Assessment of Legality of Investment: ICSID Case-law

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph. D. Candidate in Department of Law Science and Research branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

A great number of bilateral investment treaties including the treaties concluded by Iran, specify that in order to enjoy protection provided in treaties, investment should be made in accordance with internal law of host state. It is evident that nature, magnitude of breach and the subject matter of the laws which are likely to be violated by investors are not identical. The question which arise as to the issue in the light of case law of ICSID tribunals and object and purpose of investment treaties is whether hierarchical value and subject matter of internal law and regulation of host state have any impact on the evaluation of an investment legality. Analysis of the case-law developed on the issue shows that subject matter of internal law of host state has no impact on the issue. On the other hand, nature, magnitude of breach and relevance of the law in accepting and establishment of investment in host state are relevant factors in evaluating legality of investment.

Keywords

References

  1. اسماعیلی، محسن و امینی‌ پزوه، حسین، (1394). معناشناسی برخی از هنجارهای اسلامی در قانون اساسی با محوریت مفهوم موازین اسلامی، دوفصلنامه دانش حقوق عمومی، شماره 11. 
  2. دالزر، رودلف و کریستف شروئر (1393). اصول حقوق بین‌الملل سرمایه‌گذاری، تهران، دانش، ترجمة سید قاسم زمانی و حسیبی، به‌آذین، چ 3،.
  3. قانون موافقت‌نامة تشویق و حمایت متقابل از سرمایه‌گذاری بین دولت جمهوری اسلامی ایران و دولت جمهوری فرانسه، مصوب 1382.
  4. قانون موافقت‌نامة تشویق و حمایت متقابل از سرمایه‌گذاری بین دولت جمهوری اسلامی ایران و دولت جمهوری ترکیه، مصوب 1380.
  5. قانون موافقت‌نامة تشویق و حمایت متقابل از سرمایه‌گذاری بین دولت جمهوری اسلامی ایران و دولت جمهوری سوئد، مصوب 1386.
  6. قانون مدنی مصوب 1311.
  7. قانون مجازات اسلامی مصوب 1392.

8. Carlevaris, A. (2008). The Conformity of Investments with the Law of the Host State and the Jurisdiction of International Tribunals, Journal of World Investment & Trade Vol. 9.

9. Hepburn, J. (2014). In Accordance with Which Host State Laws? Restoring the “Defence” of Investor Illegality in Investment Arbitration, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, No. 5.

10. Hepburn, J. (2017). Domestic Law in International Investment Arbitration, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11. Knahr, C. (2007). Investments In Accordance with Host State Law, Transnational Dispute Management, No. 5.

12. Moloo, R. and Khachaturian, A, (2011). The Compliance with the Law Requirement in International Investment Law, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 34.

13. Obersteiner, T. (2014). In Accordance with Domestic Law Clauses: How International Investment Tribunals Deal with Allegations of Unlawful Conduct of Investors, Journal of International Arbitration Vol. 31, Issue 2.

14.  Schill, W. Stephen (2012). Illegal Investments in Investment Treaty Arbitration, Law & Practice of International Courts & Tribunals, Vol. 11.

15. ICSID (2013). Metal-Tech Ltd v Uzbekistan, Case No ARB/10/3, Award.

16. ICSID (2012). Teinver SA v Argentina, Case No ARB/ 09/ 1, Decision on Jurisdiction

17. ICSID (2014). Hochtief AG v Argentina, Case No ARB/ 07/ 31, Decision on Liability.

18. ICSID (2010). Saba Fakes v Turkey, Case No ARB/ 07/ 20, Award.

19. ICSID (2012). Quiborax SA v Bolivia, Case No ARB/06/2, Decision on Jurisdiction.

20. ICSID (2008). Rumeli Telekom AS v Kazakhstan, Case No. ARB/ 05/ 16, Award.

21. ICSID (2006). Metalpar SA v Argentina, Case No ARB/ 03/ 5, Decision on Jurisdiction.

22. ICSID (2008). Plama Consortium Ltd v Bulgaria, Case No. ARB/ 03/ 24, Award.

23. ICSID (2004). Tokios Tokeles v Ukraine, Case No ARB/ 02/ 18, Award.

24. ICSID (2006). LESI SpA and Astaldi SpA v Algeria, Case No. ARB/ 05/ 3, Decision on Jurisdiction.

25. ICSID (2007). Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v Philippines, Case No ARB/ 03/ 25, Award.

26. ICSID (2008). Desert Line Projects LLC v Yemen, Case No. ARB/ 05/ 17, Award.

27.  ICSID (2008). Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, Case No. ARB/03/24, award.

28. ICSID (2009). Phoenix Action Ltd v Czech Republic, Case No. ARB/ 06/ 5, Award.

29. ICSID (2010). Alasdair Ross Anderson et al v. Republic of Costa Rica, Case No. ARB(AF)/07/3, award.

30. ICSID (2010). Alpha Projektholding GmbH v Ukraine, Case No ARB/ 07/ 16, Award.

31. ICSID (2010). Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v Ghana, Case No. ARB/ 07/ 24, Award.

32.  ICSID (2010). Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH and Others v. Ukraine, Case No. ARB/08/8, Decision on Jurisdiction.

33. ICSID (2012). SAUR International SA v Argentina Case No. ARB/ 04/ 4, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability.

34. ICSID (2013). Vannessa Ventures Ltd v Venezuela, Case No ARB(AF)/ 04/ 6, Award.

35. ICSID (2014). Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v Philippines, Case No. ARB/ 11/12, Award.

36. ICSID (2015). Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe SA v Albania, Case No ARB/ 11/ 24, Award.

37. UNCITRAL (2006). Saluka Investments BV v Czech Republic, Partial Award.

 

Private Law
Volume 16, Issue 1
Spring & Summer
April 2019
Pages 21-41

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics