brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita

(7) specify the nature of the applicant‘s interest in these arbitration
proceedings prompting its application;
(8) include (as an appendix to the application) a copy of the applicant‘s
written submissions to be filed in these arbitration proceedings,
assuming permission is granted by the Tribunal for such filing, such
submissions to address only matters within the scope of the subjectmatter
of these arbitration proceedings; and
(9) explain, insofar as not already answered, the reason(s) why the
Tribunal should grant permission to the applicant to file its written
submissions in these arbitration proceedings as an amicus curiae …‖
1.36. The Amicus Curiae Submission received by this Tribunal addressed the following
matters: (i) the factual background to the dispute raised by the Claimant in these arbitration
proceedings, (ii) whether there exists any “legal dispute” under Article 25
of the ICSID Convention or any “measure” under CAFTA Article 10.1, as distinct
from the Claimant‟s dissatisfaction with Salvadoran public policy in recent years
and the “independently-organized communities who have risen up against the
Claimant‟s projects, i.e. [the] amici”; (iii) whether the Claimant‟s claim amounts to
an abuse of process; and (iv) the Respondent‟s denial of benefits under CAFTA Article
10.12.2.
1.37. The Amicus Curiae Submission concludes:
―The general political debate concerning sustainability, metals mining and democracy
in El Salvador is ongoing. Pac Rim has attempted to influence the political debate,
but has been disappointed in its lobbying efforts. Dissatisfied with the direction
of the democratic dialogue, Pac Rim has abused the arbitral process by changing its
nationality to attract jurisdiction. The Tribunal should not sanction this abuse and,
more important, has no jurisdiction to hear a complaint against the course of a political
debate.‖
1.38. The Tribunal notes that the Amicus Curiae Submission does not address the further
jurisdictional issues raised by the Respondent regarding “Ratione Temporis” and the
“Investment Law.” The Tribunal also notes that the Respondent, unlike the Amicus
Curiae Submission, has not impugned this Tribunal‟s jurisdiction by reference to Article
25 of the ICSID Convention and CAFTA Article 10.1.
Part 1 – Page 9