Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T23:23:35.037Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID): Wena Hotels Ltd v. Arab Republic of EGYPT (Annulment Proceeding)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2017

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 41 , Issue 4 , July 2002 , pp. 933 - 953
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2002

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

Endnotes

* This document was reproduced and reformatted from the hard copy provided by Shearman & Sterling.

1 See Klöckner v. Cameroun, Decision on Annulment, 3 May 1985 (hereinafter “Klöckner “), 2 ICSID Reports 95, at 97, 126 (paras. 3,83); Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia, Decision on Annulment, 16 May 1986 (“Amco I“), 1 ICSID Reports 509, at 515/516 (para. 23); Maritime International Nominees Establishment v. Republic of Guinea, Decision on Annulment, 22 December 1989 (“MINE“), 4 ICSID Reports 79, at 85 (para. 4.04).

2 See Klöckner I, 2 ICSID Reports, at 97, 120, 138 (paras 3, 62, 119); MINE,4 ICSID Reports, at 85 (para. 4.05).

3 Klöckner I, 2 ICSID Reports, at 118 (para 58.).

4 Amco I, 1 ICSID Reports, at 515 (para. 23).

5 MINE,4 ICSID Reports, at 87 (para. 5.03).

6 Klöckner I, 2 ICSID Reports, at 119 (para. 61).

7 North-Eastern Boundary case, Untied States-Canada, 1831, Moore, Arbitrations, Vol. I, 119, at 133-134, as cited in J.L. Simpson and Hazel Fox, International Arbitration, Law and Practice, 1959, at 250.

8 World Bank, Report of the Executive Directors on the ICSID Convention, Documents Concerning the Origin and the Formulation of the Convention, 1968, 962, at 1029 (para. 40).

9 Amco I, 1 ICSID Reports, at 515 (para. 20); Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Award, 20 May 1992 (SPP v. Egypt), 3 ICSID Reports 189, at 207 (para. 80).

10 Klöckner I, 2 ICSID Reports, at 122 (para. 69).

11 Michael Reisman, W.: “The Regime for Lacunae in the ICSID Choice of Law Provision and the Question of Its Threshold,” 15 ICSID Review —Foreign Investment Law Journal 362–381 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Professor Reisman also prepared a legal opinion on the matter submitted by the Applicant in the proceeding before the Committee, whereas Wena submitted a legal opinion prepared by Professor Christoph Schreuer.

12 Ibrahim Shihata: “Egypt” in: Elihu Lauterpacht and John G. Collier (eds.): Individual Rights and the State in Foreign Affairs, 1977, 204-242, at 235, with particular reference to Article 151 of the Egyptian Constitution.

13 Ibid., at 235-236.

14 Ibid., footnotes 126-129

15 Ruling on the application for cassation No. 1885 for the 50th judicial year. Hearing No. 50, December 1983 excerpt as translated for the record.

16 Shihata, he. cit., at 236, note 125.

17 Ibid., at 237 and discussion of the investment treaties made by Egypt.

18 Egyptian State Information Service, Foreign Investment, <www.sis.gov.eg/inv2000/html> (Chapter 2); and <www.sis.gov.eg/inv99/html/entl.htm>.

19 John Y. Gotanda: “Awarding interest in international arbitration,” 90 American Journal of International Law 40-63, at 48 (1996).

20 SPP v. Egypt cited supra note 9, 3 ICSID Reports at 242, 244 (paras. 222, 237), and discussion in Laurence Craig, W.: “The Final Chapter in the Pyramids Case: Discounting an ICSID Award for Annulment Risk,” 8 ICSID Review —Foreign Investment Law Journal 264–293, at 278-279 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Atlantic Triton v. Guinea, Award of 21 April 1986, 3 ICSID Reports 17, at 33, 43; Compania del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S. A. v. Republic of Costa Rica, Award of 17 February 2000, 15 ICSID Review —Foreign Investment Law Journal 169, at 200-202 (2000) (paras. 96-107); Emilio Augustin Maffezini v. The Kingdom of Spain, Award, 13 November 2000, 16 ICSID Review —Foreign Investment Law Journal 248, at 277 (2001) (para. 96).

22 SOABI v. Senegal, Decision on Jurisdiction, 1 August 1984, 2 ICSID Reports 164, at 182-183 (paras. 33-38).

23 4 ICSID Reports, at 87 (para. 5.05).

24 See also in this respect the remarks of Klöckner I, 2 ICSID Reports, at 129 (para. 91): “Within the dispute's ‘legal framework,1 arbitrators must be free to rely on arguments which strike them as the best ones, even if those arguments were not developed by the parties (although they could have been). Even if it is generally desirable for arbitrators to avoid basing their decision on an argument that has not been discussed by the parties, it obviously does not follow that they therefore commit a ‘serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure.’ Any other solution would expose arbitrators to having to do the work of the parties’ counsel for them and would risk slowing down or even paralyzing the arbitral solution to disputes.“

25 MINE,4 ICSID Reports, at 88 (para. 5.09).

26 MINE,4 ICSID Reports, at 88 (para. 5.08).

27 Klöckner I, 2 ICSID Reports, at 139 (para. 120).

28 Amco I, 1 ICSID Reports, at 520 (para. 43).

29 See MINE, 4 ICSID Reports, at 88/89 (paras. 5.11-5.13), 107 (para. 6.101); Amco I, 1 ICSID Reports, at 517-519 (paras. 32-36).