Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Abaclat & Others v. Argentine Republic: Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (ICSID)

  • Susan L. Karamanian

Extract

The past decade has witnessed an increase in the number of investor-State arbitrations. With the increase has been a widening of the range and deepening of the complexity of issues raised, addressed, and resolved in the cases. In recent years, novel procedural issues have surfaced. One of them is whether arbitral tribunals have the authority to adjudicate claims of multiple investors in a single proceeding, and if so, how they should conduct the arbitration. In 2011, the tribunal in Abaclat & Others v. Argentine Republic, constituted under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), held that claims of more than one investor, in fact, multiple investors, are admissible and that the tribunal had jurisdiction over them. Since Abaclat, another tribunal has similarly held that collective claims could be heard under the ICSID framework.2 The issue of multiple investors is one that will likely not fade so it is fitting that the Abaclat decision be re-published in International Legal Materials to promote wider access to it.

Copyright

References

Hide All

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Web site (visited August 16, 2013), https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServiet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVa1=ShowDoc&docID=DQ3130_En&caseID=c95.

1 Abaclat & Others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (Aug. 4, 2011), https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=showDoc&docId=DC3130_En&caseId=C95.

2 Ambiente Ufficio S.P.A. & Others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (Feb. 8, 2013), https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=showDoc&docId=DC2992_En&caseId=C340.

3 See, e.g., Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. (formerly Enron Corp.) and Ponderosa Assets LLP v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. Arb/01/03, Decision on Jurisdiction (Aug. 2, 2004), https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=showDoc&docId=DC502_En&caseId=C3 (alleging that Argentina’s adoption of certain measures harmed the investors’ investment in a gas transportation company in breach of the U.S.-Argentina BIT); LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp. and LG&E International Inc. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Award (July 25, 2007), http://italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0462.pdf (challenging Argentina’s tariff adjustment to gas distribution contracts as a violation of the U.S.-Argentina BIT).

4 Katia, Fach Gomez, Latin America and ICSID: David Versus Goliath?, 17 Law & Bus. Rev. Am. 195 (2013).

5 See, e.g., Eric, David Kasenetz, Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures: The Aftermath of Argentina’s States of Necessity and the Current Fight in the ICSID , 41 Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. 709 (2013).

6 See Michael, Waibel, Opening Pandora’s Box: Sovereign Bonds in International Arbitration , 101 Am. J. Int’l L. 711, 714 (2007) (discussing Argentina’s Law No. 26017, promulgated on February 10, 2005).

7 Id.

8 Id.

9 Agreement between the Argentine Republic and the Republic of Italy on the Promotion and Protection of Investments, May 22, 1990 [hereinafter Argentina-Italy BIT], http://unctad.org/sections/dite/iia/docs/bits/italy_argentina_it.pdf. Details about the process by which the Italian bondholders elected to pursue an arbitration claim against Argentina are set out in Abaclat, supra note 1, ¶¶ 85-91.

10 Abaclat, supra note 1, ¶ 282 (quoting Additional Protocol to Argentina-Italy BIT).

11 Id. ¶ 270 (citing Argentina-Italy BIT, supra note 9, at art. 8(1)-(3)).

12 Id. ¶¶ 65-67, 84-91.

13 Id. ¶ 97.

14 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, Mar. 18, 1965, 17 U.S.T. 1270 [hereinafter ICSID Convention], https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/StaticFiles/basicdoc_enarchive/ICSID_English.pdf.

15 Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings, in ICSID Convention, Regulations and Rules 99 (2006) [hereinafter ICSID Arbitration Rules], https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/StaticFiles/basicdoc_en-archive/ICSID_English.pdf.

16 See Abaclat, supra note 1, ¶ 64.

17 Id.

18 Ambiente Ufficio, supra note 2.

19 Alemanni & Others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/8 (pending).

20 Abaclat, supra note 1, ¶¶ 234(iv)-(vi).

21 ICSID Convention, supra note 14, at art. 25.

22 Abaclat, supra note 1, ¶¶ 234(i), (ii).

23 Id. ¶¶ 504-51.

24 Id. ¶¶ 356-61.

25 Id. supra note 1, ¶ 367; see also id. ¶ 387.

26 Id. supra note 1, ¶¶ 515-34.

27 ICSID Convention, supra note 14, at art. 44.

28 ICSID Arbitration Rules, supra note 15, at art. 19.

29 Abaclat, supra note 1, ¶¶ 521-28.

30 Id. ¶ 547.

31 Id. ¶¶ 34-117 (Abi-Saab, dissenting) [hereinafter Abi-Saab Dissent], https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=showDoc&docId=DC3131_En&caseId=C95.

