). The tribunal decided that Venezuela’s denunciation on January 24, 2012, did not preclude jurisdiction over a claim submitted in the period after notification of the denunciation but before its effective date. Yet the tribunal also held that Venezuela’s domestic statute was insufficient as an autonomous offer of consent to ICSID arbitration, and that the conjunction of the statute with an investment treaty did not confer such consent where the conditions in the statute were not fulfilled. The award was notable too because of the majority’s holding that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction owing to the Venezuelan nationality of the underlying beneficial owners of the Dutch corporation that was the claimant in the ICSID arbitration. The Tribunal held that, because the claimant was effectively owned by Venezuelan nationals, the requirement of foreign ownership or control was not satisfied for the purposes of the applicable Venezuelan investment statute and the ICSID Convention.
1 Venoklim Holding B. V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. Arb/12/22 (Apr. 3, 2015), at https://icsid.worldbank.org [hereinafter Award].
2 Convention on the Settlement of Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, Mar. 18, 1965, 17 UST 1270, 575 UNTS 159 [hereinafter ICSID Convention].
3 Ley de Promoción y Protección de Inversiones [Law on the Promotion and Protection of Investments], Art. 22, Gaceta Oficial No. 5390 extraordinario, 18 de noviembre de 1999 (Venez.), quoted in Award, para. 44 (providing that “[d]isputes arising between an international investor whose country of origin has in effect with Venezuela a treaty or agreement on the promotion and protection of investments, or disputes to which the provisions of the Convention establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (OMGI-MIGA) or the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and nationals of other States (ICSID) are applicable, shall be submitted to international arbitration according to the terms of the respective treaty or agreement, if it so provides, without prejudice to the possibility of making use, when appropriate, of the dispute resolution means provided for under the Venezuelan legislation in effect”) (unofficial trans.).
4 Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, Neth.-Venez., Oct. 22, 1991, at http://www.sice.oas.org.
5 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Arts. 43, 44, 46, May 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331.
6 See ICSID Convention, supra note 2, Art. 72 (providing in pertinent part that notice of denunciation pursuant to Article 71 “shall not affect the rights or obligations under this Convention of that Stateor of any of its constituent subdivisions or agencies or of any national of that State arising out of consent to the jurisdiction of the Centre given by one of them before such notice was received by the depository”).
7 Enrique Gómez Pinzón, Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, para. 15, Venoklim Holding B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Apr. 3, 2015) (unofficial trans.). All ICSID awards, decisions, and opinions cited herein are available at http://www.italaw.com.
8 Quoting ICSID Convention, supra note 2, Art. 25(1)–(2); Report of the Executive Directors on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, para. 9 (Mar. 18, 1965), in World Bank, ICSID Convention, Regulations, and Rules 35 (2006), available at https://icsid.worldbank.org; Christoph H. Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary 158, 290 (2001); and citing Prosper Weil, Dissenting Opinion, Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. Arb/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction (Apr. 29, 2004).
9 Gómez Pinzón, supra note 7, para. 31.
10 See, e.g., Schreuer, Christoph, Denunciation of the ICSID Convention and Consent to Arbitration, in The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration 353 (Waibel, Michael, Kaushal, Asha, Chung, Kyo-Hwa Liz, & Balchin, Claire eds., 2010)Google Scholar.
11 See, e.g., Emmanuel Gaillard & Yas Banifatemi, The Denunciation of the icsid Convention, N.Y.L.J. (Online) (June 26, 2007).
12 See, e.g., Manciaux, Sébastien, Bolivia’s Withdrawal from icsid, Transnat’l Disp. Mgmt. (No. 7, 2007)Google Scholar, at http://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=1076 (by subscription).
13 E.g., Hilaire, Constantine, & Benjamin v. Trinidad and Tobago, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 94 (June 21, 2002) (joined cases); Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 1984 ICJ Rep. 392 (Nov. 26); Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands v. Greece (Greek Case), App. Nos. 3321/67, 3322/67, 3323/67, & 3344/67, respectively, 1969 Y.B. Eur. Conv. on H.R. (Eur. Comm’n H.R.) (considering denunciation of American Convention on Human Rights, U.S. withdrawal from optional clause to ICJ statute, and denunciation of the European Convention on Human Rights, respectively).
14 Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, supra note 8.
15 KT Asia Investment Group B.V. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. Arb/09/8, paras. 121, 137 (Oct. 17, 2013).
16 TSA Spectrum de Argentina S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. Arb/05/5, paras. 118 & n.34, 146 (Dec. 9, 2008).
17 Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, A.S. [CSOB] v. Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4, Jurisdiction (May 24, 1999).
18 Salini Costruttori S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. Arb/00/4, Jurisdiction, para. 52 (July 23, 2001), 6 ICSID Rep. 400 (2004), 42 ILM 609 (2003).
19 Flughafen Zürich A.G. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. Arb/10/19, paras. 279–90 (Nov. 18, 2014) (in Spanish).
