List of Selected Legal Materials Treaties: The Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement of 2004 (“CAFTA”) The ICSID Convention on <strong>the</strong> Settlement of Investment Disputes of 1965 (“ICSID Convention”) The Vienna Convention on <strong>the</strong> Law of Treaties of 1969 (“Vienna Convention”) Salvadoran Laws: Investment Law, Legislative Decree No. 732, 14 October 1999 Mining Law, Legislative Decree No. 544, 14 December 1995, amended by Legislative Decree No. 475, 11 July 2001 Regulations of <strong>the</strong> Mining Law and its Amendments, Legislative Decree No. 47, 20 June 2003 Decisions, Awards and Judgments: Alex Genin and o<strong>the</strong>rs v. Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/2, Decision on Claimants' Request for Supplementary Decisions and Rectification, 4 April 2002 Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (United Kingdom v. Iran), Preliminary Objection – Judgment, 22 July 1952, ICJ Reports 1952 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), Judgment, 19 December 1978, ICJ Reports 1978 Autopista Concesionada de Venezuela, C.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/5, Decision on Jurisdiction, 27 September 2001 v
African Holding Company of America, Inc. and Société Africaine de Construction au Congo S.A.R.L. v. Democratic Republic of <strong>the</strong> Congo, ICSID Case No ARB/05/21, Award, 29 July 2008 Aguas del Tunari S.A. v. Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3, Decision on Respondent‟s Objections to Jurisdiction, 21 October 2005 Brandes Investment Partners, LP v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/08/3, Decision on Respondent‟s Objection <strong>under</strong> Rule 41(5) of <strong>the</strong> ICSID Arbitration Rules, 2 February 2009 Cemex Caracas Investments B.V. and Cemex Caracas II Investments B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/15, Decision on Jurisdiction, 30 December 2010 Chevron Corporation (USA) and Texaco Petroleum Company (USA) v. Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 34877, Interim Award, 1 December 2008 Commerce Group Corp. and San Sebastian Gold Mines, Inc. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/17, Award, 14 March 2011 Duke Energy Electroquil Partners and Electroquil S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/19, Award, 12 August 2008 Electricity Company of Sofia v. Bulgaria (Belgium v. Bulgaria), 1939 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 77 (Order of Apr. 4) Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Judgment, 4 December 1998, ICJ Reports 1998 Generation Ukraine Inc. v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/00/9, Award, 16 September 2003 Impregilo S.p.A v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 22 April 2005 Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award, 2 August 2006 Ioannis Kardassopoulos v. Georgia, ICSID Case ARB/05/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 July 2007 Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections, 11 June 1998, ICJ Reports 1988 Limited Liability Company Amto v. Ukraine, SCC Case No. 080/2005 (ECT), Final Award, 26 March 2008 M.C.I. Power Group, L.C. and New Turbine, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/6, Award, 31 July 2007 vi
- Page 1 and 2: IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BEF
- Page 3 and 4: One-Time Acts .....................
- Page 5: Glossary of Defined Terms “CAFTA
- Page 9 and 10: Waste Management, Inc. v. United Me
- Page 11 and 12: 1.4. Prior to 2 March 2012, the Cla
- Page 13 and 14: C: The Tribunal’s Decision of 2 A
- Page 15 and 16: 1.23. The Respondent: The Responden
- Page 17 and 18: under cover of a letter also dated
- Page 19 and 20: G: The Parties’ Claims for Relief
- Page 21 and 22: c. Piercing the corporate veil (Mem
- Page 23 and 24: H: The Jurisdictional Issues 1.46.
- Page 25 and 26: (02) CAFTA 1.4. CAFTA Article 10.1:
- Page 27 and 28: 2. At least 90 days before submitti
- Page 29 and 30: measure alleged to constitute a bre
- Page 31 and 32: (03) The ICSID Convention 1.13. ICS
- Page 33 and 34: (5) ILC Articles on State Responsib
- Page 35 and 36: proof or the Claimant‟s allegatio
- Page 37 and 38: 2.11. Burden of Proof: As far as th
- Page 39 and 40: 2.19. In presenting this main objec
- Page 41 and 42: precedented regulatory obstacles de
- Page 43 and 44: 2.32. In its Post-Hearing Submissio
- Page 45 and 46: SID Convention, nor relates to a
- Page 47 and 48: But on the other side, an internati
- Page 49 and 50: for such disputes would constitute,
- Page 51 and 52: scribed in its early pleadings form
- Page 53 and 54: 2.65. The Tribunal considers that t
- Page 55 and 56: vestment (which by themselves are n
- Page 57 and 58:
minated; nothing more could have be
- Page 59 and 60:
to arbitrarily change or add new re
- Page 61 and 62:
2.86. Accordingly, treating the rel
- Page 63 and 64:
2.93. The Tribunal notes that this
- Page 65 and 66:
ability and not merely as a possibl
- Page 67 and 68:
2.105. Having reached these several
- Page 69 and 70:
Tribunal‟s jurisdiction to determ
- Page 71 and 72:
3.5. The Respondent also submits th
- Page 73 and 74:
cause there was only one applicatio
- Page 75 and 76:
leged de facto ban on mining was no
- Page 77 and 78:
Claimant, it came to light only in
- Page 79 and 80:
that led to the revocation should b
- Page 81 and 82:
for the purpose of deciding the Rat
- Page 83 and 84:
distinction made in the Commerce Gr
- Page 85 and 86:
EMELEC v. Ecuador (under the USA-Ec
- Page 87 and 88:
would qualify for treaty protection
- Page 89 and 90:
4.17. (iii) Timeliness: The Respond
- Page 91 and 92:
the Respondent submits, to require
- Page 93 and 94:
ditiously resolved” (paragraph l)
- Page 95 and 96:
provided the Respondent with its No
- Page 97 and 98:
4.44. The Claimant contends further
- Page 99 and 100:
lomatic protection within the meani
- Page 101 and 102:
Party [i.e. as the host State] whic
- Page 103 and 104:
there were and are certain activiti
- Page 105 and 106:
4.74. It will be recalled that the
- Page 107 and 108:
der different arbitration rules, th
- Page 109 and 110:
4.91. It follows that this third co
- Page 111 and 112:
Convention. 145 In the Respondent
- Page 113 and 114:
further express requirement of havi
- Page 115 and 116:
Legislativa was fully aware that th
- Page 117 and 118:
made before and after the Claimant
- Page 119 and 120:
5.33. As established by the Interna
- Page 121 and 122:
5.40. As also summarized above, the
- Page 123 and 124:
Government had always treated the C
- Page 125 and 126:
PART 6: ISSUE E - LEGAL AND ARBITRA
- Page 127 and 128:
6.10. The Claimant submits that, un
- Page 129 and 130:
tion ratione temporis (i.e. the con
- Page 131 and 132:
Party to also put in a witness stat
- Page 133 and 134:
ture arbitration proceedings. Indee
- Page 135 and 136:
this arbitration with the least exp
- Page 137 and 138:
abused the Tribunal's indulgence in
- Page 139 and 140:
avoided; but, instead, the Responde
- Page 141 and 142:
“a U.S. investor organized under
- Page 143 and 144:
The Respondent acknowledges, of cou
- Page 145 and 146:
Claimant submits that under the cir
- Page 147 and 148:
ment in the communications with the
- Page 149 and 150:
6.76. The Claimant submits that the
- Page 151 and 152:
PART 7: THE OPERATIVE PART 7.1. For