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.
c. Piercing <strong>the</strong> corporate veil (Memorial, paras. 381-413); or<br />
d. Article 15 of <strong>the</strong> Investment Law does not constitute consent (Memorial,<br />
paras. 337-379); or, in <strong>the</strong> alternative, <strong>the</strong> Investment Law claims are inadmissible<br />
(Memorial, paras. 424-427); or<br />
e. Indivisibility of <strong>the</strong> CAFTA claims and <strong>the</strong> Investment Law claims (Memorial,<br />
para. 105).<br />
B: Alternative 2: If <strong>the</strong> Tribunal finds that Claimant‘s actions constituted Abuse<br />
of Process, but that <strong>the</strong> Abuse of Process only affects <strong>the</strong> CAFTA claims and<br />
only results in <strong>the</strong> rejection of jurisdiction <strong>under</strong> CAFTA,<br />
(1) El Salvador requests <strong>the</strong> Tribunal to also dismiss all claims <strong>under</strong> <strong>the</strong> Investment<br />
Law for lack of jurisdiction based on any of <strong>the</strong> independent objections<br />
listed in paragraph II.A.2 above, i.e.,<br />
a. Enforcing <strong>the</strong> CAFTA waiver (Memorial, paras. 428-454); or<br />
b. Pac-Rim Cayman is not a ―Foreign Investor‖ <strong>under</strong> <strong>the</strong> Investment Law<br />
(Memorial, paras. 379-380); or<br />
c. Piercing <strong>the</strong> corporate veil (Memorial, paras. 381-423); or<br />
d. Article 15 of <strong>the</strong> Investment Law does not constitute consent (Memorial,<br />
paras. 337-379); or, in <strong>the</strong> alternative, <strong>the</strong> Investment Law claims are inadmissible<br />
(Memorial, paras. 424-427); or<br />
e. Indivisibility of <strong>the</strong> CAFTA claims and <strong>the</strong> Investment Law claims (Memorial,<br />
para. 105).‖<br />
1.44. The Claimant responded by letter dated 10 October 2011 to <strong>the</strong> Tribunal‟s request,<br />
stating (inter alia) as follows:<br />
― ... Claimant wishes to observe that Respondent‘s rec<strong>ita</strong>tion of its objections in <strong>the</strong><br />
September letter is not entirely consistent with its previous pleadings, and in some<br />
instances is internally contradictory. The primary ambiguity arises from Respondent‘s<br />
seemingly interchangeable use of <strong>the</strong> terms,―dismiss for lack of jurisdiction‖<br />
and ―reject jurisdiction.‖ For example, in <strong>the</strong>ir first paragraph of page 2 of <strong>the</strong> September<br />
letter, Respondent asserts that if <strong>the</strong> Tribunal finds an abuse of process, it<br />
should dismiss all claims ―for lack of jurisdiction.‖ In <strong>the</strong> following paragraph,<br />
however it asserts that <strong>the</strong> consequence of a finding of abuse of process would be for<br />
<strong>the</strong> Tribunal to ―reject jurisdiction <strong>under</strong> CAFTA.‖<br />
A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction occurs where a claimant has failed to demonstrate<br />
that <strong>the</strong> requirements for jurisdiction are satisfied. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, <strong>the</strong> notion<br />
of ―rejecting‖ jurisdiction indicates that <strong>the</strong> requirements for jurisdiction have<br />
been proved – i.e., jurisdiction exists – but <strong>the</strong> tribunal, in <strong>the</strong> exercise of its discretion,<br />
chooses not to accept jurisdiction. Here, this distinction is relevant because Respondent<br />
has raised objections to <strong>the</strong> Tribunal‘s jurisdiction ratione temporis (<strong>under</strong><br />
CAFTA) and ratione personae and voluntatis (<strong>under</strong> <strong>the</strong> Investment Law), while also<br />
raising objections that, in Respondent‘s own words, ―are not strictly tied to <strong>the</strong> requirements<br />
for jurisdiction, like Abuse of Process and Denial of Benefits.‖<br />
Part 1 – Page 12