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.
EMELEC v. Ecuador (<strong>under</strong> <strong>the</strong> USA-Ecuador BIT) and CCL Oil v. Kazakhstan<br />
(<strong>under</strong> <strong>the</strong> USA-Kazakhstan BIT)).<br />
4.4. As expressly worded in CAFTA, it is significant that <strong>the</strong> “benefits” denied <strong>under</strong><br />
CAFTA Article 10.12.2 include all <strong>the</strong> benefits conferred upon <strong>the</strong> investor <strong>under</strong><br />
Chapter 10 of CAFTA, including both Section A on “Investment” and Section B on<br />
“Investor-State Dispute Settlement.” Section B specifically includes CAFTA Article<br />
10.16(3)(a) providing for ICSID arbitration, as here invoked by <strong>the</strong> Claimant for its<br />
claims <strong>under</strong> CAFTA to establish <strong>the</strong> Tribunal‟s jurisdiction to decide those CAFTA<br />
claims against <strong>the</strong> Respondent. This jurisdictional issue <strong>under</strong> CAFTA does not<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore resemble <strong>the</strong> more limited issue <strong>under</strong> Article 17(1) of <strong>the</strong> Energy Charter<br />
Treaty, although in this respect it resembles <strong>the</strong> position <strong>under</strong> Article 1113(1) of<br />
NAFTA. The Tribunal is not aware of any decision as to denial of benefits <strong>under</strong><br />
NAFTA; and none was <strong>brought</strong> to its attention by <strong>the</strong> Parties.<br />
4.5. For <strong>the</strong>se reasons, <strong>the</strong> Tribunal determines that, in <strong>the</strong> present case, it must interpret<br />
<strong>the</strong> relevant text of CAFTA by itself, in accordance with <strong>the</strong> relevant principles for<br />
treaty interpretation <strong>under</strong> international law as codified in <strong>the</strong> Vienna Convention on<br />
<strong>the</strong> Law of Treaties.<br />
(02) The Respondent’s Case<br />
4.6. The Respondent contends that it has properly, fully and timeously denied all relevant<br />
benefits to <strong>the</strong> Claimant <strong>under</strong> CAFTA Article 10.12.2 on 3 August 2010 (<strong>the</strong> day<br />
after <strong>the</strong> Tribunal‟s Decision of 2 August 2010), whereby <strong>the</strong> Respondent (as a<br />
CAFTA Party) may and did deny <strong>the</strong> benefits of CAFTA (including <strong>the</strong> provision on<br />
dispute resolution here invoked by <strong>the</strong> Claimant) to an enterprise of ano<strong>the</strong>r Party,<br />
i.e. <strong>the</strong> Claimant, if “<strong>the</strong> enterprise has no substantial business activities in <strong>the</strong> territory<br />
of any Party, o<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> denying Party, and persons of a non-Party, or of <strong>the</strong><br />
denying Party own or control <strong>the</strong> enterprise.”<br />
Part 4 - Page 2