Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:16:24.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID): Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. Arb/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Christina Knahr
Christina Knahr*
Affiliation:
Department of European, International and Comparative Law at the University of ViennaShe may be contacted atchristina.knahr@univie.ac.at.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial and Similar Proceedings
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , January 2007 , pp. 12 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the ICSID website (last visited January 19, 2006) <.http://www.worldbank.org/icsid>

1 (1) The Amended Protective Order and Procedures for Counsel Access to Detainees at the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, first issued on November 8, 2004; (2) the Order Addressing Designation Procedures for ‘ Protected Information” entered on November 10, 2004; and (3) the Order Supplementing and Amending Filing Procedures Contained in November 8, 2004, Amended Protective Order, issued on December 13, 2004, in In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Cases, Civil No. 02-0299, et al., by Judge Joyce Hens Green.

1 Aguas Argentinas S.A., Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Vivendi Universal, S. A. v. Argentine Republic, ARB/03/19, Order in Response to a Petition for Transparency and Participation as Amicus curiae, 19 May2005,available at <//ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/ Aguas-ArgentinasVivendi Order AmicusCuriae.>

2 Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe S.A., Suez, Sociedad General deAguas de Barcelona S.A. and Interagua Servicios Integrates de Agua S.A. v. Argentine Republic,ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17, Order in Response to a Petition for Participation asAmicus curiae, 17 March 2006, available at <http://www.worl-dbank.org/icsid/cases/ARB0317-AC-en.>

3 Amendments to the ICSID Rules and Regulations and the Additional Facility Rules, effective 10 April 2006, available at <http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/basicdoc/CRR_English-final.>

4 Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3, 29 September 2006, available at <//ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/Biwater-PONo.3.> [hereinafter Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania]

5 Id. at paras. 15-17, 57-60.

6 Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Minutes of the First Session of the Arbitral Tribunal, 23 March 2006, available at <//ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/Biwater-MinutesofFirstSessionP-aris23March2006.PDF>.

7 Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 2, 24 May 2006, available at<http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/BiwaterProceduralOrderNo224May2006.>

8 Biwater Gauff. v. Tanzania, Procedural Order No. 3, supra note 4, para. 13.

9 Article 47 of the ICSID Convention provides: ‘ ‘Except as the parties otherwise agree, the Tribunal may, if it considers that the circumstances so require, recommend any provisional measures which should be taken to preserve the respective rights of either party”. Rule 39 (1) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules provides: “At any time after the institution of the proceeding, a party may request that provisional measures for the preservation of its rights be recommended by the Tribunal. The request shall specify the rights to be preserved, the mea sures the recommendation of which is requested, and the circumstances that require such measures.“

10 Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, Procedural Order No. 3, supra note 4, para. 12.

11 Id. at paras. 114-134.

12 Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, supra note 4, at paras. 135-147.

13 Id. at paras. 148-163.

14 Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, supra note 4, at para. 145.

15 Id. at paras. 121 (with regard to ICSID), 128 (with regard to the ICSID Additional Facility Rules, 130 (with regard to NAFTA Chapter 11) and 132 (with regard to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules).

16 Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, supra note 4, at para. 146.

17 Id. at para. 147.

18 Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on Provisional Mea sures, 9 December 1983, 1 ICSID Reports 410.

19 Id. at 411; See Ch. Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Com mentary (2001), at 757, 771.

20 Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, supra note 4, para. 126; See Ch. Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (2001), at 779, 780.

21 Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, supra note 4, para. 141.

22 Id. at paras. 140, 142.

23 Ch. Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (2001), at 819-828.

24 Id. at 822.

25 Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, supra note 4, paras 123, 124.

26 Id. at para. 156.

27 Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, supra note 4, at para. 163 (d).

28 Id. at para. 155.

29 Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, supra note 4, at para. 158.

30 Id. at para. 161.

31 Id.

32 Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, supra note 4, at para. 163 (a).

33 Id. at para. 157.

34 Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania, supra note 4, at para. 152.

35 Id. at para. 163 (c).

1 ICSID Case ARB/81/1

2 ICSID Case Arb (AF)/97/l

3 ICSID Case Arb (AF)/98/3

4 Loewen Group, Inc. v. United States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/98/3, Decision on hearing of Respondent's objection to competence and jurisdiction (5 Jan. 2001), 7 ICSID Rep. 421 (2005)

5 Metalclad Corp. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF) /97/1, Decision on a request by the Respondent for an order prohibiting the Claimant from revealing information regarding ICSID Case ARB (AF) /97/1 (27 Oct. 1997)

6 Loewen, at §26

7 Glamis Gold Ltd v. United States (UNCITRAL Rules, admin-istered by ICSID), Decision on Objections to Document Production (20 July 2005), Decision on Parties’ Requests for Production of Documents Withheld on Grounds for Privilege (17 Nov. 2005), and Claimant's Memorial (5 May 2006)

8 2 Arb. Int'l 335, 336 (1986)

9 Meg Kinnear, “Transparency and Third Party Participation innvestorState Dispute Settlement” (presented on 12 December 2005 at a symposium organized by ICSID, the OECD and UNCTAD), available at http://www.oecd.Org/dataoecd/6/ 25Z36979626.pdf, at page 10.

10 Aguas Argentinas et al. v. Argentina in response to a petition for Transparency and Participation as Amicus Curiae, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19 (19 May 2005)

11 The Tribunal, however, went on to address the issue from the perspective of “non-aggravation and non-exacerbation of the dispute,” an analytically distinct and competing interest which is discussed further below.