Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T17:08:51.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INVESTMENT TREATIES AND GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2008

Campbell McLachlan
Campbell McLachlan
Affiliation:
Professor of Law, Victoria University of Wellington; Bankside Chambers (Auckland) & Essex Court Chambers (London).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The huge rise in the settlement of investment disputes by treaty has provoked an underlying question of great practical and theoretical importance: the relationship between the substantive standards protected in such treaties and general international law. This paper argues that the relationship is symbiotic: custom informing the content of the treay right; and State practice under investment treaties contributing to the development of general international law. It is the structured process of treaty interpretation which determines when and how reference to general international law may be made. Practice in this field supports a broader modern phenomenon, in which ‘general principles of law common to civilized nations’ may be informed not only by common principles of domestic law, but also by general principles of international law itself.

Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 361 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 British Institute of International and Comparative 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

1 Eastern Extension, Australasia and China Telegraph Co Ltd Case (British–United States Claims Arbitral Tribunal) (1923) VI RIAA 112, 114.

2 Case concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v Congo) (Preliminary Objections) (ICJ General List No 103, 24 May 2007) para 88.

3 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co Ltd Case (New Application: 1962) (Belgium v Spain) (Second Phase) [1970] ICJ Rep 3. The decision of a Chamber of the Court in Case concerning Elettronica Sicula SpA (ELSI) (United States of America v Italy) [1989] ICJ Rep 15; 84 ILR 311 was based on a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation between Italy and the US.

4 ILC, ‘Diplomatic Protection: Text of the Draft Articles with Commentaries thereto’ (Dugard, Special Rapporteur) in Report of the International Law Commission on its Fifty-eighth Session (1 May–9 June, 3 July–11 August 2006) Official Records of the General Assembly Sixty-first Session, Supplement No 10, UN Doc A/61/10, 22, 89 (‘ILC Diplomatic Protection Report’). Article 17 of the Draft Articles provides: ‘The present draft articles do not apply to the extent that they are inconsistent with special rules of international law, such as treaty provisions for the protection of investments.’

5 CMS Gas Transmission Co v Republic of Argentina (Jurisdiction) 7 ICSID Rep 492, 504 (ICSID, 2003, Orrego Vicuña P, Lalonde & Rezek).

6 For the relationship between treaty and custom in the procedure of investment treaty arbitration see Z Douglas, ‘The Hybrid Foundations of Investment Treaty Arbitration’ (2003) 74 British Ybk Intl L 151.

7 The MOX Plant Case (Ireland v United Kingdom) (ITLOS, Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001) (2002) 41 ILM 405, 413, referred to with approval in Compañia de Aguas del Aconquija SA v Argentine Republic (Award) ICSID Case No ARB/97/3 (ICSID, 20 August 2007, Rowley P, Kaufmann-Kohler & Bernal Verea) para 7.4.3.

8 AES Corp v Argentine Republic (Jurisdiction) ICSID Case No ARB/02/17 (ICSID, 2005, Dupuy P, Böckstiegel & Janeiro) para 30.

9 Lauder v Czech Republic (Final Award) 9 ICSID Rep 62 (UNCITRAL, 2001, Briner C, Cutler & Klein); cf CME Czech Republic BV (The Netherlands) v Czech Republic (Partial Award) 9 ICSID Rep 121 (UNCITRAL, 2001, Kühn C, Schwebel & Hàndl).

10 L G & E Energy Corp v Argentine Republic (Decision on Liability) (2006) 18 World Trade & Arb Mat 199 (ICSID, 2006, de Maekelt P, Rezek & van den Berg); cf Enron Corp v Argentine Republic (Award) ICSID Case No ARB/01/3 (ICSID, 2007, Orrego Vicuña P, van den Berg & Tschanz).

11 CMS Gas Transmission Co v Republic of Argentina (Decision on Annulment) ICSID Case No ARB/01/8/ (ICSID, 25 September 2007, Guillaume P, Elaraby & Crawford).

12 ibid para 136.

