Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
2011INTERNATIONALARBITRATIONREPORT10theprotectionofitsownessentialsecurityinterestslexspecialisArbitralTribunalsDecisionsontheStateofNecessityDefensetcalculationoftariffsinU.S.dollars.Therespectivetariffswereredenominatedinpesosattherateofonepesotothedollar.Thesameratewasappliedtoallprivatecontractsdenominatedindollarsorotherforeigncurrencies.TheEmergencyLawalsoprovidedforrenegotiationoflicenses.TheclaimantsinthereferencedcaseshowevercouldnotreachanagreementwiththeArgentinegovernmentaboutthenewterms.CMSLGEEnronandSempraalongwithmanyothercompaniesbroughtclaimsagainstArgentinaallegingthatitsmeasuresparticularlytheEmergencyLawviolatedtheU.S.-ArgentinaBIT.SpecificallytheyallegedthatthelegalframeworkgoverningthegassectorincludingtheConvertabilityLawandthePPIAdjustmentmechanismaswellasthelicensesallcreatedbindingassurancesthattariffswouldbecalculatedinU.S.dollarsthatsemi-annualadjustmentswouldtakeplaceinaccordancewiththevariationintheU.S.PPIthatthetariffswouldbereviewedeveryfiveyearsandthattheirlicenseswouldnotbecancelledormodiedwithouttheirrespectiveconsents.ThesechangessinglyortogethertheclaimantsarguedviolatedtheBITsprovisionsrequiringfairandequitabletreatmentandprohibitingexpropriationwithoutcompensationaswellasitsumbrellaclauseanumbrellaclauseraisesanunderlyingcontractualobligationbetweenhoststateandforeigninvestortothelevelofatreatyprotection.ArgentinaraisedthenecessitydefenseinallcasesarguingthatthecontestedmeasureswerealladoptedwhenArgentinawasunderastateofnecessityandrequiredtocontrolthecrisis.ThereforeArgentinaargueditshouldnotbeheldinternationallyresponsibleforviolatingtherelevantprovisionsoftheBIT.InsupportArgentinainvokedamongotherthingsArticleXIofU.S.-ArgentinaBITandcustomaryinternationallawascodiedinArticle25oftheInternationalLawCommissionArticlesonResponsibilityofStatesforInternationallyWrongfulActsILCArticles.ArticleXIofU.S.-ArgentinaBITstatedThisTreatyshallnotprecludetheapplicationbyeitherPartyofmeasuresnecessaryforthemaintenanceofpublicorderthefulllmentofitsobligationswithrespecttothemaintenanceorrestorationofinternationalpeaceorsecurityor.Emphasisadded.Article25NecessityoftheILCArticlesstated1.NecessitymaynotbeinvokedbyaStateasagroundforprecludingthewrongfulnessofanactnotinconformitywithaninternationalobligationofthatStateunlesstheactaIstheonlywayfortheStatetosafeguardanessentialinterestagainstagraveandimminentperilandbDoesnotseriouslyimpairanessentialinterestoftheStateorStatestowardswhichtheobligationexistsoroftheinternationalcommunityasawhole.2.InanycasenecessitymaynotbeinvokedbyaStateasagroundforprecludingwrongfulnessifaTheinternationalobligationinquestionexcludesthepossibilityofinvokingnecessityorbTheStatehascontributedtothesituationofnecessity.Thepartiesdisagreedastowhetherthetwoprovisionsabovewereeffectivelythesame.ArgentinaarguedthatArticleXIoftheBITwasandsetanindependentstandardfromcustomaryinternationallawasdescribedinILCArticle25.Itfurtherclaimedthatitsactswereexcusedundereitherprovisionparticularlytheformer.ClaimantshoweverarguedthatthetwoprovisionswerethesamewhicheffectivelymeantthatthemorestringentrequirementsofILCArticle25wouldprevailandArgentinasactionswouldbelesslikelytomeetthatprovisionscumulativerequirements.ThearbitraltribunalsagreedthatessentialsecurityunderArticleXIoftheBITcouldincludemajor