brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita
brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita
brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
PART 5: ISSUE D - INVESTMENT LAW<br />
(01) Introduction<br />
5.1. The Tribunal here addresses <strong>the</strong> Respondent‟s independent and alternative jurisdictional<br />
objection to <strong>the</strong> effect that this Tribunal lacks any jurisdiction <strong>under</strong> <strong>the</strong> Investment<br />
Law of El Salvador to decide <strong>the</strong> Claimant‟s pleaded Non-CAFTA claims.<br />
The Claimant contests this jurisdictional objection in full.<br />
5.2. In <strong>the</strong> Tribunal‟s opinion, <strong>the</strong> Parties‟ debate <strong>under</strong> this separate issue can be determined<br />
largely as a matter of legal interpretation, where issues as to <strong>the</strong> standard of<br />
proof play no material part. It is, however, ultimately for <strong>the</strong> Claimant to establish<br />
<strong>the</strong> Tribunal‟s jurisdiction over its Non-CAFTA claims as a matter of such interpretation.<br />
(02) The Respondent’s Case<br />
5.3. In summary, 140 <strong>the</strong> Respondent denies jurisdiction <strong>under</strong> this issue on four principal<br />
grounds: (i) that Article 15 of <strong>the</strong> Investment Law does not constitute consent to IC-<br />
SID jurisdiction; 141 (ii) even if <strong>the</strong> Investment Law did constitute such consent and<br />
did apply to <strong>the</strong> Claimant, <strong>the</strong> Claimant‟s claims are precluded for <strong>the</strong> Claimant‟s<br />
failure to initiate conciliation before ICSID arbitration; 142 (iii) <strong>the</strong> Claimant is not a<br />
foreign investor <strong>under</strong> <strong>the</strong> Investment Law; 143 and (iv) <strong>the</strong> CAFTA waiver precludes<br />
jurisdiction <strong>under</strong> <strong>the</strong> Investment Law. 144<br />
5.4. As to <strong>the</strong> first ground, <strong>the</strong> Respondent alleges that Article 15 of <strong>the</strong> Investment Law<br />
does not constitute consent to arbitration for <strong>the</strong> purposes of Article 25 of <strong>the</strong> ICSID<br />
140<br />
141<br />
142<br />
143<br />
144<br />
Jurisdiction Memorial, § 9; Hearing Day1.119-129.<br />
Jurisdiction Memorial, §§ 337-378; Jurisdiction Reply, §§ 225-250.<br />
Jurisdiction Memorial, §§ 424-427; Jurisdiction Reply, §§ 253-254.<br />
Jurisdiction Memorial, §§ 379-380; Jurisdiction Reply, §§ 255-261.<br />
Jurisdiction Memorial, §§ 428-454; Jurisdiction Reply, §§ 262-264.<br />
Part 5 - Page 1