32 Abi-Saab Dissent, supra note 31, ¶¶ 120-91.

33 See Ambiente, supra note 2.

34 Id. ¶ 10.

35 Id. ¶ 13.

36 Abi-Saab Dissent, supra note 31, ¶¶ 20-33.

37 Id. ¶ 25.

38 Ambiente, supra note 2, ¶ 626.

39 Abaclat, supra note 1, ¶¶ 566, 590.

1 See C-MJ § 164, stating that the total number of Claimants at the time of filing the C-MJ is 180,285. See also Navigant I § 27 and Cremieux § 22.

2 Susmel, §§ 7 and 11.

3 Exh. C-127, p. 19; see also Pingle I, § 31.

4 Article 1§ 3 of the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund.

7 http://www.clubdeparis.org. See also Pingle I, § 83 and Slaughter & Burke–White I, § 22.

9 See also Pingle I, § 88 and Slaughter, & Burke–White, I, § 25 referring to Lex Rieffel, Restructuring Sovereign Debt: The Case For Ad Hoc Machinery 27-29 (2003), § 108 .

10 Slaughter & Burke–White I, § 29 et seq.; Pingle I, § 96.

11 Slaughter & Burke-White I, §§ 42 et seq. and §§ 87 et seq. referring to a proposal of the IMF.

12 See Slaughter & Burke-White I, §§ 87 et seq. and §§ 90-91referring with regard to collective action clauses to a report of the IMF encouraging such clauses (report available on http://www.imf.org/external/np/g22/ifcrep.pdf).

13 Exh. CLA-ARG-297.

14 See Mairal I, §§ 39-44. These requirements are not disputed by Respondent.

15 Article 60 LFA.

16 Exh. CLA-ARG-297.

17 Ibid.

18 Cottani I, § 22, referring to Chart “All Argentine External Bonds, 1991-2001,” derived from Bloomberg and Ministry of Economy, “Títulos Públicos Emitidos en Moneda Nacional” and “Títulos Públicos Emitidos en Moneda Extranjera” (Charts of Argentine Government Bonds in Domestic and Foreign Currency), 31 December 2001. See also R-MJ § 11, and Exh. RE-195.

19 Navigant I, Table 2; see also C-MJ §§ 117-118.

20 Cottani I, § 22, See also R-MJ § 11, and Exh. RE-195.

21 Hardie I, § 19; Cremieux, §§ 9 et seq.

22 R-MJ § 20.

23 R-MJ §§ 7 et seq. and 13 et seq.

24 C-R-MJ §§ 108 et seq.

25 R-MJ § 16, Ex. RE-132.

26 R-MJ § 17.

27 R-R-MJ §§ 22-23, and §§ 65-66, see also Exh. RE-195, RF-26.

28 R-MJ § 24.

29 R-R-MJ § 66.

30 R-MJ § 30.

31 R-MJ § 32.

32 R-MJ § 33.

33 Cottani, I, § 46, referring to the presentation of the Secretariat of Finance, Ministry of Economy and Production “Argentina – From Stabilization to Economic Growth” of August 2003 at: http://www.argentinedebtinfo.gov.ar/documentos/europe_presentation_english_august.pdf.

35 C-MJ § 180, which reflects the wording to be found in Italian on http://www.tfargentina.it/chisiamo.php. See also TFA’s Bylaws 2002, Article 2, which provide that “to represent free of charge and on the basis of a mandate the interests of Italian investors in Argentinean securities within the framework of the debt restructuring operations to be negotiated with the Argentinean authorities or other Argentinean issuers” (translation provided by the Tribunal).

