Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T04:41:03.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Güriş Construction & Engineering, Inc. v. Syrian Arab Republic (Int'l Comm. Arb.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 June 2022

Kabir A.N. Duggal  and
Nicholas J. Diamond
Kabir A.N. Duggal
Affiliation:
Kabir A.N. Duggal is an SJD candidate at Harvard Law School and Lecturer-in-Law at Columbia Law School, United States. Nicholas J. Diamond is Counsel, Crowell & Moring LLP, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, and Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center, United States.
Nicholas J. Diamond
Affiliation:
Kabir A.N. Duggal is an SJD candidate at Harvard Law School and Lecturer-in-Law at Columbia Law School, United States. Nicholas J. Diamond is Counsel, Crowell & Moring LLP, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, and Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center, United States.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On August 31, 2020, an arbitral tribunal sitting in the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) rendered its final award in Güriş Construction & Engineering, Inc. v. Syrian Arab Republic (Güriş). The tribunal held that the Respondent had breached its obligations under the Agreement Between the Republic of Turkey and the Syrian Arab Republic Concerning the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (the Turkey–Syria BIT).

Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 61 , Issue 5 , October 2022 , pp. 745 - 819
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The American Society of International Law

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.)

References

ENDNOTES

1 Güriş Constr. & Eng'g, Inc. v. Syrian Arab Republic, Final Award, Int'l Comm. Arb. No. 21845/ZF/AYZ (Aug 31, 2020).

2 The tribunal noted at the outset that the factual circumstances of this case were hotly contested because the dispute involved events intrinsically related to the ongoing Syrian conflict. The crux of the issue is evident even from the description of the conflict by the parties—the Respondent referred to it as intervention in its internal affairs by foreign sovereigns, while Claimants referred to it as an internal revolt against Respondent's oppressive government. Id. ¶¶ 105–07.

3 Id. ¶ 2.

4 Id. ¶¶ 108–14.

5 Id. ¶ 115.

6 Id. ¶ 118.

7 Id. ¶ 141.

8 Id. ¶¶ 143–44.

9 Id. ¶ 167.

10 Id. (quoting RosInvestco U.K. Ltd. v. Russian Fed'n, Final Award, SCC Case No. 079/2005, ¶ 608 (Sept. 12, 2010)).

11 Güriş, supra note 1, ¶¶ 167–68. Several tribunals have concluded that unless a treaty expressly excludes indirect investments, such investments would fall within the purview of the treaty. See, e.g., Cairn Energy PLC and Cairn UK Holdings Limited (CUHL) v. Republic of India, Award, PCA Case No. 2016-07 (Dec. 21, 2020); Siemens A.G. v. Argentine Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8 (Aug. 3, 2004).

12 Güriş, supra note 1, ¶ 171.

13 Id. ¶¶ 174–76.

14 Id. ¶ 177.

15 Id. ¶ 195.

16 Id. ¶¶ 214–17.

17 Id. ¶ 223.

18 Id. ¶ 224.

19 Id. ¶ 224.

20 Id. ¶ 229.

21 Id. ¶ 235.

22 Id. ¶ 235.

23 Id. ¶ 262.

24 Id. ¶ 279.

25 Güriş Constr. & Eng'g, Inc. v. Syrian Arab Republic, Final Award, Partial Dissenting Opinion of Professor Nassib G. Ziadé, Int'l Comm. Arb. No. 21845/ZF/AYZ, ¶ 14 (Aug 31, 2020).

26 Id. ¶¶ 15–17.

27 Id. ¶¶ 24–25.

28 Id. ¶ 27.

29 Id. ¶ 28.

30 Christoph Schreuer, The Protection of Investments in Armed Conflicts in Investment Law within International Law: Integrationist Perspectives 3,3 (Freya Baetens ed., 2013).

31 See, e.g., Jure Zrilic, The Protection of Foreign Investment in Times of Armed Conflict (2019).

32 CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. The Rep. of Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8 (May 12, 2005).

33 See Schreuer, supra note 31, at 12.

34 See, e.g., Ampal-Am. Israel Corp. & Others v. Arab Rep. of Egypt, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11 (Feb. 21, 2017).

35 Güriş, supra note 1, ¶ 261.

36 Güriş, supra note 26, ¶ 14.

37 Güriş, supra note 1, ¶ 261.

38 Güriş, supra note 26, ¶¶ 15, 17.