13 Asian Agricultural Products Ltd (‘AAPL’) v Republic of Sri Lanka (Award) (ICSID, 1990, El-Kosheri P, Goldman & Asante) 4 ICSID Rep 245.

14 The principal purpose of C McLachlan, L Shore and M Weiniger, International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles (OUP, Oxford, 2007).

15 ILC, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission’ (C Koskenniemi) UN Doc A/CN.4/L682, 13 April 2006 (‘ILC Fragmentation Report’); UN Doc A/CN.4/L702, 18 July 2006 (‘ILC Fragmentation Conclusions’). The author assisted the Study Group, in particular in its work on Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, as to which see generally: C McLachlan, ‘The Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention’ (2005) 54 ICLQ 279.

16 ILC Fragmentation Conclusions, ibid para (17); ILC Fragmentation Report, ibid paras 410–23; McLachlan, ibid.

17 See, eg, Saipem SpA v Bangladesh (Jurisdiction) ICSID Case No ARB/05/07 (ICSID, 2007, Kaufmann-Kohler P, Schreuer & Otton); T-H Cheng, ‘Precedent and Control in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ (2007) 30 Fordham Intl L J 1014.

18 R Jennings and A Watts (eds), Oppenheim's International Law (9th edn, Longman, London, 1992) 909.

19 See EM Borchard, The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, or, The Law of International Claims (Banks Law Publishing, New York, 1916); and AV Freeman, The International Responsibility of States for Denial of Justice (Longmans Green, London, 1938).

20 ‘The Law of Responsibility of States for Damage done in their Territory to the Person or Property of Foreigners’ (1929) 23 AJIL 133, 134 (Special Supplement). The leading post-War reformulation by American scholars was prepared in 1961 by Sohn and Baxter as part of a Harvard Draft Convention on the International Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens, in LB Sohn & RR Baxter, ‘Responsibilities of States for Economic Injuries to Aliens’ (1961) 55 AJIL 545, reprinted in FV García Amador, LB Sohn & RR Baxter, Recent codification of the Law of State responsibility for injuries to aliens (Oceano, Dobhs Ferry, New York, 1974) arts 5–8, 179–99.

21 As to which see ILC, ‘Second Report on Diplomatic Protection’ (23 April–1June, 2 July–18 August 2001) UN Doc A/CN 4/514; CF Amerasinghe, Local Remedies in International Law (2nd edn, CUP, Cambridge, 2004).

22 Eg Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (signed 26 December 1933) 165 LNTS 19; USTS 881 (1935) art 9; and generally Borchard (n 19).

23 Guerrero Draft, cited in the Harvard Draft (n 20) 174.

24 J Crawford, The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries (CUP, Cambridge, 2002) 15.

25 ILC, ‘Diplomatic Protection: Report of the Working Group’ (20 April–12 June, 27 July–14 August 1998) A/CN 4/L553, para 2.

26 Art 55 ILC Draft Articles on Responsibilities of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001) Supp No 10, UN Doc A/56/10, 43.

27 Art 17 ILC Draft Articles and ILC Diplomatic Protection Report (n 4) 89–90.

28 Accounts of the failure of multilateral investment law are given in P Muchlinski, Multinational Enterprises and the Law (2nd edn, OUP, Oxford, 2007); AF Lowenfeld, International Economic Law (OUP, Oxford, 2002) 391–415.

29 WTO, The Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (CUP, Cambridge, 1999) 143.

30 H Abs & H Shawcross, ‘Draft Convention on Investments Abroad’ (1960) J Public L 115. The first modern BIT is Treaty for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, with Protocol and Exchange of Notes (Germany–Pakistan) (signed 25 November 1959, entry into force 28 April 1962) 457 UNTS 23, 1961 BGBl II 793.

31 Abs & Shawcross, ibid 116, Art I.

32 G Schwarzenberger, ‘The Abs-Shawcross Draft Convention on Investments Abroad; a Critical Commentary’ (1960) 9 J Public L 147, 152, repeated in his Foreign Investments and International Law (Stevens and Sons, London, 1969) 114.

