Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-4hvwz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T12:19:29.851Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Compagnie Générale des Eaux v. Argentine Republic

International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes.  21 November 2000 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

Arbitration — Applicable law — Relation between concession contract, bilateral investment treaty and ICSID Convention — Dispute with provincial authorities relating to interpretation and application of contract to be submitted to administrative courts

Economics, trade and finance — Bilateral investment treaty — Argentina-France bilateral investment treaty, Article 8(2) — “Fork in the road” provision — Relevance to Tribunal’s jurisdiction over treaty claim — Relevance to merits of claim

Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction issue joined to merits — Failure to designate or consent to application of ICSID Convention to province under Article 25(1) and (3) does not deprive Tribunal of jurisdiction — Local forum clause in concession contract does not divest Tribunal of jurisdiction for claims against State

State responsibility — Imputability — Attribution of responsibility for actions of political subdivisions — Responsibility not limited by federal or decentralized character of State — No factual basis for attribution — State’s obligation under bilateral investment treaty to pursue in good faith and with reasonable efforts the resolution of the dispute — State’s constructive role in renegotiation process

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Impossibility of separating claims for breaches of contract from bilateral investment treaty violation without prior resort to administrative courts — Claimant required under contract to assert its rights in proceedings before administrative courts prior to invoking ICSID procedure — Claimant not precluded from asserting its rights in administrative courts — No evidence that courts lacked independence or fairness or would have denied claimant’s rights procedurally or substantively — No principle of exhaustion of remedies

Claims — Exhaustion of local remedies — Requirement incompatible with Article 8 of bilateral investment treaty and Article 26 of ICSID Convention — Resort to administrative courts required under contract for purposes of interpretation and application

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2004

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.)