Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T01:49:42.833Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Saudi Arabia v. Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco).

Arbitration Tribunal (Sauser-Hall, Referee; Badawi/Hassan and Habachy, Arbitrators).  23 August 1958 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

Arbitration — The law to be applied — Systems of law prescribed in Arbitration Agreement — Exclusion of law of country of seat of tribunal — Residuary application of international law — Application of law of State Party subject to rules of private international law — Concession Agreement as fundamental law of Parties — Rejection by Tribunal of specific foreign legal systems.

Arbitration — The arbitration treaty — Failure of parties to agree on question to be submitted to arbitration — Provision for each party to submit own question to Tribunal.

Arbitration — Death of arbitrator — Procedure on.

Arbitration — Procedure — Competence to determine jurisdiction — Limitation of — Absence of power to act as friendly mediator Limitation of competence to decide questions indicated by parties — Absence of power to suggest measures of reconciliation between conflicting contractual agreements — Extension of competence by agreement between parties — Competence to pass judgment on exercise of sovereign rights.

Arbitration — Procedure — Rules of — Translation of proceedings.

Arbitration — The award — Declaratory nature of — Agreement as to.

Arbitration — The award — Declaratory award — Nature of.

Arbitration — The award — Revision by courts of country where arbitration held.

Arbitration — Arbitral tribunals — Exemption from interference by Government of country where sitting, when a State is a Party.

International Court of Justice — Advisory jurisdiction — Competence to examine question in abstract form.

Permanent Court of International Justice — Contentious jurisdiction — Declaratory Judgments.

State responsibility — For interference with concessionary contracts — Respect for acquired rights — Subsequent contract with another concessionaire containing conflicting provision — “ Right of priority ” for transport of oil as to which first concession gave exclusive right — Supremacy of provisions of first concession — Right of transport as acquired right — Whether capable of being affected by agreement between Government and third party — Whether concessionary contract exempts grantee from regulatory powers of granting Government — Nature of concessions — Oil concession — Right of supervision or intervention of grantor State — Concession agreement and acquired rights — Right of ownership of oil extracted by concessionaire — Absence of express provision — International effects of concession — Principles of interpretation of concession agreement — “ Plain, ordinary and usual sense ” of terms — Reference to dictionary definitions — Principles of restrictive interpretation — Relevance of a State being party to contract — Contra proferentem rule — Distinction between public service concessions and concessions for exploitation of raw materials — Ascertainment of intention of parties by reference to their conduct — Whether concession contract can constitute State legislative enactment.

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 1963

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.)