Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T10:05:01.732Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Menzies Middle East and Africa S.A. and Aviation Handling Services International Ltd. v. Republic of Senegal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2016

Rebecca Hekman ,
Nadège Huart  and
Janet Whittaker
Rebecca Hekman*
Affiliation:
This article has been written in the authors' personal capacity and does not represent the views of Clifford Chance LLP.
Nadège Huart*
Affiliation:
This article has been written in the authors' personal capacity and does not represent the views of Clifford Chance LLP.
Janet Whittaker*
Affiliation:
This article has been written in the authors' personal capacity and does not represent the views of Clifford Chance LLP.
*
Email: Rebecca.Hekman@cliffordchance.com
Email: Nadege.Huart@cliffordchance.com
Email: Janet.Whittaker@cliffordchance.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a case of first impression, a tribunal at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) rejected Claimants' novel legal argument that the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause in Article II of the World Trade Organisation's General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) enabled Menzies Middle East and Africa S.A. (MMEA) to access the offers to arbitrate under the Senegal–Netherlands and the Senegal–United Kingdom bilateral investment treaties (BITs).

Type
Case Summaries
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 143 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © Rebecca Hekman 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

Case Summaries: International Investment Law

The following summary provides a brief factual background and describes the key findings of a recent case settling a dispute about international investment.

References

1 Menzies Middle East and Africa S.A. and Aviation Handling Services International Ltd. v. Republic of Senegal, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/21, Award, 5 August 2016, paras. 102, 114, 115, 117–119, 121 (hereinafter ‘Award’).

2 Award, paras. 6, 52.

3 Award, paras. 104, 115.

4 Award, paras. 114–116.

5 Award, para. 68(i).  AHSI's separate argument that the Tribunal could exercise jurisdiction over its claim was two-fold.  AHSI argued that (i) its investment was protected by Article 12 of the Senegalese Code of Investments, which contained Senegal's consent to arbitrate; and (ii) that, as a BVI company, it was considered a United Kingdom national under general international law, and should therefore benefit from the protections of the Senegal–United Kingdom BIT.  Award, paras. 122–128.  The Tribunal rejected these arguments, explaining that Article 12 of the Senegalese Code of Investments referred to applicable BITs, and that no BIT was applicable to AHSI since BVI nationals are expressly excluded from the scope of application of the Senegal–United Kingdom BIT.  Award, paras 152–158.

6 Award, para. 130.

7 Ibid.

8 Award, paras. 131, 135.

9 Award, paras. 129, 131.

10 Award, para. 132.

11 Award, para. 133.

12 Ibid.

13 Award, para. 134.

14 Award, para. 136.

15 Award, paras. 136–140.

16 Award, paras. 137, 142.

17 Award, paras. 141, 143.

18 Award, para. 141, footnote 120 (our translation).

19 Award, para. 145.

20 Ibid.

21 Award, para. 146.

22 Award, para. 149.

23 Award, paras. 147–149.

24 Award, para. 149.

25 Award, para. 150 (our translation).