Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-md8df Total loading time: 0.21 Render date: 2021-12-07T16:30:08.691Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes: Funnekotter and Others v. Republic of Zimbabwe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Legal Documents
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2009

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 available at the International Civil Aviation Organization website (visited Mar. 30, 2011) http://www.icao.int/DCAS2010/restr/docs/beijing_convention_multi.pdf.

1 Bernardus Henricus Funnekotter and Others v. Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/6, Award (Apr. 22, 2009), available at <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/ZimbabweAward.pdf [hereinafter Funnekotter et al.]

2 Id. ¶¶ 21-30. The majority of farmers affected by the plan were of European origin whose ownership rights generally stemmed from apartheid era acquisitions.

3 Id. ¶ 29.

4 Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments Between the Republic of Zimbabwe and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Dec. 11, 1996 [hereinafter BIT].

5 Id. ¶ 31.

6 See, e.g., Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd and Others v. Republic of Zimbabwe, SADC Case No. 2/2007 (Nov. 28, 2008) [hereinafter SADC Ruling] (investors in commercial farming in Zimbabwe, not unlike the investors in Funnekotter et al., successfully brought human rights claims against the Zimbabwe Government for discrimination under Article 6(2) of the Southern African Development Community Treaty).

7 Funnekotter et al. ¶¶ 107, 148.

8 Id. ¶ 107.

9 Id. ¶ 103.

10 Id. ¶ 104.

11 Id. ¶ 105 (quoting Gabcˇíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hung. v. Slovk.), 1997 I.C.J. 7 (Judgment of Sept. 25)).

12 Id. ¶ 108 (citing Case Concerning Factory at Chorzo´w (Germ. v. Pol.), Judgment, 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 17, at 13 (Sept. 13)).

13 Id. ¶ 115.

14 Id. ¶ 124 (citing Tokios Tokele˙s v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Award (July 26, 2007) and Fedax N.V. v. Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3, Award (Mar. 9, 1998)).

15 See SADC Ruling, supra note 6.

16 See Raymond Maingire, Mugabe Dismisses SADC Tribunal Hearing, Zimbabwe Times, Dec. 4, 2008, available at <http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=8330 (last visited July 27, 2009).

17 See List of Contracting States and Other Signatories of the Convention (as of June 29, 2009), available at <http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=ICSIDDocRH&actionVal=ShowDocument&language=English (last visited July 27, 2009).

1 Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments Between the Republic of Zimbabwe and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, 11 Dec. 1996 [hereinafter BIT].

2 Claimants’ Memorial, 16 March 2007, p34.

3 Ibid., para. 112.

4 Ibid., para. 116.

5 Ibid., para. 117 (quoting Consolidated Land Acquisition Act § 16, 2002, CAP 20:10 (Zimb.)).

6 Ibid., para. 119.

7 Ibid., para. 126.

8 Ibid., para. 134.

9 Ibid., para. 140.

10 Ibid., para. 141.

11 Ibid., para. 145.

12 Ibid., para. 153 (quoting Constitution of Zimbabwe, § 16A(c)(i), (ii), (2000)).

13 Ibid., para. 154 (quoting Consolidated Land Acquisition Act § 29C(1), 2002, CAP 20:10 (Zimb.)).

14 Ibid., para. 159–160 (quoting CFU v. Minister of Lands, 2000 (2) ZLR at 486–87).

15 Ibid., para. 174.

16 Ibid., para. 180 (quoting Constitution of Zimbabwe, § 16B(2)(a), (2005)).

17 Ibid., para. 12; see also ibid., paras. 216–219.

18 Ibid., para. 13 (quoting BIT Art. 1(a); see also ibid., para. 215).

19 Ibid., para. 220, (quoting BIT, Art 6).

20 Ibid., p. 100.

21 Ibid., para. 223.

22 Ibid., para. 224.

23 Ibid., para. 239.

24 Ibid., para. 244.

25 Ibid., para. 245.

26 Ibid., p. 110.

27 Ibid., para. 247.

28 Ibid., para. 250.

29 Ibid., para.264.

30 Ibid., para. 277.

31 Ibid., paras.291–294.

32 Ibid., para.295 (quoting BIT, Art. 6(c)).

33 Ibid., p. 137.

34 Ibid., para. 305.

35 Ibid., para. 306.

36 Ibid., para. 28; ibid., Annex A, Tabs A-5-A; A-5-B.

37 Ibid., para. 36; ibid., Annex B-1, Tab B-1-E.

38 Ibid., para. 44; ibid., Annex B-1, Tab B-2-D.

39 Ibid., para. 36; ibid., Annex B-1, Tab B-1-E.

40 Ibid., para. 50; ibid., Annex C, Tab C-2.

41 Ibid., para. 58; ibid., Annex D, Tab D-7.

42 Ibid., para. 66; ibid., Annex E, Tab E-6.

43 Ibid., para. 75; ibid., Annex F, Tab F-16.

44 Ibid., para. 84; ibid., Annex G, Tab G-1-X; Updated Summary Table of Claimants’ Moveable Assets, filed as an attachment to Claimants’ letter of 19 Oct. 2007.

45 Ibid., para. 92; ibid., Annex H, Tab H-9.

46 Ibid., para. 99; ibid., Annex I, Tab I-G.

47 Ibid., para. 109; ibid., Annex J, Tab J-9.

48 Ibid., paras. 28, 36, 44, 50, 58, 66, 75, 84, 92, 99, 320. The amount of the disturbance claim was restated by the Claimants at the hearing as 37,440 Euros per Claimant. See Hearing Transcripts, Day 1, 29 Oct. 2007, p. 116.

49 Ibid., para. 321.

50 Ibid., para. 326.

51 Ibid., para. 327.

52 Respondent’s Counter-Memorial, 6 July 2007, p. 1.

53 Id.

54 Ibid., p. 7; see also ibid., pp. 11–12.

55 Ibid., p. 13.

56 Ibid., p. 8.

57 Ibid., p.7

58 Ibid., p. 8.

59 Ibid., p. 7.

60 Ibid., p. 1.

61 Ibid., p.16.

62 Ibid., p. 16.

63 Ibid., p. 12.

64 Ibid., p. 16.

65 Ibid., p. 24.

66 Ibid., p. 25.

67 Ibid.

68 Ibid.

69 Ibid., p. 22.

70 Ibid., p. 27 (listing four cases).

71 Ibid., p. 28.

72 Ibid., pp. 28–29.

73 Ibid., p. 30.

74 Claimants’ Reply, 14 Aug. 2007, para. 11.

75 Ibid., para. 12 (quoting Respondent’s Counter-Memorial, p. 17).

76 Ibid.

77 Ibid., para. 13.

78 Ibid., p. 8.

79 Ibid., para. 21.

80 Ibid., para. 24.

81 Ibid., para. 25 (quoting Respondent’s Counter-Memorial, p. 6).

82 Ibid. (emphasis added in the Claimants’ Reply).

83 Ibid., para. 26 (emphasis added).

84 Ibid., para. 27.

85 Ibid., p. 29.

86 Ibid., paras. 69–70.

87 Ibid., p. 34.

88 Ibid., para. 8 (citing Respondent’s Counter-Memorial, p. 27).

89 Ibid., paras. 73–80.

90 Ibid., para. 81.

91 Respondent’s Rejoinder, 24 Oct. 2007, p. 5.

92 Ibid., p. 3.

93 Ibid., p. 13.

94 Ibid., p. 3.

95 Ibid., p. 8.

96 Ibid., p. 7.

97 Ibid., p. 3.

98 Ibid., p. 4; ibid., Annexure J-2: Affidavit Statement of Mr. Sifelani Moyo, 24 Oct. 2007, and its annexes 2–14.

99 Ibid. (quoting BIT, Art. 6(c) (emphasis omitted)); ibid. pp. 13–14.

100 Ibid., p. 6.

101 Ibid., p. 4.

102 Ibid., p. 7.

103 Hearing Transcripts, Day 1, 29 Oct. 2007, p. 116.

104 Ibid., Day 1, 29 Oct. 29, 2007, pp. 96–97, 109, 115–116; ibid., Day 3, 31 Oct. 2007, pp. 20, 38.

105 Ibid., Day 2, 30 Oct. 2007, p. 159.

106 Ibid., p. 231.

107 Ibid., Day 3, 31 Oct. 2007, pp. 64–65.

108 Claimants’ Memorial, 16 March 2007, para. 12.

109 BIT, Art. 9(1).

110 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States [hereinafter ICSID Convention], Art. 25(1).

111 Memorial, paras. 12–13.

112 Respondent’s Counter-Memorial, 6 July 2007, p. 1.

113 Claimants’ Reply, 14 Aug. 2007, paras. 9–10; ibid., Annex 4.

114 Respondent’s Rejoinder, 24 Oct. 2007, p. 5.

115 Hearing Transcripts, Day 2, 30 Oct. 2007, p. 34.

116 BIT, Art. 1(a); Claimants’ Memorial, 16 March 2007, paras. 215–219.

117 Hearing Transcripts, Day 2, pp. 186–189.

118 BIT, Art. 10.

119 BIT, Art. 6.

120 Respondent’s Counter-Memorial, 6 July 2007, p. 20.

121 Counter-Memorial, p. 16.

122 Respondent’s Rejoinder, 24 Oct. 2007, p. 3.

123 Id., p.3.

124 Counter-Memorial, p.22

125 Rejoinder, p. 4.

126 BIT, Art. 7.

127 Gabe`i ´ kovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgement of 25 Sept. 1997, I.C.J. Reports 1997, para. 51, p. 37. 128 Ibid.

