Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2017
* Mr. Feliciano and Ms. Menaker did not contribute written remarks.
1 Occidental Exploration and Prod. Co. v. Ecuador (UNCITRAL July 1, 2004). The tribunal stated:
The Tribunal is of the opinion that in the instant case the Treaty standard is not different from that required under international law concerning both the stability and predictability of the legal and business framework of the investment. to this extent, the Treaty standard can be equated with that under international law as evidenced by the opinions of the various tribunals cited above.
Id, para. 190.
2 CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Argentina, ICSID No. ARB/01/8, 44 ILM 1205 (2005) (May 12, 2005). The tribunal observed:
While the choice between requiring a higher treaty standard and that of equating it with the international minimum standard might have relevance in the context of some disputes, the Tribunal is not persuaded that it is relevant in this case. in fact, the Treaty standard of fair and equitable treatment and its connection with the required stability and predictability of the business environment, founded on solemn legal and contractual commitments, is not different from the international law minimum standard and its evolution under customary law.
Id, para. 284.
3 Id., paras. 274, 276, 277.
4 Tecnicas Medioambientales Teemed, S.A. v. Mexico, ICSID No. ARB (AF)/00/2, 43 ILM 133 (2004), para. 154 (May 29, 2003).
5 Mondev Int’l v. United States, ICSID No. ARB(AF)/99/2, 42 ILM 85 (2003), para. 119 (Oct. 11, 2002).