Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T07:09:01.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NAFTA Chapter Eleven Tribunal: GAMI Investments, Inc. v. The Government of the United Mexican States

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 44 , Issue 3 , May 2005 , pp. 546 - 568
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2005

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

1 4 Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports 96 (1983)

2 20 ILM 1 (1977).

3 ICJ Reports 3 (1970).

4 ICJ Reports 15 (1989).

5 6 ICSID Reports 3, at para. 89 (1999).

6 6 ICSID Reports 340 (2002).

7 US-Mexican Claims Commission, IV UNRIAA 41, at 47 (1926).

8 First Partial Award of 13 November 2000, 8 ICSID Reports (forthcoming), at para. 260 (2000).

9 J.H. Ralston, Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, p. 322, at 327 (1904).

10 J.B. Moore, History and Digest of International Arbitrations to Which the United States Has Been Party 3184 (1898).

11 A Digest of the International Law of the United States, Vol. 2, Sec. 242(1886).

12 Award of 29 May 2003, 10 ICSID Reports (forthcoming) at para. 154.

13 Para. 98.

14 The Nafta Free Trade Commission issued Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions in July 2001. These Notes state that Article 1105 is not intended to require treat ment of aliens “beyond that which is required by the customary international law minimum standard.” They also state that the determination that there has been a breach of another treaty obligation does not of itself establish a breach of Article 1105. Gami says that its claims in this case “satisfy the standard set forth in the interpretation.” It therefore deems it unnecessary to question whether the Notes constitute “a proper exercise of the interpretive power in Article 1131.“

15 First Partial Award, op. cit., note 8, para. 261.

16 Award of 24 April 2004, 10 ICSID Reports (forthcoming) at para. 98.

17 Ibid. para. 93.

18 L.F. Neer v. Mexico, 1927 AJIL 555 at 556.

19 Op. cit. n. 16, at para. 109.

20 6 ICSID Reports 470, at para. 190 (2003).

21 Op. cit. n. 16, at para. 109.

22 Para. 115.

23 Para. 116.

24 Para. 115. This leaves open the issue of denial of justice. Such a claim was raised in Waste Management II but rejected. No such claim arises in the present case.

25 4 Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports 122.

26 Award of 17 February 2000, 5 ICSID Reports 153, at para. 77; 39 ILM 1317, at 1329 (2000).

27 First Partial Award, op. cit., para. 283.

28 Para. 102.

29 Para. 104, at footnote 86.

30 5 ICSID Reports 230 (emphasis added).

31 Ibid. 260.

32 6 Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports 219, 226 (1986).

33 5 ICSID Reports 172, at para. 76.