brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita
brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita
brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
indivisibility of <strong>the</strong> two arbitration proceedings initiated by <strong>the</strong> Claimant <strong>under</strong><br />
CAFTA and <strong>the</strong> Investment Law. In <strong>the</strong> Respondent‟s submission, <strong>the</strong> most important<br />
reason to revisit that determination and CAFTA‟s waiver provision is that this<br />
arbitration‟s jurisdictional phase has clearly demonstrated that <strong>the</strong>re are two proceedings<br />
based on <strong>the</strong> same measures; and that <strong>the</strong> Claimant is intending to detach<br />
those two proceedings and go forward with one of <strong>the</strong>se proceedings independently<br />
from <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r and <strong>under</strong> a different legal standard. In <strong>the</strong> Respondent´s submission,<br />
such result is prohibited by <strong>the</strong> CAFTA waiver. 163<br />
(03) The Claimant’s Case<br />
5.16. The Claimant contends, <strong>under</strong> this issue, that <strong>the</strong> Respondent‟s objection should be<br />
rejected on <strong>the</strong> ground that <strong>the</strong> text of Article 15 of <strong>the</strong> Investment Law contains <strong>the</strong><br />
Respondent‟s clear and specific consent to ICSID jurisdiction. 164<br />
5.17. The Claimant submits that <strong>the</strong> decisions made in <strong>the</strong> Cemex, Mobil and Inceysa arbitrations,<br />
as well as by acknowledged legal scholars cited by <strong>the</strong> Claimant, all agree<br />
that <strong>the</strong> language of Article 15 is an instrument of consent and, as such, not subject<br />
to any principle of restrictive interpretation. 165 Indeed, according to <strong>the</strong> Claimant, all<br />
<strong>the</strong>se materials conclude that such language is so clear that <strong>under</strong> any interpretive<br />
standards or principles, <strong>the</strong> only conclusion that can be drawn is that it contains <strong>the</strong><br />
Respondent‟s unilateral consent to ICSID jurisdiction. 166<br />
5.18. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> Claimant submits that <strong>the</strong> legislative history of <strong>the</strong> Investment Law confirms<br />
such an interpretation; and it refers, as an example, to a Power Point presentation<br />
made before <strong>the</strong> Asamblea Legislativa at <strong>the</strong> time of debating <strong>the</strong> Investment<br />
Law bill which expressly referred to “international arbitration administered by IC-<br />
SID” in <strong>the</strong> case of foreign investment. In <strong>the</strong> Claimant‟s submission, it is clear that<br />
at <strong>the</strong> time when <strong>the</strong> Respondent promulgated <strong>the</strong> Investment Law, <strong>the</strong> Asamblea<br />
163<br />
164<br />
165<br />
166<br />
Respondent‟s Post-Hearing Submissions, §§ 120 and 122.<br />
Jurisdiction Counter-Memorial, §§ 34 and 426-466; Jurisdiction Rejoinder, §§ 281-306; Hearing D1.148;<br />
Claimant‟s Post-Hearings Submissions, § 91.<br />
Jurisdiction Counter-Memorial, §§ 440-450; Jurisdiction Rejoinder, § 289; Hearing D1.147-148; Claimant‟s<br />
Post-Hearing Submissions, § 98.<br />
Jurisdiction Rejoinder, §§ 290-299; Hearing D1.147-148; Claimant‟s Post-Hearings Submissions, § 92.<br />
Part 5 - Page 5