Methanex Corp. v. United States of America, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, IIC 166 (2002), Partial Award, 7 August 2002 Mobil Corporation and o<strong>the</strong>rs v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27, Decision on Jurisdiction, 10 June 2010 Mondev International Ltd. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2, Award, 11 October 2002 Petrobart v. Kyrgyz Republic, SCC 126/2003, Award, 29 March 2005 Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009 Phosphates in Morocco (Italy v. France), 1938 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 74 (June 14) Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 February 2005 Railroad Development Corporation v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No ARB/07/23, Decision on Objection to Jurisdiction <strong>under</strong> CAFTA Article 10.20.5, 17 November 2008 Railroad Development Corporation v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No ARB/07/23, Decision on Clarification Request of <strong>the</strong> Decision on Jurisdiction, 13 January 2009 Railroad Development Corporation v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No ARB/07/23, Second Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 18 May 2010 Rights of Minorities in Upper Silesia (Germany v. Poland), 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 15 (Apr. 26) SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of <strong>the</strong> Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 January 2004 Société Générale v. Dominican Republic, LCIA Case No. UN7927, Award on Preliminary Objections to Jurisdiction, 19 September 2008 Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/84/3, Second Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 April 1988 Tokios Tokelés v.Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 April 2004 Trans-Global Petroleum, Inc. v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/25, Decision on Respondent‟s Objection <strong>under</strong> Rule 41(5) of <strong>the</strong> ICSID Arbitration Rules, 12 May 2008 Tradex Hellas S.A. v. Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/94/2, Decision on Jurisdiction, 24 December 1996 vii
Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/2, Award, 2 June 2000 Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 227, Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 30 November 2009 Zhinvali Development Ltd. v. Republic of Georgia, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/1, Award, 24 January 2003 Miscellaneous Materials: ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, 2001, Yearbook of <strong>the</strong> International Law Commission, 2001, Vol II, Part Two Kinnear (et al), Investment Disputes <strong>under</strong> NAFTA, An Annotated Guide to Chapter 11 (2006) Leathley, International Dispute Resolution in Latin America: An Institutional Overview (2007) Schreuer, et al. The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (2nd ed. 2009) Yearbook of <strong>the</strong> International Law Commission, 1966, Vol. II viii
- Page 1 and 2: IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BEF
- Page 3 and 4: One-Time Acts .....................
- Page 5 and 6: Glossary of Defined Terms “CAFTA
- Page 7: African Holding Company of America,
- 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