36 Exh. C-417.

37 Exh. C-RA-11, 12 and 13; see further C-MJ § 182 and Exh. C-372.

38 See below §§ 559 et seq.

39 R-MJ § 36 and Exh. RE-137.

40 Exh. RE-138, pp. 14, 21, 22, 24.

41 Exh. C-163.

42 Exh. C-297.

43 Exh. C-297.

44 C-MJ §§ 197-198; R-MJ §§ 87-97, and 99 in which Respondent described GCAB as “TFA-dominated.”

45 See below §§ 559et seq.

46 Exh. C-165.

47 Exh. RE-152.

48 See e.g. Exh. RE-155.

49 Exh. RF-28.

50 Exh. RD-121.

51 R-MJ § 40; C-R-MJ § 205.

52 Exh. RE-195, p. 135.

53 Pingle I, § 254.

54 R-MJ § 53 et seq.

55 H.W. Urban GmbH et al. v. The Republic of Argentina, 02 Civ. 6699 (TPG) (SDNY), see Exh. C-193, p. 3.

56 Agritech S.R.L. et al. v. Republic of Argentina, 06 Civ. 15393 (TPG) (SDNY), see Exh. RD 143, and Gandola & C. S.P.A., et al. v. Republic of Argentina, see Exh. C-505.

57 Exh. RD-148 and RD-154.

58 R-MJ § 59.

59 R-MJ § 60 and R-R-MJ §§ 95 et seq.

60 Exh. C-418.

61 Exh. RA-1.

62 Exh. RA-3.

63 Exh. RA-2.

64 Exh. RA-4.

65 Exh. RA-7.

66 Exh. RA-2.

67 C-MJ § 261, see also Navigant I, § 27 and Cremieux, § 22.

68 See Exchange Offer Prospectus (Exh. C-999B), p. 6; see also Annex A to R-PHB § 76.

69 Idem

70 See Annex A to R-PHB § 79.

71 See Annex A to R-PHB § 80.

72 CL-PHB §§ 139 et seq., § 144.

73 Annex A to R-PHB § 76.

74 See letter from Prof. Christoph Schreuer of 2 November 2006 and letter from Prof. Rudolf Dolzer of 16 November 2006 both attached to Claimant’s letter of 20 November 2006 addressed to the Secretary-General of ICSID.

75 Hearing Tr. Day 7 pp. 1941/14-1942/10.

76 First Session Tr. p. 140/17 and p. 141/3-9.

77 R-MJ § 4; R-PHB §§ 364 et seq.

78 R-MJ §1.

79 R-PHB §§ 363 et seq.

80 R-MJ §1, R-PHB §§ 7-8, 19-59.

81 R-PHB § 267-291; R-PHB §§ 72-141.

82 R-MJ § 2; R-PHB § 142, §§ 158-200.

83 R-PHB § 227.

84 R-MJ § 3, R-PHB §§ 394-405, § 478.

85 R-MJ § 3, R-PHB § 500.

86 R-MJ § 3, R-PHB § 394-405.

87 R-MJ § 4, R-PHB § 363, §§ 366-371.

88 R-R-MJ §§ 638-639; R-PHB §§ 253-266.

89 R-PHB § 501.

90 See R-MJ § 401.

91 C-MJ §§ 2-10.

92 C-MJ §§ 7-8.

93 C-MJ § 15; C-R-MJ § 353, §§ 656, 675, §§ 788, 793 and 798; C-PHB § 6.

94 C-MJ Section IV § 22 ; C-R-MJ Section IV; see further CPHB § 449.

95 C-MJ Section IV § 23.

96 The differences between the concept of “jurisdiction” of the Centre compared to the concept “competence” of the arbitral tribunal seem to be more linked to the difference in the nature and role of the Centre compared to the arbitral tribunal rather then to a real difference of concept, see Gerold, Zeiler, “Jurisdiction, Competence and Admissibility,” in: International Investment Law for the 21st Century, Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer, Oxford University Press 2009, pp 77-81 .

97 See e.g. The Rompetrol Group N.V. v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/3), Decision on Respondent’s Preliminary Objections on Jurisdiction and Admissibility of 18 April 2008, §§ 11 et seq. (hereinafter “Rompetrol”). In contrast, some authors and tribunals have expressed a different view on this topic: see e.g. Zeiler, op. cit. fn. 96, pp. 90-91, who, referring to the Methanex case, supports the view that since the objections mentioned in Rule 41 ICSID Arbitration Rules do not include objections of inadmissibility of the claim, this provision does not confer to the Tribunal a separate power to rule on objections to admissibility.

98 Christoph, Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, 2009 , Ad Art. 25 § 18 and references quoted therein.

99 See in this respect Paulsson, who called them “as different as night and day” ( Jan, Paulsson, “Jurisdiction and Admissibility,” in Aksen, G., Böckstiegel, K.H., Mustill, M.J., Patocchi, P.M., and Whitesell, A.M. (eds), Global Reflections on International Law, Commerce and Dispute Resolution, Liber Amicorum in honour of Robert Briner (2005), pp. 601 et seq.).

