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
2011INTERNATIONALARBITRATIONREPORT12EnronSempraCMSLGECMSLGECMSEnronSempraAmcovIndonesiaKlocknervCameroonSalukavCzechRepublicImplicationsoftheAnnulmentDecisionsfortheFutureteXIinprovidingthemandatorylegalnormtobeapplied.ThustheTribunaladoptedArticle25oftheILCArticlesastheprimarylawtobeappliedratherthanArticleXIoftheBITandinsodoingmadeafundamentalerrorinidentifyingandapplyingtheapplicablelaw.209.TheCommitteeisthereforedriventotheconclusionthattheTribunalhasfailedtoconductitsreviewonthebasisthattheapplicablelegalnormistobefoundinArticleXIoftheBITandthatthisfailureconstitutesanexcessofpowerswithinthemeaningoftheICSIDConvention.Theannulmentdecisionalthoughsomewhatdifferentinreasoningwassimilarinoutcometo.TheanalysesofbothseemtobroadlyendorsetheinterpretativeapproachesadoptedbytheAnnulmentCommitteeandthetribunal.ThecommitteesinessencenotedthatthetribunalsfailedtoapplyArticleXIoftheU.S.-ArgentinaBITandonlyappliedArticle25oftheILC.ThisfailurethecommitteesfoundviolatedvariousgroundsofICSIDConventionArticle52.InOctoberandNovember2010EnronandSempraafterreceivingtheannulmentdecisionsre-submittedthecasestotwonewICSIDtribunals.InJanuary2011PampaEnergaArgentinaslargestelectricityproviderwhichhasacquiredEnronsrighttotheICSIDclaimsignaledthatitmightdropthere-submittedclaim.Asofthedateofwritinghoweverthecasewasstillpending.ItistoosoontojudgehowthenewtribunalswouldinterpretthetwonecessitydefenseprovisionsintheU.S.-ArgentinaBITandtheILCArticles.TheymightstillreachtheconclusionthatthenecessitydefensesarenotavailabletoArgentinawhilemaintainingthatthetwoprovisionsareseparateastheAnnulmentCommitteedid.ItalsoseemsunlikelythattheywouldtotallyexonerateArgentinafromresponsibilitybecauseasnotedeventhemostsympathetictribunaltoArgentinainthegassectorcasesthetribunalwhichacceptedArgentinasnecessitydefenseforalimitedperiodawardedmorethanUS50milliontotheclaimantexcludingonlythoselossessufferedduringthepeakoftheArgentinenancialcrisis.Forlawyersandscholarsthenewannulmentdecisionswhileunsettlinginasmuchastheyopenthedoorfornewinterpretativeapproachestowardstheissueofstateofnecessityprovisionsmaypromoteamoreprincipledandconsistentapproachtointerpretationbybringingconflictingdecisionsinlinewithannulmentinterpretativeapproachwhichregardlessofhowtheoutcomeisvieweddoesmakethelawmorepredictable.Thispredictabilitycanalsobringsomecomforttotheinterestedcommunitywhoinrecentyearshavespilledmuchinkonexplainingtheperilsofinconsistentdecisionsfortheinvestmentarbitrationsystemandtheconsequentfragmentationofinternationallaw.Thecriticsmayinsteadnowhopeformoreconsistentdecisionsfromthenewandtribunals.AllthispredictabilitycomeswithacaveatthatisuncertaintywhetherArgentinawillcommenceasecondsetofannulmentproceedingsaswasthecaseinrespectoftwoearlyICSIDdecisionsand.IntheinterimtheArgentinenecessitycasesmayndnewapplicationintheaftermathofthecurrentglobalnancialcrisisinwhichanumberofcountriesincludingtheUnitedStateshavebailedouttheirfinancialinstitutions.Questionsimmediatelyariseastowhetherinvestmenttreatyprovisionscanbeimplicatede.g.thoseonnationaltreatmentandfairandequitabletreatmentperhaps.Theshortanswermaybeintheafrmative.IntherecentpasttheCzechRepublichasbeenheldresponsibleforbailingoutitsfourbigtroubledbanksandrefusingtodothesameforaforeign-ownedbanksee.Intheabsenceofcarve-outssuchasthoseintheNAFTAfornancialservicesnoeconomicsectormaybeimmunefrominvestmenttreatysuits.Thestateofnecessitydefensethenmaygainnewrelevance.