Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T12:36:09.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2017

Bart M. J. Szewczyk
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 105 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 547 - 553
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2011

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 Sempra Energy Int’l v. Argentine Republic, ICSID No. ARB/02/16, Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Application for Annulment of the Award (June 29, 2010). This and other ICSID decisions mentioned below are available on the ICSID Web site, http://icsid.worldbank.org, unless another source is given.

2 Sempra Energy Int’l v. Argentine Republic, ICSID No. ARB/02/16, Award (Sept. 28, 2007) [hereinafter Award].

3 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-third Session 43, UN GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001), reprinted in Crawford, James, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries (2002)Google Scholar (final text).

4 Treaty Concerning the Reciprocal Encouragement and Protection of Investment, Arg.-U.S., Art. XI, Nov. 14, 1991, as amended Aug. 24 & Nov. 26, 1992, S. Treaty Doc. NO. 103-2 (1993), available at http://2001-2009.state.gov/documents/organization/43475.pdf.

5 Quoting Award, supra note 2, para. 388.

6 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, Art. 52(1)(b), Mar. 18, 1965, 17 UST 1270, 575 UNTS 159 [hereinafter ICSID Convention].

7 Schreuer, Christoph H., The Icsid Convention: A Commentary 938 (2d ed. 2009)Google Scholar.

8 ICSID Convention, supra note 6, pmbl.

9 See Born, Gary B., International Commercial Arbitration 107 (2009)Google Scholar.

10 See Unctad, Bilateral Investment Treaties 1995-2006: Trends in Investment Rulemaking, Introduction, UN Sales No. E.06.II.D.16 (2007), available at http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/iteiia20065_en.pdf Google Scholar.

11 CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID No. ARB/01/8, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic (Sept. 25, 2007) [hereinafter CMS Annulment Decision] (ad hoc comm.: Gilbert Guillaume, pres., Nabil Elaraby, & James R. Crawford).

12 Id, para. 135.

13 Id, para. 136.

14 Schreuer, supra note 7, at 1101 (“Nothing in the Convention’s travaux préparatoires suggests that a doctrine of stare decisis should be applied to ICSID arbitration.”).

15 Id. at 955; see also id. at 959 (“A principle that is uncontested, at least in theory, is the distinction between non-application of the proper law and a mere error in its application. Non-application is a valid reason for annulment. A mere error is not.” (citation omitted)).

16 CMS Annulment Decision, supra note 11, para. 136.

17 Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID No. ARB/01/3, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic (July 30, 2010), at http://ita.law.uvic.ca.

18 Id, para. 405.

19 See, e.g., Brower, Charles N. & Schill, Stephan W., Is Arbitration a Threat or a Boon to the Legitimacy of lnternational Investment Law? , 9 Chi. J. Int’l L. 471, 473 (2009)Google Scholar; Franck, Susan D., The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law Through Inconsistent Decisions , 73 Fordham L. Rev. 1521, 1558 (2005)Google Scholar.

20 Schreuer, supra note 7, at 898–99.

21 Crawford, James, Ten Investment Arbitration Awards That Shook the World: Introduction and Overview , 4 Disp. Resol. Int’l 71, 93 (2010)Google Scholar.

22 See, e.g., Roberts, Anthea, Power and Persuasion in Investment Treaty Interpretation: The Dual Role of States , 104 AJIL 179 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 See Desierto, Diane A., Necessity and “Supplementary Means of Interpretation “for Non-precluded Measures in Bilateral Investment Treaties , 31 U. Pa. J. Int’l L. 827 (2010)Google Scholar.

24 Quoting Expert Statement of Professor W. Michael Reisman, 6 Hearing Transcript 1007 (Feb. 11, 2006).

25 See William W., Burke-White & Andreas von, Staden, Private Litigation in a Public Law Sphere: The Standard of Review in Investor-State Arbitrations , 35 Yale J. Int’l L. 283 (2010)Google Scholar; Alec Stone, Sweet & Mathews, Jud, Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism, 47 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 72 (2008)Google Scholar.