100 See also Zeiler, op. cit. fn. 96, pp. 81 et seq.

101 See Paulsson, op. cit. fn. 99, and The Société Générale de Surveillance v. Republic of the Philippines, (ICSID Case ARB/02/6), Decision of 29 January 2004 (§ 153), 8 ICSID Reports 518 (hereinafter “SGS v. Philippines”).

102 C-MJ § 308; R-MJ § 174, R-R-MJ § 241.

103 See Reed, Paulsson Blackaby, , Guide to ICSID Arbitration, Kluwer International, 2004, p. 15 . See also 2011 ed., p. 26.

104 See the case concerning East Timor, I.C.J. Reports 1995, pp. 89, 99. See also Schreuer, op. cit. fn.98, Ad Article 25 § 42 and references quoted in footnote n. 44.

105 Schreuer, op. cit. fn.98, Ad Article 25 § 85.

106 Schreuer, op. cit. fn. 98, Ad Art. 25 §§ 427 et seq., § 448; Reed/Paulsson/Blackaby, op. cit. fn. 103, p. 35.

107 On the precedential value of ICSID decisions, see Gabrielle, Kaufmann-Kohler, Arbitral Precedent: Dream, Necessity or Excuse? Freshfields lecture 2006, in Arbitration International Vol. 23 (2007) No. 3, pp. 368 et seq.; see also August, Reinisch, The Role of Precedents in ICSID Arbitration, in Austrian Arbitration Yearbook 495-510 (2008).

108 Saipem S.p.A. v. The People’s Republic of Bangladesh (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/07), Decision on Jurisdiction and Recommendation on Provisional Measures of 21 March 2007, §§ 84 et seq. (hereinafter “Saipem”).

109 Saipem, § 91.

110 See e.g. Exh. C-122 and RF-18.

111 See e.g. Exh. C-123, C-350 and C-353.

112 See e.g. Bond 1 Offering Circular Exh. C-1.

113 See e.g. Trust Deed Exh. C-93, Fiscal Agency Agreement Exh. C-95, etc.

114 R-PHB §§ 363 et seq.

115 R-R-MJ, §§ 543 et seq.

116 R-R-MJ §§ 528-529.

117 R-MJ §§ 46 et seq., R-R-MJ §§ 68 et seq.

118 C-MJ §§ 656-661; C-PHB §§ 355 et seq.

119 RfA, Section V, §§ 179-211.

120 RfA, Section V, § 186.

121 RfA § 190.

122 RfA §§ 193-104.

123 RfA §§ 196-198.

124 RfA §§ 199 et seq.

125 Ethan, Shenkman Jason File, Contract Claims in Investment Treaty Arbitrations: Recent Umbrella Clause Case Developments, in The International Comparative Legal Guide to: International Arbitration, Global Legal Group Ltd., 6th edition 2009, p. 1 .

126 See, e.g., Shenkman, File, op. cit. fn.125 , p. 1 et seq.; Kim, Rooney, ICSID and BIT Arbitrations in China, in Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 24, No. 6 (2007), p. 695 ; Edward, Baldwin Mark, Kantor Michael, Nolan, Limits to Enforcement of ICSID Awards, in Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 23, No. 1 (2006), pp. 3 et seq.; Emmanuel, Gaillard, Investment Treaty Arbitration and Jurisdiction over Contractual Claims. The SGS Cases Considered, in Todd, Weiler (ed.), International Investment Law and Arbitration, Leading Casese from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law, Cameron May, 2005, pp. 325 et seq. and 336 et seq.

127 See Annex A to R-PHB § 8, although the Parties disagree with regard to the conditions for the exercise of such claims.

128 See e.g. RF-5, Trust Deed § 17.2; see also Exh. RF-6, 1993 FAA § 20; Exh. RF-7, 1994 FAA § 22, Exh. RF-8, Swiss Bond Prospectus § 13, etc. .

129 The English text of the BIT differs from the Italian and Spanish text of the BIT in that Article 1(g) in the English text of the BIT is equal to Article 1(f) in the Italian and Spanish text and a part of Article 1(e) of the Italian and Spanish text, namely, “processes, transferrals of technological knowhow, registered business names and goodwill” is included in the English text of the BIT as Article 1(f). In the Tribunal’s view the omission in Article 1(e) and addition of a further subparagraph in Article 1 of the English text BIT appears to be a mistake. Therefore, the Tribunal relies on the Italian and Spanish text of the BIT as being equally authentic.