33 OECD, Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property and Resolution of the Council of the OECD on the Draft Convention (1967).

34 ibid 9.

35 ‘Transnational corporations should receive [fair and] equitable [and non-discriminatory] treatment [under] [in accordance with] the laws, regulations and administrative practices of the countries in which they operate [as well as intergovernmental obligations to which the Governments of these countries have freely subscribed] [consistent with their international obligations] [consistent with international law]’: Draft United Nations Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations (1983 version), text in UNCTC, The United Nations Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations, Current Studies, Series A (1986), UN Doc ST/CTC/SER A/4, Annex 1, reprinted in UNCTAD, International Investment Instruments: A Compendium vol I (1996) 161, 172–73.

36 See JE Salzman, ‘Decentralized Administrative Law in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’ (2005) 68 Law & Contemporary Problems 189, 196–200.

37 Chap 11 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (adopted 17 December 1992, entry into force 1 January 1994) 107 Stat 2057; CTS 1994 No 2, (1993) 32 ILM 289.

38 Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) (signed 17 December 1994, entry into force 16 April 1998) 2080 UNTS 100.

39 Art 258(b), UNCTAD, International Investment Instruments: A Compendium vol II (1996) 385, 419.

40 Art IV, An Agreement among the Governments of Brunei Darussalam, the Republic of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of the Philippines, the Republic of Singapore, and the Kingdom of Thailand for the Promotion and Protection of Investments 1987, UNCTAD, International Investment Instruments: A Compendium vol II (1996) 293, 295.

41 Art III(2), UNCTAD, International Investment Instruments: A Compendium vol I (1996) 247, 249.

42 ILC Fragmentation Report (n 15) para 414; ILC Fragmentation Conclusions (1); a point earlier developed in McLachlan (n 15) 280.

43 Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties (VCLT) 1969, 1155 UNTS 331, Art 2(1)(a).

44 AAPL v Sri Lanka (n 13).

45 ibid 257.

46 Art 42 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States 1965, 575 UNTS 159 (‘ICSID Convention’).

47 MTD Equity Sdn Bhd v Chile (Decision on Annulment) ICSID Case No ARB/01/7 (ICSID, 2007, Guillaume P, Crawford & Noriega).

48 cf L Bartels, ‘Applicable Law in WTO Dispute Proceedings’ (2001) 35 J World Trade 499; J Pauwleyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to Other Rules of International Law (CUP, Cambridge, 2003); ILC Fragmentation Report (n 15) paras 165–71.

49 Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Award under Treaty of Canterbury 1986 (2007, Crawford, Fortier, Guillaume, Millett and Paulsson, available at <http://www.pca-cpa.org>) para 151.

50 note 43.

51 Eg Case Concerning the Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v Chad) [1994] ICJ Rep 6; WTO, United States—Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline (29 April 1996) (1 WT/DS2/AB/R) 16, DSR 1996:I.

52 Eg Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v Czech Republic (Partial Award) (UNICTRAL, 2006, Watts C, Fortier & Behrens) para 296.

53 See, eg the discussion below of the doctrine of necessity 385–391.

54 MTD Equity Sdn Bhd & anor v Chile (Award) (2005) 44 ILM 91 (ICSID, 2004, Sureda P, Lalonde & Oreamuno Blanco) 105.

55 Z Douglas ‘Nothing if not critical for investment treaty arbitration: Occidental, Eureko and Methanex’ (2006) 22 Arbitration Intl 27, 51.

56 Saluka (n 52) para 300. But see the more detailed provisions as to object and purpose in NAFTA (n 56), Preamble and Chapter 1 and the ECT (n 56), Preamble and Article 2.

57 The Tribunal in AAPL v Sri Lanka (n 13) 270, referred to the difficulty of ascertaining what may have been within the parties' contemplation in including particular terms in a BIT ‘in the absence of travaux préparatoires in the proper sense’.

