Lanco International, Inc. v. Argentine Republic

Abstract

Jurisdiction — Requirement fulfilled by generic consent given in bilateral investment treaty — Consent cannot be unilaterally withdrawn — Choice of dispute settlement mechanisms at the option of the investor under bilateral investment treaty — No requirement of exhaustion of local remedies

Parties — Characterization as “investors”– Status of individual members in consortium — Investors signed concession agreement in individual capacity — Investors individually liable for viability of project to extent of equity share — Investors considered parties to concession agreement for the purposes of the bilateral investment treaty

Procedure — Submission of disputes under concession agreement to domestic courts — No requirement of exhaustion of local remedies in generic consent to icsid jurisdiction given in bilateral investment treaty

Treaties — Applicability of bilateral investment treaty — Relationship to concession agreement — Characterization of “investment”for purposes of treaty — Investors signed concession agreement in individual capacity — Investors individually liable for viability of project to extent of equity share — Choice of dispute settlement mechanisms at the option of the investor — Submission to binding international arbitration — icsid Article 26 consent — No requirement of exhaustion of local remedies