130 R-MJ §§ 266-270; R-R-MJ §§ 425-468, referring, inter alia, to Salini Construttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco (ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4), Decision on Jurisdiction of 23 July 2001, § 52, 42 ILM 609,622 (2003) (hereinafter “Salini”). See also R-PHB §§ 406 et seq.

131 R-R-MJ §§ 425-432, referring, inter alia, to Joy Mining Machinery Ltd. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11), Award on Jurisdiction of 6 August 2004, § 50, 19 ICSID Rev. 486, 499; Mitchell v. Democratic Republic of Congo (ICSID Case No. ARB/99/7), Decision on Annulment of Award of 1 November 2006, § 25; Malaysian Historical Salvors, SDN, BHD v. Malaysia (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10), Decision on Jurisdiction of 17 May 2007, § 55.

132 R-PHB §§ 455 et seq.

133 R-R-MJ §§ 500-508, referring to Plama Consortium Ltd. v. Bulgaria (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24), Award of 27 August 2008, §§ 140, 143-144, 146; Inceysa v. El Salvador (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26), Award of 2 August 2006, §§ 219 et seq.. See also R-PHB §§ 461 et seq.

134 See C-PHB §§ 376 et seq.

135 C-MJ §§ 699-719, referring, inter alia, to Salini, 622; Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22), Award of 24 July 2008, §§ 312, 314, 316-318 . See also C-PHB §§ 391 et seq.

136 See C-PHB §§ 431 et seq.

137 See C-PHB §§ 436 et seq.

138 Regarding BITs signed by Italy, see Volume RB to R-MJ. These BITs are also available on http://www.unctadxi.org/templates/DocSearch____779.aspx.

139 See Malicorp Limited v. The Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/18), Award of January 2011, § 110.

140 Translated by the Tribunal from the Italian version “creare condizioni favorevoli per una maggiore cooperatzione economica fra i due Paesi ed, in particolare, per la realizzazione di investimenti.” The Spanish version has the same meaning “crear condiciones favorables para una mayor cooperación económica entre los dos Países y, en particular, para la realización de inversiones.”

141 Annex A to R-PHB § 3.

142 Annex A to R-PHB §§ 69-70. “In particular, in order to retire some or all of the defaulted bonds through the Exchange Offer, Argentina had to find a way to engage all parties that had beneficial interests in the bonds” (§ 70).

143 Annex A R-PHB § 67.

144 Annex A R-PHB § 70.

145 See for an overview regarding this issue, GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/16 (Germany/Ukraine BIT), Award of 31 March 2011, §§ 137-143.

146 Romak S.A. v. The Republic of Uzbekistan (PCA Case No. AA280), Award of 26 November 2009, § 180 and § 207.

147 See e.g. Fedax N.V. v. Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3), Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction of 11 July 1997, § 41. See also SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13), Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction of 6 August 2003, §§ 136-140, where emphasis was led on the fact that the aim of SGS’s activity was to “raise the financial revenue of the State” (§ 139); SGS v. Republic Philippines, §§ 111.

148 See R-MJ §§ 521 “the issuances of the bonds were in conformity with Argentine Law.”

149 First Session Tr. p. 140/17; p. 141/3-9.

150 See Conference Call of 14 October 2009.

151 Picardi, § 229.

152 R-MJ §§ 271-283; 365; 374-475; R-R-MJ §§ 590-600; 642-651.

153 R-MJ § 365; R-R-MJ §§ 590-600, referring to Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Republic of Sri Lanka (ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2), Award of 15 May 2002, § 120; Champion Trading Company and Ameritrade International Inc. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/9), Decision on Jurisdiction of 21 October 2003, §§ 3.1-3.4. See also R-PHB §§ 480 et seq.

154 R-MJ § 366, R-R-MJ §§ 602-611, referring to C-MJ § 863.

155 C-MJ §§ 830; 853. See also C-PHB §§ 443 et seq.

156 C-MJ §§ 854; 865. See also C-PHB §§ 446 et seq.

157 See Picardi, §§ 228 et seq.

158 See Schreuer, op. cit. fn. 98, Ad Article 25 § 689, and references to the historical debate concerning the term of juridical person.

