Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:39:44.298Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Vivendi Universal v. Argentine Republic

International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes.  03 October 2001 ; 03 July 2002 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

Arbitration — Challenge to validity of award — Composition of tribunal — Challenge to President of ad hoc Committee — Procedure for challenging members of ad hoc Committee — ICSID Convention, Article 53(4) — Validity of Arbitration Rule 53 — Connection between President’s law firm and related company of claimant — No personal involvement of President — No general retainer — Partner’s legal advice on matters unrelated to dispute before the Committee — Work substantially complete before commencement of proceedings — De minimis rule — Challenge rejected

Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Relation between concession contract, bilateral investment treaty and ICSID Convention — Dispute with provincial authorities relating to investment contract — Investment contract providing for exclusive jurisdiction of provincial courts — Whether precluding claim under treaty — State responsibility claim against Argentina arising from conduct of provincial authorities — Non-designation of province under ICSID, Article 25 — Article 25 irrelevant to treaty claim

Arbitration — Annulment proceedings — Claimant seeking partial annulment of decision on merits — Respondent seeking in the alternative annulment of whole award — Admissibility of respondent’s claim — Whether a “counterclaim” — Power of ad hoc Committee to determine extent of annulment — Respondent’s arguments admissible — Tribunal finding that federal authorities did not fail to assist in resolution of provincial claim — No basis for annulment — ICSID Convention, Article 53

Arbitration — Annulment proceedings — State responsibility — Tribunal finding that it could not determine whether there was a treaty breach prior to municipal court proceedings on the contract claim — Bilateral investment treaty excluding requirement of exhaustion of local remedies — Manifest excess of jurisdiction — Failure to give reasons — Relation of treaty claim to contract claim — ICSID Convention, Articles 26, 53 — ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001, Article 3

Economics, trade and finance — Bilateral investment treaty — Argentina-France bilateral investment treaty, Article 8(2) — “Fork in the road” provision — Relevance to Tribunal’s jurisdiction over treaty claim — Relevance to merits of claim

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2004

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.)