58 Pope & Talbot Inc v Canada (Award on Damages) 7 ICSID Rep 43 (NAFTA/ UNCITRAL, 2002, Dervaird P, Greenberg & Belman).

59 Case concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America) (Preliminary Objections) [1996] ICJ Rep 803, 814–15.

60 Mondev Int'l Ltd v United States of America (Award) 6 ICSID Rep 181 (NAFTA/ICSID (AF), 2002, Stephen P, Crawford & Schwebel) 220.

61 ibid 221.

62 VCLT Art 31(3)(a). The exception is NAFTA, which provides for the issue of an interpretation of a provision by the Free Trade Commission, which is binding upon NAFTA tribunals pursuant to Article 1131(2).

63 VCLT Art 31(3)(b).

64 See the comments of R Higgins, ‘A Babel of Judicial Voices? Ruminations from the Bench’ (2006) 55 ICLQ 791.

65 See, eg, E Denza & S Brooks, ‘Investment Protection Treaties: United Kingdom Experience’ (1987) 36 ICLQ 908, 912.

66 McLachlan (n 15).

67 This formulation, developed in McLachlan (n 15) 311, was adopted in the ILC Fragmentation Conclusions (n 15) para 19.

68 Georges Pinson (France) v United Mexican States (1928) V RIAA 327 (Original French text) (1927–8) AD Case No 292 (English Note) (French-Mexican Claims Commission, Verzijl P).

69 Rights of Passage over Indian Territory (Preliminary Objections) (Portugal v India) Case [1957] ICJ Rep 142; Jennings & Watts (n 18) 1275.

70 Case concerning Oil Platforms (Iran v United States of America) [1996] ICJ Rep 803, 858 (Separate Opinion of Judge Higgins).

71 See the Commentary to Article 28, ILC ‘Responsibilities of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts: Text of the Draft Articles with Commentaries thereto’ (Crawford, Special Rapporteur) in Report of the International Law Commission of its Fifty-third Session (23 April–1 June and 2 July–10 August 2001) Official Records of the General Assembly Fifty-sixth Session, Supplement No 10, UN Doc A/56/10, 59, 214 (‘ILC State Responsibility Report’). This draws a sharp distinction between the general applicability of Part One, and the more restricted application of Parts Two and Three of the Draft Articles, which apply principally to inter-State claims: Art 33(2).

72 See, eg Arts 3(7) & 22, WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding.

73 Mondev (n 60) 222.

74 As to which see note 15: McLachlan (n 14) 316–18 and ILC Fragmentation Report (n 14) paras 475–78.

75 See McLachlan, Shore & Weiniger (n 14) ch 8.

76 S Vasciannie, ‘The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Law and Practice’ (1999) 70 British Ybk Intl L 99, 162–63.

77 ibid.

78 ibid.

79 An analysis of leading cases as at 1 September 2007 by Jeffrey Commission notes no less than 33 leading investment treaty awards on fair and equitable treatment: Commission, ‘An Analysis of a Developing Jurisprudence in International Investment Law’ Paper to BIICL Investment Treaty Forum, 14 September 2007.

80 For an excellent recent study of the concept of denial of justice see J Paulsson, Denial of Justice in International Law (CUP, Cambridge, 2005).

81 Azinian v United Mexican States (Award) 5 ICSID Rep 269 (NAFTA/ ICSID (AF), 1998, Paulsson P, Civiletti & von Wobeser) 290; Mondev Int'l Ltd v United States of America (Award) 6 ICSID Rep 181 (NAFTA/ICSID (AF), 2002, Stephen P, Crawford & Schwebel) 225–26; Loewen Group Inc v United States of America (Award) 7 ICSID Rep 421 (NAFTA/ICSID (AF), 2003, Mason P, Mikva & Mustill) 465–67.

82 Azinian ibid 289–90, citing Jiménez de Aréchaga (1978) 159 Recueil des Cours 1.

83 Loewen (n 81) 467.

84 n 80, 7.