159 See Consorzio Groupement L.E.S.I.-DIPENTA v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/08), Award of 10 January 2005, §§ 37 et seq., where the Tribunal recognized the capacity of an “external” consortium to be a party to an arbitration, based on its capacity to act in its own name, to sue and to be sued. The Tribunal rejected its jurisdiction not because of a lack of legal capacity of the claimant, but because the claimant was not the party bound by the contract underlying the investment, see § 37(iii).

160 See Schreuer, op. cit. fn. 98, Ad Article 25 §§ 694 et seq., and references quoted therein.

161 See R-MJ § 364 and R-PHB § 491, where Respondent states that “Claimants did not produce any prima facie evidence of being incorporated, having their seat in Italy and being recognized under Italian law,” thereby implicitly admitting that the law of incorporation and/or recognition and the place of the seat are the relevant criteria to determine the nationality of non-natural investors.

162 R-PHB §§ 144 et seq.

163 R-PHB §142, §§ 201 et seq.

164 R-PHB §§ 225 et seq.

165 R-MJ § 205, R-PHB § 144.

166 C-MJ §§ 390 et seq., C-R-MJ §§ 355 et seq. See aso C-PHB §§ 104 et seq, and §§ 244 et seq.

167 See e.g. Schreuer, op. cit. fn. 98, § 578 et seq. and references quoted therein.

168 See also Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, A.S. v. the Slovak Republic (ARB/97/4), Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, § 35.

169 A consent is fraudulously induced when it is based on a willfully inaccurate representation on a willful concealment of information, which in accordance with good faith and fair dealing should have been disclosed.

170 A mistake is considered essential, where the party would not have given it consent had it known about the mistake.

171 See TFA Instruction Letter (Exh. RA-2), Section 8, first paragraph.

172 See Cerniglia, §§ 4 et seq., see also Hearing Tr. Day 4 pp. 933/10-939-22, and pp. 952/8-953/21; and Illuminato, §§ 3-5, 9.

173 See above § 340.

174 R-MJ §§ 136 et seq., R-R-MJ §§ 138 et seq., 159 et seq., 168 et seq., §§ 183 et seq, R-PHB §§ 11 et seq.

175 C-MJ §§ 113 et seq., C-R-MJ §§ 292 et seq., C-PHB §§ 147 et seq.,

176 For a quick overview see Stacy, I. Starck, From Class to Collective: The De- Americanization of Class Arbitration, in Arbitration International, Vol. 26 No. 4 (2013), pp 493-548, pp 501-508 , which refers further to a third type, i.e., “settlement-only proceedings,” which permit parties to a mass dispute to create a collective for settlement purposes only.

177 See Starck, op. cit. fn.176, pp 183-212, pp 195-196.

178 See R-MJ §§ 138 et seq., 154 et seq., 264; R-R-MJ §§ 159 et seq., 178 et seq., 184 et seq.; R-PHB §§ 22 et seq.

179 R-MJ §§ 62.

180 C-MJ §§ 313 et seq., 333 et seq., 350 et seq.; C-R-MJ §§ 316 et seq., C-PHB §§ 125 et seq., §§ 190 et seq.

181 See e.g. Schreuer, op. cit. fn. 98, Ad Article 44 § 54.

182 See e.g. Schreuer, op. cit. fn. 98, Ad Article 44 §§ 20 et seq.

183 R-MJ §§ 382 et seq.; R-R-MJ §§ 652 et seq.; R-PHB §§ 267 et seq.

184 C-MJ §§ 544 et seq.; C-R-MJ §§ 543 et seq.; C-PHB §§ 323 et seq.

185 See above § 84.

186 See above § 66.

187 Respondent actually contends that “Argentina has no way of even knowing who such owners [of security entitlements] are,” see Annex A to RSP PHB § 6.

188 R-R-MJ §§ 661 et seq., 694 et seq.

189 R-MJ §§ 387 et seq.; R-R-MJ §§ 661 et seq., 694 et seq.; RPHB §§ 267 et seq.

190 C-MJ §§ 544 et seq.; C-R-MJ §§ 543 et seq.; C-PHB §§ 323 et seq.

191 C-MJ §§ 557 et seq., §§ 594 et seq.; C-R-MJ §§ 556 et seq., §§ 643 et seq.; C-PHB §§ 330 et seq., §§ 347 et seq.

192 R-PHB § 290.

193 See also Law 25,561 of January 2002 and Resolution 73/2002, by which Argentina deferred the repayment of its sovereign debt, and the subsequent decrees and budget laws maintaining such deferral, see Bianchi I, § 42 and Bianchi II, §§ 59 et seq.

