No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 November 2015
In a recent award involving Gold Reserve Inc., an international investment arbitral tribunal concluded that Venezuela had to pay compensation of US $713 million for violations of the fair and equitable treatment provision of an international investment agreement between Canada and Venezuela. This decision contrasts sharply with the outcome of other investment disputes concerning Canadian extractive companies. Relying on a detailed analysis of awards involving EnCana Corporation, Glamis Gold Ltd. and Vannessa Ventures Ltd., this article recalls that host states can take measures to increase the benefits and limit the negative impacts of extractive industries’ activities without breaching their obligations under international investment law.
Dans une décision récente impliquant Gold Reserve Inc., un tribunal d’arbitrage en investissement international a conclu que le Venezuela devait payer une compensation de 713 millions USD pour diverses violations du traitement juste et équitable prévu dans un accord d’investissement international entre le Canada et le Venezuela. Cette décision contraste vivement avec l’issue d’autres différends relatifs à l’investissement concernant des entreprises extractives canadiennes. En s’appuyant sur une analyse détaillée des décisions impliquant EnCana Corporation, Glamis Gold Ltd. et Vannessa Ventures Ltd., cet article rappelle que les États hôtes peuvent adopter des mesures afin d’augmenter les bénéfices et de limiter les impacts négatifs des activités des industries extractives, sans contrevenir à leurs obligations en droit international de l’investissement.
1 Gold Reserve Inc v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case no ARB(AF)/09/1, Award (22 September 2014), online: International Treaty Arbitration <http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw4009.pdf> [Gold Reserve].
2 Ibid at paras 14–28.
3 Ibid at para 564.
4 Ibid at para 591.
5 Ibid at para 600.
6 Ibid at paras 609–10.
7 Ibid at para 615.
8 Ibid at paras 860 and 863.
9 See Ali Bencheneb, “Le droit au juge arbitral en matière minière: Constats et perspective” (2003) 2003 Int’l Bus LJ 779 at 782 and 793; Bonnie Campbell, “Peace and Security in Africa and the Role of Canadian Mining Interests: New Challenges for Canadian Foreign Policy” (2004) 37 Labour, Capital and Society 98 at 100–1 [Campbell, “Peace and Security”]; Boubacar Hassane, “Les contrats miniers” in Philippe Kahn & Thomas W Wälde, eds, Les aspects nouveaux du droit des investissements internationaux: New Aspects of International Investment Law (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007) 233 at 235–36; Bonnie Campbell, “Regulation & Legitimacy in the Mining Industry in Africa: Where Does Canada Stand?” (2008) 35:117 Rev African Pol Ecn 367 at 367–68 [Campbell, “Regulation & Legitimacy”]; Todd Gordon & Jeffery R Webber, “Imperialism and Resistance: Canadian Mining Companies in Latin America” (2008) 29:1 Third World Quart 63 at 66; Kernaghan Webb, “Multi-Level Corporate Responsibility and the Mining Sector: Learning from the Canadian Experience in Latin America” (2012) 14:3 Bus & Pol 1 at 2.
10 See Bencheneb, supra note 9 at 790.
11 UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2007: Transnational Corporations, Extractive Industries and Development (New York and Geneva: United Nations, 2007) at 161.Google Scholar
12 See, eg, Campbell, “Peace and Security,” supra note 9 at 114; Julia Sagebien et al, “The Corporate Social Responsibility of Canadian Mining Companies in Latin America: A Systems Perspective” (2008) 14:3 Can Foreign Pol’y J 103 at 104.