85 In Mondev (n 80) 231, the Tribunal was prepared to consider the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on whether immunities from suit may breach the right to a court by way of analogy only.

86 n 81, 475.

87 See further 383–5 below.

88 Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed SA v United Mexican States (Award) (2004) 43 ILM 133, 173 (ICSID (AF), 2003, Grigera Naon P, Fernandez Rozas & Bernal Verea).

89 ibid.

90 Douglas (n 55) 28 (emphasis in original).

91 See W Wade and CF Forsyth Administrative Law (9th edn, OUP, Oxford, 2004) 372–76, 500–5; PP Craig Administrative Law (5th edn, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2003) 639–80.

92 M Koskenniemi ‘The Pull of the Mainstream’ (1989–90) 88 Michigan L Rev 1946, 1950.

93 MTD Equity Sdn Bhd v Chile (Decision on Annulment) ICSID Case No ARB/01/7 (ICSID, 2007, Guillaume P, Crawford & Ordōñez Noriega) paras 67–71.

94 GAMI Investments Inc v United Mexican States (Award) (2005) 44 ILM 545,560 (NAFTA/UNCITRAL, 2004, Paulsson P, Muró & Reisman).

95 International Thunderbird Gaming Corp v United Mexican States (Award) (NAFTA/UNCITRAL, 2006, van den Berg P, Ariosa & Wälde) para 147.

96 These cases are analysed in McLachlan, Shore & Weiniger (n 14) paras 7.115–7.140.

97 S D Myers Inc v Canada 8 ICSID Rep 3 (NAFTA/UNCITRAL, 2000, Hunter P, Schwartz & Chiasson).

98 Tecmed (n 88).

99 MTD v Chile (n 93).

100 Pope & Talbot Inc v Canada (Award) 7 ICSID Rep 43 (ICSID/UNCITRAL, 2002, Dervaird P, Greenberg & Belman) sed quaere whether that was such a case.

101 Waste Management Inc v United Mexican States (Award) (‘Waste Management II’) (2004) 43 ILM 967, 994 (NAFTA/ICSID (AF), 2004, Crawford P, Civiletti & Gómez).

102 S D Myers (n 97), Separate Opinion of Schwartz 114.

103 [1932] AC 562.

104 Eg Art 1382 French Civil Code.

105 Saluka (n 52) para 305.

106 United Parcel Service of America Inc v Canada (Award on Jurisdiction) 7 ICSID Rep 285 (NAFTA/UNCITRAL, 2002, Keith P, Cass & Fortier).

107 Genin v Estonia (Award) 6 ICSID Rep 236 (ICSID, 2001, Fortier P, Heth & van den Berg).

108 Pope & Talbot Inc v Canada (Award on the Merits of Phase 2) 7 ICSID Rep 43, 102 (NAFTA/UNCITRAL, 2001, Dervaird P, Greenberg & Belman) 130–38.

109 International Thunderbird (n 95) 433.

110 MTD v Chile (n 93).

111 CH Schreuer, ‘Diversity and Harmonization of Treaty Interpretation in Investment Arbitration’ (April 2006) 3 Transnational Dispute Management 1, 17.

112 AES Corp v Argentine Republic (Jurisdiction) ICSID Case No ARB/02/17 (ICSID, 2005, Dupuy P, Böckstiegel & Janeiro) paras 30–31.

113 Saipem SpA v Bangladesh (Jurisdiction) ICSID Case No ARB/05/07 (ICSID, 2007, Kaufmann-Kohler P, Schreuer & Otton).

114 Notably ICSID Review—Foreign Investment Law Journal, and Journal of World Investment and Trade.

115 Notably, the British Institute of International & Comparative Law Investment Treaty Forum (est 2004), as to which see F Ortino, A Sheppard and H Warner, Investment Treaty Law: Current Issues Volume 1 (BIICL, London, 2006); and the International Law Association Committee on International Law on Foreign Investment (est 2003).