194 See Bianchi I, §§ 42 et seq. and Bianchi II, §§ 59 et seq.

195 See Nagareda, §§ 8, 15-16; Mata, §§ 52 et seq., R-R-MJ § 152.

196 See Mata, §§ 35 et seq., 49 et seq.

197 See C-MJ § 164, stating that the total number of Claimants at the time of filing the C-MJ is 180,285. See also Navigant I § 27 and Cremieux § 22.

198 Annex D to the Request for Arbitration contains a power of attorney and delegation of authority for each Claimant being a natural person to White & Case LLP (see page 1 above). Annex E to the Request for Arbitration contains a power of attorney and delegation of authority for each Claimant being a juridical person to White & Case LLP.

199 See R-PHB §§ 240 et seq.

200 See R-PHB §§ 258 et seq.

201 See letter from Respondent of 22 October 2010 (see above §217)

202 See C-MJ §§ 503 et seq., C-R-MJ §§ 507 et seq.,C-PHB §§ 309 et seq.

203 R-MJ § 372, R-R-MJ § 638.

204 See Respondent’s letters of 2 November 2010 and C-999B, p. 88 § 20.

205 See also Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19), Procedural Order No. 1 Concerning the Discontinuance of Proceedings with Respect to Aguas Argentinas S.A. of 14 April 2006 and Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe S.A., Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A, and Interagua Servicios Integrales de Agua S.A. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17), Procedural Order No. 1 Concerning the Discontinuance of Proceedings with Respect to Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe S.A. of 14 April 2006.

206 R-MJ §§ 241 et seq., R-R-MJ §§ 394 et seq., R-PHB §§ 230 et seq.

207 C-MJ §§ 473 et seq., C-R-MJ §§ 483 et seq., R-PHB § 216 et seq.

208 See e.g. Hersch, Lauterpacht, Development of International Law by the International Court, London, 1958, p. 164 . “There is no right, however well established, which could not, in some circumstances, be refused recognition on the ground that it has been abused.” See also Mobil Corporation and others v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27), Decision on Jurisdiction of 10 June 2010, §§ 169 et seq. (hereinafter “Mobil”) and references quoted therein.

209 Mobil, §§ 169 et seq.; Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company v. The Republic of Ecuador (UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 34877), Interim Award of 1 December 2008, §§ 125-149, § 141 (hereinafter “Chevron”); Phoenix Action Ltd v. The Czech Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5), Award of 15 April 2009, §§ 107 (hereinafter “Phoenix”); Aguas del Tunari S.A. v. Republic of Bolivia (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3), Decision on Respondent’s Objections to Jurisdiction of 21 October 2005, § 321 (hereinafter “Aguas del Tunari”); Tokios Tokelés v.Ukraine (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18), Decision on Jurisdiction of 29 April 2004, § 56 (hereinafter “Tokios Tokelés”). Comp. with Rompetrol, § 115.

210 Compare for example Mobil and Phoenix, where the issue was considered one hindering jurisdiction, with Rompetrol, Aguas del Tunari and Chevron, where the tribunals touched upon the issue at the jurisdictional phase but considered it had its place at the stage of the merits.

211 R-MJ §§ 241 et seq., R-R-MJ §§ 394 et seq., R-PHB §§ 230 et seq.

212 R-R-MJ §§ 612-641.

213 C-MJ §§ 509 et seq., C-R-MJ §§ 515 et seq.

214 Rule 25 of the ICSID Arbitration Rules provides: “An accidental error in any instrument or supporting document may, with the consent of the other party or by leave of the Tribunal, be corrected at any time before the award is rendered.”

215 See Hearing Tr. Day 4 p. 1043/1 – 1051/15; see also Navigant I, §§ 11-24 and Navigant II, sections III & IV.

217 I.e., one third of US$ 27,309,604.

218 I.e., one third of US$ 11,620,340.

* Associate Dean for International and Comparative Legal Studies, The George Washington University Law School. She is a former Vice-President of the American Society of International Law.

Abaclat & Others v. Argentine Republic: Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (ICSID)

  • Susan L. Karamanian

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed