Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T02:07:20.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic

ICSID (Arbitration Tribunal).  11 May 2005 ; 28 September 2007 ; 18 September 2007 ; 05 March 2009 ; 07 August 2009 ; 29 June 2010 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

Jurisdiction — Applicable law — ICSID Convention, Article 42(1) — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Whether the choice of applicable law on the merits applied also to the jurisdictional phase

Jurisdiction — Nationality — ICSID Convention, Article 25(2)(b) — Whether nationality requirements were cumulative or alternative — Whether an investor not exercising control may bring a claim — Whether the interests of foreign investors may be combined

Jurisdiction — Dispute — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Whether the dispute was of a legal nature — Whether dispute arose directly from an investment

Foreign investor — Investment — Minority or indirect shareholding — Whether a minority shareholding qualified as an investment

Jurisdiction — Negotiation — Whether an ongoing renegotiation of licences with the State was a ground to decline jurisdiction

Jurisdiction — Forum selection — Submission to local jurisdiction — Whether contract-related disputes may be submitted to ICSID tribunal

Expropriation — Direct expropriation — Whether transfer of property rights to the State was an essential requirement of direct expropriation

Expropriation — Indirect expropriation — Whether there was substantial deprivation of property rights

Fair and equitable treatment — Legitimate expectation — Whether State measures substantially changed the legal and business framework under which the investment was made

Umbrella clause — Whether breach arose from conduct of an ordinary contract party or involved sovereign State function — Whether the obligation was related to a specific investment agreement

Arbitrary or discriminatory measures — Economic crisis — Whether measures adopted were arbitrary or discriminated against the investor

Full protection and security — Legal protection — Whether the standard of full protection and security expanded beyond physical protection

Defence — Emergency measures — Municipal law — Whether national emergency measures were legally justified under municipal law

Defence — Necessity — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 25 — Customary international law — Whether measures were adopted to safeguard an essential interest — Whether there existed a grave and imminent peril — Whether the measures adopted were the only way to offset the economic crisis — Whether the State contributed to the situation giving rise to necessity

Defence — Exclusions and reservations — Essential security interests — Interpretation — Whether an economic emergency qualified as an essential security interest — Whether the provision was self-judging — Whether the provision should be interpreted in light of customary international law

Defence — Necessity — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 27 — Customary international law — Temporality — Whether the state of necessity was still justified — Whether compensation might be owed for measures adopted during the state of necessity

Remedies — Damages — Whether crisis had incidence on the amount of compensation — Whether a renegotiated agreement had incidence on amount of compensation

Remedies — Interest — Whether post-award interest must be expressly requested in the petition for relief

Procedure — Stay of enforcement — ICSID Convention, Article 52(4) — Whether there was a presumption in favour of granting a stay — Whether an annulment committee was empowered to impose conditions on the granting of stay

Procedure — Stay of enforcement — ICSID Convention, Article 53 — ICSID Convention, Article 54 — Whether the creditor must have recourse to domestic enforcement procedure — Whether circumstances and history of non-compliance called for assurances

Procedure — Stay of enforcement — Whether the State demonstrated economic hardship — Whether escrow eliminated risk of non-recoupment

Procedure — Termination of stay — Whether the risk of third-party creditors seizing escrow funds justified non-compliance with conditions on the granting of stay

Annulment — Manifest excess of powers — Failure to state reasons — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1) — Jurisdiction — Investment — Minority or indirect shareholding — Whether the tribunal’s conclusions on standing constituted grounds for annulment

Annulment — Manifest excess of powers — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1) — Defence — Exclusions and reservations — Whether equating a treaty provision with the standard under customary international law constituted a failure to apply the applicable law — Whether excess of power was manifest

Annulment — Costs — Whether the rule that costs follow the event was in line with equitable principles

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

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.)