116 Notably the OGEMID Discussion List established by the Center for Energy Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy at the University of Dundee, together with its online subscription service: <www.transnational-dispute-management.com>.

117 FA Mann, ‘British Treaties for the Promotion and Protection of Investments’ (1981) 52 British Ybk Intl L 241, 244. But cf the considered view which he subsequently expressed in the 5th edition of The Legal Aspect of Money (Clarendon, Oxford, 1992) 526, referring to ‘ … the overriding principle of “fair and equitable treatment”, which, it must be repeated, in turn is perhaps no more than a (welcome) contractual recognition and affirmation of that principle of customary international law which requires States to act in good faith, reasonably, without abuse, arbitrariness, or discrimination.’ The formulation is in substance repeated in the 6th edition: C Proctor, Mann on the Legal Aspect of Money (OUP, Oxford, 2005) para 22.53. See JC Thomas, ‘Reflections on Article 1105 of NAFTA: History, State Practice and the Influence of Commentators’ (2002) 17 ICSID Rev–FILJ 21, 57.

118 ibid.

119 Compañia de Aguas del Aconquija SA & anor v Argentina (Award) ICSID Case No ARB/97/3 (ICSID, 20 August 2007, Rowley P, Kaufmann-Kohler & Bernal Verea) (‘Vivendi II’) para 7.4.6. The Tribunal relied upon Azurix Corp v Argentina (Award) ICSID Case No ARB/01/12 (ICSID, 14 July 2006, Sureda P, Lalonde & Martens) para 361. However, the Azurix tribunal was interpreting a provision which accorded investors fair and equitable treatment ‘and shall in no case be accorded treatment less than required by international law.’ Such a provision by its terms sets a floor. In any event the Azurix tribunal found that the applicable standards of custom and treaty ‘may in substance be the same’ (para 364).

120 ‘Just and equitable treatment in conformity with principles of international law’, France model BIT, art 4. (McLachlan, Shore & Weiniger (n 14) Appendix 10).

121 US Model BIT 2004, art 5 (McLachlan, Shore & Weiniger (n 14) Appendix 6).

122 ibid Annex A.

123 Pope & Talbot Inc v Government of Canada (Award on the Merits of Phase 2) 7 ICSID Rep 43 (NAFTA/UNICTRAL, 2001, Dervaird P, Greenberg & Belman).

124 NAFTA Free Trade Commission (FTC), Interpretation of NAFTA Chapter 11 (31 July 2001) 6 ICSID Rep 567, 568.

125 Eg Statement by Swiss Foreign Office [1980] Annuaire Suisse de droit international 178.

126 ADF Group Inc v United States of America, Second Submission of Canada pursuant to NAFTA Article 1128, 19 July 2002, para 33.

127 Saluka (n 52) para 291.

128 E Root, ‘The Basis of Protection to Citizens Residing Abroad’ (1910) 4 AJIL 517, 521–22.

129 Paulsson (n 80) 5–6.

130 Case concerning Elettronica Sicula SpA (ELSI) (United States of America v Italy) [1989] ICJ Rep 15, 76; 84 ILR 311, 382.

131 Statute of the International Court of Justice (26 June 1945, annexed to the Charter of the United Nations) Art 38(1)(c). G Schwarzenberger, International Law (3rd edn, Stevens and Sons, London, 1957) vol I, 200, cited (with apparent approval) in ADF Group Inc v United States of America (Award) 6 ICSID Rep 449, 530 fn 176 (NAFTA/ICSID (AF), 2003, Feliciano P, de Mestral & Lamm).

132 B Kingsbury et al (eds), ‘The Emergence of Global Administrative Law’ (2005) 68(3) Law & Contemporary Problems 15.

133 Schwarzenberger (n 32).

134 Jennings and Watts (n 18) 933.

135 Saluka (n 52) para 306.

136 ILC Diplomatic Protection Report (n 4) 89–90.

137 (n 2) para 90.

