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.
liberate delay, <strong>the</strong> CAFTA Party could thwart any objection from <strong>the</strong> investor‟s<br />
CAFTA Party <strong>under</strong> CAFTA Articles 18.3 and 20.4, notwithstanding CAFTA Article<br />
10.12.2.<br />
4.48. The Claimant submits that <strong>the</strong>re is no legitimate reason based on <strong>the</strong> text or context<br />
of CAFTA for <strong>the</strong> Respondent‟s assertion that <strong>the</strong> proper time to provide notice to a<br />
claimant can be delayed to <strong>the</strong> jurisdictional phase of an arbitration. Indeed, so <strong>the</strong><br />
Claimant contends, <strong>under</strong> <strong>the</strong> Respondent‟s interpretation <strong>the</strong>re is no reason why a<br />
respondent could not wait to deny benefits until after an award has been made in favour<br />
of such claimant. The Claimant submits that this absurd result cannot be <strong>the</strong><br />
correct interpretation of CAFTA Article 10.12.2 <strong>under</strong> international law.<br />
4.49. Lastly, <strong>the</strong> Claimant contends that ICSID Article 25(1) prevents <strong>the</strong> Respondent<br />
from denying benefits to <strong>the</strong> Claimant after claims have been submitted to arbitration<br />
by <strong>the</strong> Claimant because once a Contracting State has consented to ICSID arbitration<br />
with a claimant, that consent is irrevocable and may not be unilaterally withdrawn;<br />
and that <strong>the</strong> Respondent‟s mistaken interpretation of CAFTA Article 10.12.2<br />
would allow a respondent CAFTA Party to withdraw its consent after claims had<br />
been submitted by a claimant to arbitration, in violation of ICSID Article 25(1).<br />
4.50. In conclusion, <strong>the</strong> Claimant contends that <strong>the</strong> Respondent has not satisfied any of <strong>the</strong><br />
conditions for denying benefits to <strong>the</strong> Claimant <strong>under</strong> CAFTA Article 10.12.2; and<br />
that, accordingly, <strong>the</strong> Respondent‟s attempt to deprive <strong>the</strong> Claimant of CAFTA<br />
benefits should fail and should have no effect on this Tribunal‟s jurisdiction to address<br />
<strong>the</strong> Claimant‟s CAFTA claims on <strong>the</strong>ir merits.<br />
(04) Non-Disputing Parties’ Submissions<br />
4.51. Costa Rica: In its Submission, Costa Rica observes that no provision of CAFTA requires<br />
<strong>the</strong> CAFTA Party to address any communications “to <strong>the</strong> individual concerned”<br />
(paragraph 3), as distinct from addressing <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r CAFTA Party <strong>under</strong><br />
CAFTA Articles 18.3 and 20.4. Costa Rica also observes that <strong>the</strong> consultation procedure<br />
between CAFTA Parties <strong>under</strong> CAFTA Article 20.4 does not amount to dip-<br />
Part 4 - Page 15