Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:46:54.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ortiz Construcciones y Proyectos SA v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria

ICSID (Arbitration Tribunal).  29 April 2020 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2022

Get access

Abstract

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 – State organ – De jure State organ – De facto State organ – Whether complete dependence on the State could be established by the performance of core State functions, daily subordination to central government, or the absence of any operational autonomy – Whether the execution of a mission of public interest sufficed to qualify an entity as a State organ – Whether State supervision amounted to daily subordination or lack of operational autonomy

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 – Governmental authority – Whether an entity was authorised by law to exercise elements of public authority – Whether the impugned acts were performed in the context of such governmental authority – Whether acts performed in the public interest pertained to governmental authority

State responsibility – Attribution – ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 – Instructions, direction or control – Whether control referred to overall or effective control – Whether control can be evidenced by the overall context of the relationship with the State – Whether such control should extend to the act that was being challenged – Whether ultra vires acts and conduct were attributable – Whether the alignment of interests with the State was sufficient for attribution

Fair and equitable treatment – Legitimate expectation – Specific promise – Material advantage – Whether an investment should have been made on the basis of the alleged expectation – Whether an expectation can be based on vague promises to grant work

Fair and equitable treatment – Good faith – Evidence – Whether a breach of good faith required a proof of bad faith conduct – Whether an uncorroborated witness statement can evidence threats by the State

Fair and equitable treatment – Unjustified, incoherent or arbitrary conduct – Whether the terms “unjustified” and “arbitrary” were equivalent – Whether a failure to succeed in contractual negotiations can evidence an unjustified or incoherent conduct

Non-impairment – Fair and equitable treatment – Judicial economy – Whether the non-impairment standard overlapped with fair and equitable treatment

Umbrella clause – Interpretation – VCLT, Article 33 – Reconciliation of equally authentic texts – Whether the clause covered non-contractual obligations

Costs – Good faith – Whether the unsuccessful party should not be ordered to pay the successful party’s costs because the former brought the proceeding in good faith

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2022

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.)