138 Loewen Group Inc and Raymond L Loewen v United States of America (Award) 7 ICSID Rep 421 (NAFTA/ICSID (AF), 2003, Mason P, Mikva & Mustill).

139 ILC, ‘Second Report on State Responsibility’ (3 May–23 July 1999) UN Doc A/CN 4/498 34.

140 ILC, ‘Preliminary Report on Diplomatic Protection’ (20 April–12 June 1998, 27 July–14 August 1998) UN Doc A/CN 4/ 484, 12.

141 A point made cogently, for example, by Weil in his dissenting opinion on the impact of the parties' object as regards origin of capital in interpretation of the nationality requirement for jurisdiction in Tokios Tokeles v Ukraine (Jurisdiction) (2005) 20 ICSID Rev-FILJ 205 (ICSID, 2004, Weil P, Price & Bernadini).

142 Treaty concerning the Reciprocal Encouragement and Protection of Investment (US–Argentina) (signed 14 November 1991, entered into force 20 October 1994) Senate Treaty Doc 103–02. See generally on these cases J Fouret [2007] Revue de l'Arbitrage 249.

143 ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility and ILC State Responsibility Report (n 71) 194–206.

144 CMS Gas Transmission Co v Argentina (Award) (2005) 44 ILM 1205 (ICSID, 2005, Orrego Vicuña P, Lalonde & Rezek).

145 Enron Corp & Ponderosa Assets LP v Argentina (Award) ICSID Case No ARB/01/3 (ICSID, 2007, Orrego Vicuña P, van den Berg & Taschanz).

146 Sempra Energy Int'l v Argentina (Award) ICSID Case No ARB/02/16 (ICSID, 2007, Orrego Vicuña P, Lalonde & Rico).

147 LG&E Energy Corp v Argentina (Award) ICSID Case No ARB/02/1 (ICSID, 2006, de Maekelt P, Rezek and van den Berg).

148 (n 146) para 346.

149 CMS Gas Transmission Co v Republic of Argentina (Decision on Annulment) (ICSID, 25 September 2007, Guillaume P, Elaraby & Crawford).

150 Art 52 ICSID Convention.

151 (n 142) Art XI.

152 (n 144) para 308.

153 As noted in the Annulment Decision (n 148) para 123, this may have been because both parties treated the issues raised under Article XI to be identical to those raised under customary international law.

154 (n 144) para 382.

155 (n 145) para 334 and, to like effect, para 339.

156 ibid paras 343–45.

157 (n 146) para 378.

158 (n 147) para 206.

159 ibid paras 245–58.

160 ibid paras 260–61.

161 (n 149) para 129.

162 ibid para 130.

163 ibid para 131.

164 ibid para 133.

165 ibid paras 134–35.

166 ibid para 146.

167 Art 52(4) of the ICSID Convention applies the provisions of Art 53 to annulment proceedings. Art 53 provides that: ‘The award shall be binding on the parties … ’ This is commonly interpreted to mean that the award is binding on the parties and no-one else: CH Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (CUP, Cambridge, 2001) 1082; and see for further discussion McLachlan, Shore & Weiniger (n 14) paras 3.83–3.103.

168 A former president and judge of the International Court of Justice (Guillaume and Elaraby), together with the Whewell Professor of International Law in the University of Cambridge (Crawford).

169 M Huber, (1952) 1 Annuaire 200–1.

170 See (n 71).

171 For commentary see Article 38 (Pellet) in A Zimmermann et al, The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (OUP, Oxford, 2006) 677.

172 PCIJ, Advisory Committee of Jurists, Procès-Verbaux of the Proceedings of the Committee, 16 June–24 July (The Hague, 1920) 336.

173 I Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (6th edn, OUP, Oxford, 2003) 19.

174 J Paulsson, ‘International Arbitration and the Generation of Legal Norms: Treaty Arbitration and International Law’ Paper given at the Ninth Public Conference of the BIICL Investment Treaty Forum, 14 September 2007, 2.

175 See Part II A above, and generally A Boyle and C Chinkin, The Making of International Law (OUP, Oxford, 2007) ch 6: ‘Law-Making by International Courts and Tribunals.’