129 Case Concerning the Factory at ChorzÓw (Claim for Indemnity) (Germany v. Poland), 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 17 (13 Sept.) [hereinafter Chrozow Factory].

130 Id., para. 47.

131 Amoco Inter’l Fin. Corp. v. Iran, Partial Award, Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib., No. 310-56-3 (14 July 1987).

132 ADC Affiliate Ltd and ADC & ADMC Mgmt Ltd v. Hungary (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/16), Award of 2 Oct. 2006, para. 481.

133 See e.g., Michael W. Reisman and Robert D. Sloone, Indirect expropriation and its valuation in the BIT Convention, 2004 British Y.B. Int’l L., p. 133; Audley Sheppard, The distinction between Lawful and Unlawful Expropriation, in the Investment Arbitratory and the Energy Charter Treaty, 2006, p. 172.

134 See, e.g., CME Czech Republic B.V. (The Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, 14 March 2003; Wena Hotels Ltd. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/ 98/4), Award of 8 December 2000; Metalclad Corp. v. United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1) Award of 30 Aug. 2000; Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co. S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/ 99/6), Award of 12 April 2002.

135 Amoco Inter’l Fin. Corp., para. 197.

136 Phillips Petroleum Co. Iran v. Iran, Partial Award, Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib., No. 425-39-2 (28 June 1989), para 122.

137 Claimants’ Memorial, 16 March 2007, paras. 298–301; Respondent’s Rejoinder, 24 Oct. 2007, p. 5. 2009] ICSID: FUNNEKOTTER AND OTHERS v. REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE 787

138 Hearing Transcripts, Day 1, 29 Oct. 2007, pp. 101–103.

139 Hearing Transcripts, Day 2, 30 Oct. 2007, pp. 177–178.

140 Examination of Mr. Sifelani Moyo, ibid., p. 87.

141 Rural Land Occupiers (Protection from Eviction) Act, s. 3(2) (2001).

142 Memorial, para. 296 (quoting Chrozow Factory).

143 BIT, Art. 6(c).

144 Hearing Transcripts, Day 1, 29 Oct. 2007, pp. 136–37.

145 See Tokios Tokele˙s v. Ukraine (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/ 18), Award of 26 July 2007.

146 See Fedax N.V. v. Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3), Award of 9 March 1998.

147 See supra notes 36–47.

148 Respondent’s Rejoinder, 24 Oct. 2007, Affidavit Statement of Mr. Sifelani Moyo, 24 Oct. 2007, and its annexes 2–14.

149 Hearing Transcripts, Day 2, 30 Oct. 2007, pp. 96–97.

150 Ibid., Day 1, 29 Oct. 2007, p. 145.

151 See supra notes 36–41, 44–47.

152 Respondent’s Rejoinder, 24 Oct. 2007, Tab 3: Affidavit Statement of Sifelani Moyo, Annex 18A; see also ibid., Annex 18B for the figures of “Zimbabwean Valuation” of moveable assets.

153 See statement by Mr. Mullett, Hearing Transcripts, Day 1, 29 Oct. 2007, p. 148.

154 Hearing Transcripts, Day 3, 31 Oct. 2007, p. 62.

155 Ibid., Day 1, 20 Oct. 2007, pp. 96– 97, 109, 115–116; ibid., Day 3, 31 Oct., 2007, pp. 20, 38.

156 Ibid., Day 3, 31 Oct. 2007, p. 62.

157 See Case Concerning the Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Netherlands), Order of 2 June 1999, I.C.J. Reports 1999, para. 43, p. 556.

158 Claimants’ Memorial, 16 March 2007, para. 303.

159 Witness Statement of Duncan Owen, 23 Oct. 2007, para. 3.

160 Hearing Transcripts, Day 2, 30 Oct. 2007, pp. 20–27.

161 Ibid., Day 1, 29 Oct. 2007, p. 115 (referring to London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), “the rate of interest at which . . . international banks borrow funds from each other.” Mr. Duncan Owen’s Witness Statement, 23 Oct. 2007).

162 Ibid., Day 3, 31 Oct. 2007, p. 62.

163 Ibid., Day 2, 30 Oct. 2007, p. 29.

164 Ibid., Day 3, 31 Oct. 2007, p. 22.

165 Respondent’s Counter-Memorial, 6 July 2007, p. 29.

166 Compan˜ia del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A. v. Costa Rica (ICSID Case No. ARB/96/1), Award of 17 February 2000, para. 104.

167 See, e.g., Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co. S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARB/99/ 6), Award of 12 April 2002, para. 175.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes: Funnekotter and Others v. Republic of Zimbabwe
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes: Funnekotter and Others v. Republic of Zimbabwe
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes: Funnekotter and Others v. Republic of Zimbabwe
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *