Log in

Shaping Investment Arbitration: : The Experience of COMESA and SADC

[2] Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, Mar. 18, 1965, 17 U.S.T. 1270, 575 U.N.T.S. 159.

[3] Burundi, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

[4] Angola, Botswana, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

[5] Joost Pauwelyn, At the Edge of Chaos? Foreign Investment Law as A Complex Adaptive System, How It Emerged And How It Can Be Reformed(Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 24 January 2014), p. 392 <https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2271869> accessed 27 February 2017.

[6] Campbell McLachlan, ‘Investment Treaty Arbitration: The Legal Framework in Albert Jan van Den’, in 50 Years of the New York Convention: ICCA International Arbitration Conference, ed. by Albert Jan van den Berg, ICCA Congress Series (Kluwer Law International; Kluwer Law International, 2009), xiv, 95–145 (p. 98).

[7] McLachlan, xiv, p. 98.

[8] Pauwelyn, p. 392.

[9] SeeSociété Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13), Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 6 August 2003, paras 166-67; Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of the Philippines, (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6), Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 29 January 2004, paras 115, 119.

[10] ICSID Convention, art. 54.1.

[11] McLachlan, xiv, p. 96.

[12] ICSID Convention, art. 25(1).

[13] Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt(ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3), Decision on Jurisdiction 14 April 1988.

[14] Asian Agricultural Products Limited v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka(ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3)

[15] Ibrahim F.I. Shihata (1991), ‘Promotion of Foreign Direct Investment - A General Account, with Particular Reference to the Role of the World Bank Group’, ICSID Review, 6.2 (1991), 484–509 (p. 488).

[16] This included the unsuccessful efforts to establish a multilateral framework for investment including the 1948 Havana Charter, which contemplated codifying investment protection through the establishment of an international trade organization; the 1959 Abs-Shawcross Draft Convention on Investment Abroad which was to provide the basis for a multinational agreement on investment protection for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); and the OECD’s attempt to negotiate a multilateral agreement on investment in the 1990s.

[17] ICSID Caseload Statistics (Issue 2017-1) <https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/resources/ICSID percent20Web percent20Stats percent202017-1 percent20(English) percent20Final.pdf> accessed 27 February 2017.

[18] William Rand, Robert N. Hornick, and Paul Friedland, ‘ICSID’s Emerging Jurisprudence: The Scope of ICSIDs Jurisdiction’, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 19 (1986), 33; Chen Huiping, ‘Expansion of Jurisdiction by ICSID Tribunals: Approaches, Reasons and Damages’, Journal of World Investment & Trade, 12 (2011), 671–88.

[19] S.D. Myers v. Government of Canada(NAFTA) (UNCITRAL), Partial Award, (12/11/00), 40 I.L.M. 1408, 2001, para 264; Pope and Talbot v. Government of Canada, (NAFTA) (UNCITRAL), Award on the Merits (April 10, 2001), 7 ICSID Reports 102, paras 105-118.

[20] Methanex Corp. v. United States of America, (NAFTA) Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions from Third Persons to intervene as “Amici Curiae” <http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/6039.pdf> accessed 2 March 2017; Aguas Argentinas S.A., Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic,(ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19) Order in response to a Petition for Participation as Amicus Curiae (19 May 2005), in particular at para 15.

[21] Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22), Procedural Order No. 1, Request for Provisional Measures, September 31, 2006, paras. 100-102, <http://icsidfiles.worldbank.org/icsid/ICSIDBLOBS/OnlineAwards/C67/DC1581_En.pdf> accessed 2 March 2017.

[22] MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7), Award, 25 May 2004, para. 238; CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Republic of Argentina, (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8), Award, 12 May 2005, para. 410.

[23] Metalclad Corporation v. Mexico, Award of 30 August 2000, 40 I.L.M. (2001) 36, para. 121; Wena Hotels Ltd v.Arab Republic of Egypt, (ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4), Award of 8 December 2000, 41 I.L.M. (2002) 896, para. 122; Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. v. Mexico, (ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2) Award of 29 May 2003, 43 I.L.M. (2004) 133, para. 186; MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Chile, Award of 25 May 2004 <http://www.italaw.com/documents/MTD-Award_000.pdf> accessed 2 March 2017.

[24] Free Trade Commission, Statement on Non-Disputing Party Participation, 7 October 2003 <http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/Nondisputing-en.pdf> accessed 2 March 2017; 2006 Amendments to the ICSID Arbitration Rules (Article 37).

[25] 2006 Amendments to the ICSID Arbitration Rules (Article 37); 2013 UNICTRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration.

[26] Frank Spoorenberg and Jorge E. Vinuales, ‘Conflicting Decisions in International Arbitration’, Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 8 (2009), 91–114.

[27] See NAFTA Art. 1105; Article 30(3) 2012 US Model BIT; Article 20(2) of the China-Canada BIT.

[28] See Pope & Talbot Inc. v Government of Canada(Award on the Merits Phase 2) NAFTA Case (UNCITRAL) (10 April 2001) paras 111-118 holding that Canada had breached its obligation to provide fair and equitable treatment to the investor.

[29] Investing in the SDGs: An Action Plan, ed. by United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2014), World Investment Report, 2014 (New York: United Nations, 2014), p. xxxi.

[30] Venezuela denounced and sought to renegotiate its BIT with the Netherlands in 2008; Ecuador terminated nine of its BITs with other Latin American States in 2008 and sought to terminate 13 other BITs in 2010 but only managed to denounce the BIT with Finland; Bolivia denounced its BIT with the US in 2011; South Africa denounced its BITs with the Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union in 2012, with the Netherlands, Switzerland and Spain in 2013 and with Austria and Germany in 2014.

[31] ICSID Database <https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/cases/Pages/AdvancedSearch.aspx> accessed 31 December 2015.

[32] UNCTAD, ‘International Investment Agreements Navigator’ <http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/> accessed 13 December 2014.

[35] American Manufacturing & Trading, Inc. v. Republic of Zaire(ICSID Case No. ARB/93/1), Award, 21 February 1997 (hereinafter American Manufacturing Award) where Zaire had a different interpretation of Article IX of the 1984 Zaire-US BIT to that of the tribunal.

[36] COMESA Common Investment Area Agreement (23 May 2007, not yet in force) <http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/3092> accessed 9 February 2017.

[37] SADC Protocol on Finance and Investment (FIP) (signed 18 August 2006, entered into force 16 April 2010) <www.sadc.int/files/4213/5332/6872/Protocol_on_Finance__Investment2006.pdf> accessed 2 February 2017.

[38] Luke Eric Peterson, ‘Investigation: In Aftermath of Investor Arbitration against Lesotho, SADC MemberStates Amend Investment Treaty So As To Remove ISDS and Limit Protections’, IAReporter(February 20 2017) <http://www.iareporter.com/articles/investigation-in-aftermath-of-investor-arbitration-against-lesotho-sadc-member-states-amend-investment-treaty-so-as-to-remove-isds-and-limit-protections/> accessed 21 February 2017.

[39] SADC, ‘SADC Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Template with Commentary’ (2012) <www.iisd.org/itn/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/sadc-model-bit-template-final.pdf> accessed 9 February 2017.

[40] UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2016: Recent Policy Developments and Key Issues(United Nations 2016).

[41] SADC FIP Annex I, art 6.

[42] Peterson.

[43] SADC FIP, art 7(2).

[44] Peterson.

[45] CCIA Agreement art 14(1).

[46] ibid art 14(2).

[47] ibid art 14(3).

[48] Peter Muchlinski, ‘The COMESA Common Investment Area: Substantive Standards and Procedural Problems in Dispute Settlement’ in CL Lim (ed), Alternative Visions of the International Law on Foreign Investment ‑ Essays in Honour of Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah(CUP 2016) 131.

[49] SADC Model BIT, art 5.1, Option 2.

[50] Neer v Mexico, Opinion (15 October 1926) (1926) 4 RIIA 60.

[51] See SADC Model BIT, art 5.2, Option 1 (‘…the demonstration of an act or actions by the government that are an outrage, in bad faith, a wilful neglect of duty or an insufficiency so far short of international standards that every reasonable and impartial person would readily recognize its insufficiency’).

[52] ibid art 9.

[53] ibid art 4.2; CCIA Agreement, art 17(2).

[54] Peterson.

[55] SADC Model BIT, art 4.

[56] CCIA Agreement, art 20(2).

[57] Peterson.

[58] SADC Model BIT, art 6.1.

[59] CCIA Agreement, art 20(5); SADC Model BIT, art 6.4.

[60] CCIA Agreement, art 20(6); SADC Model BIT, art 6.5.

[61] Peterson.

[62] CCIA Agreement, art 20(7); SADC Model BIT, art 6.6.

[63] CCIA Agreement, art 20(8); SADC Model BIT, art 6.7.

[64] Peterson.

[65] CCIA Agreement, art 24.

[66] ibid art 25.

[67] SADC FIP, Annex I, art 14.

[68] Peterson.

[69] SADC Model BIT, art 20.

[70] ibid art 20.1.

[71] ibid art 20.2.

[72] ibid art 21.1.

[73] ibid art 21.2.

[74] ibid art 21.3.

[75] SADC FIP, Annex I, art 10.

[76] Peterson.

[77] CCIA Agreement, art 13.

[78] SADC Model BIT, art 10.

[79] ibid art 11.

[80] ibid art 12.

[81] ibid art 13.

[82] ibid art 14.

[83] ibid 15.

[84] ibid art 16.

[85] ibid art 17.

[86] ibid art 18.

[87] Peterson.

[88] CCIA Agreement, art 26(3).

[89] ibid art 26(4).

[90] ibid art 26(5).

[91] SADC Model BIT, art 29.3.

[92] CCIA Agreement, art 28(2) and SADC Model BIT, art 29.4.

[93] SADC Model BIT, art 29.4.

[94] ibid art 29.9(b).

[95] CCIA Agreement, art 28(1) and SADC Model BIT, art 29.6.

[96] CCIA Agreement, art 28(3) and SADC Model BIT, art 29.4(c).

[97] CCIA Agreement, art 28(9).

[98] SADC Model BIT, art 19.2.

[99] ibid art 19.3.


African Arbitration Association, P.O. Box 695, Nyarutarama, KG 9 Av. No. 66, Kigali, Rwanda

Privacy Policy  | Directory Terms of Use© 2018 African Arbitration Association


DISCLAIMER: No responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action in reliance on or as a result of the information in or omitted from this website can be or is accepted by the AfAA, its officers, board members, employees or any other persons affiliated with the AfAA.