176 International Law Association, Report of the Sixty-ninth Conference (London, 2000) 712.

177 ibid 758.

178 ibid 759 [emphasis in original].

179 T Gazzini, ‘The Role of Customary International Law in the field of Foreign Investment’ (2007) 8 J World Investment & Trade 691 makes the point that BITs cover only about 13 per cent of the bilateral relationships between states comprising the international community.

180 (n 106) para 97; and see Gazzini, ibid.

181 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v The Netherlands) [1969] ICJ Rep 3.

182 FA Mann, Further Studies in International Law (Clarendon, Oxford, 1990) 245.

183 These are collected in UNCTAD, International Investment Instruments: A Compendium.

184 Douglas (n 6) 159.

185 McLachlan (n 15) 317; ILC Fragmentation Report (n 15) 16–17; Case concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) [1997] ICJ Rep 7, 67–68.

186 Mondev International Ltd v United States of America (Award) 6 ICSID Rep 181 (NAFTA/ICSID(AF), 2002, Stephen P, Crawford & Schwebel).

187 LFH Neer & Pauline Neer (USA) v United Mexican States (1926) IV RIAA 60.

188 Mondev (n 186) 222.

189 (n 2).

190 See Pellet (n 171) 764.

191 Pellet (n 171) 765. The classic study is B Cheng, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (CUP, Cambridge, 1953, reprinted 2006).

192 This is developed further in McLachlan, Shore & Weiniger (n 14) ch 4: ‘Parallel Proceedings’. For examples of the application of these principles in arbitral practice see: Waste Management Inc v Mexico (No 2) (Preliminary Objections) 6 ICSID Rep 538 (NAFTA/ICSID (AF), 2002, Crawford P, Civiletti & Magallón Gómez) (as to res judicata); and Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Ltd v Egypt (First Jurisdiction) 3 ICSID Rep 101, 129 (ICSID, 1985, Jiménez de Aréchaga P, El Mahdi & Pietrowski) (as to lis pendens).

193 Mondev (n 186) para 116.

194 FV García-Amador, First Report on State Responsibility, UN Doc A/CN 4/96 [1956] 2 Ybk Intl L Comm'n 173, 200–3.

195 Brownlie (n 173) 504–5; American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law, Third, Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1987) § 711(a), 184–96; Paulsson (n 80) 133–34.

196 C Ku, ‘Global Governance and the Changing Face of International Law’ ACUNS Repts and Papers 2001 No 2.

197 (n 97).

198 The writer is indebted to William Mansfield for this metaphor.

199 See, eg, Prosecutor v Kunarac (ICTY, IT-96-23 and IT-6-23/1, judgment of 22 February 2001, para 439 and R O'Keefe, ‘Recourse by the Ad Hoc Tribunals to General Principles of Law and to Human Rights Law’ in M Delmas-Marty, E Fronza and E Lambert-Abdelgawad, Les Sources du Droit Pénal (Sociétéde Législation Comparée, Paris, 2004) 297, 299.

200 See Boyle and Chinkin (n 175) 222–25; and P Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law (2nd edn, CUP, Cambridge, 2003) ch 6. For a recent example in practice see the ILC's Draft Principles on the Allocation of Loss in the case of Transboundary Harm arising out of Hazardous Activities 2006 (PS Rac, Special Rapporteur) in International Law Commission, Report on the work of its fifty-eighth session (1 May to 9 June and 3 July to 11 August 2006), UNDOC A/61/10, paras 66–7.

201 The point made by Dworkin as to the role of principles within a domestic legal system: R Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1977).

202 See also AV Lowe, International Law (OUP, Oxford, 2007) ch 3.

203 ILC Fragmentation Report (n 15) 254 (emphasis added). Sands (n 200) 232, makes this point in relation to the status of general principles in international environmental law.

204 n 1.

205 In re Piracy Jure Gentium [1934] AC 586, 592 (PC).