13 See UNCTAD, supra note 11 at 93.
14 See ibid at 157.
15 See ibid at 145–53; Hevina S Dashwood, “Canadian Mining Companies and Corporate Social Responsibility: Weighing the Impact of Global Norms” (2007) 40:1 Can J Pol Sc 129 at 130; Sagebien et al, supra note 12 at 103; Rae Lindsay et al, “Human Rights Responsibilities in the Oil and Gas Sector: Applying the UN Guiding Principles” (2013) 6:1 J World Energy L & Bus 2 at 5; Penelope Simons & Audrey Macklin, The Governance Gap: Extractive Industries, Human Rights, and the Home State Advantage (New York: Routledge, 2014) at 22–78. See also generally Peter Muchlinski, “Social and Human Rights Implications of TNC Activities in the Extractive Industries” (2009) 18:1 Transnat’l Corp 125 at 125 [Muchlinski, “Social and Human Rights”]. See generally Simona V Yagenova & Rocío Garcia, “Indigenous People’s Struggles against Transnational Mining Companies in Guatemala: The Sipakapa People vs GoldCorp Mining Company” (2009) 23:3 Socialism & Dem 157.
16 Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, UNGAOR, Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development – Addendum – Corporations and Human Rights: A Survey of the Scope and Patterns of Alleged Corporate-Related Human Rights Abuse, UN Doc A/HRC/8/5/Add.2 (2008) at para 2. The significant impact of the extractive sector on the enjoyment of human rights had been previously acknowledged by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. See United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, UNESCOR, Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, UN Doc E/CN.4/2006/92 (2005) at para 6.
17 Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises, supra note 16 at para 8.
18 Ibid at paras 16–28.
19 Ibid at para 70.
20 Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNGAOR, Extractive Industries Operating within or near Indigenous Territories, UN Doc A/HRC/18/35 (2011) at paras 22–80 and 82 [Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Report 2011]; Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNGAOR, Extractive Industries and Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc A/HRC/24/41 (2013) at paras 1–4.
21 See Campbell, “Peace and Security,” supra note 9 at 106; Campbell, “Regulation & Legitimacy,” supra note 9 at 374; Gordon & Webber, supra note 9 at 63 and 70; Sagebien et al, supra note 12 at 108; Webb, supra note 9 at 9–10.
22 Natural Resources Canada, The Global Presence of Canadian Mining Companies, online: NRC <http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mining-materials/publications/15382>.
23 Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Global Exploration Activity, online: NRC <http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mining-materials/exploration/8296>.
24 Ibid.
25 It must nevertheless be noted that one claim was settled (Crystallex International Corporation v Republic of Ecuador) and at least four other cases were pending at the time of writing (Rusoro Mining Ltd v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Infinito Gold Ltd v Republic of Costa Rica, EuroGas Inc. and Belmont Resources Inc. v Slovak Republic and Bear Creek Mining Corporation v Republic of Peru). For more information on these cases, see Investment Treaty Arbitration, online: International Treaty Arbitration <http://www.italaw.com/awards/by-claimant>; UNCTAD Database of Treaty-Based Investor-State Dispute Settlement Cases, online: UNCTAD <http://iiadbcases.unctad.org>; ICSID Database of Cases, online: ICSID <https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/cases/Pages/AdvancedSearch.aspx>. Moreover, Pac Rim Cayman LLC v Republic of El Salvador involves a Canadian mining company. Although a decision has been issued in that case, the tribunal declared that it had no jurisdiction to decide the claim on the basis of the international investment agreement. See Pac Rim Cayman LLC v Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case no ARB/09/12, Decision on Jurisdiction (1 June 2012), online: International Treaty Arbitration <http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0935.pdf>.
26 EnCana Corporation v Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL, Award (3 February 2006), reprinted in (2006), 45 ILM 655 [EnCana].
27 Glamis Gold, Ltd v United States of America, UNCITRAL, Award (8 June 2009), reprinted in (2009) 48 ILM 1039 [Glamis Gold].
28 Vannessa Ventures Ltd. v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case no ARB(AF)/04/6, Award (16 January 2013), online: International Treaty Arbitration <http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw1250.pdf> [Vannessa Ventures].
29 EnCana, supra note 26.
30 See Muchlinski, Peter T, Multinational Enterprises and the Law, 2d ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) at 267 [Muchlinski, Multinational Enterprises]CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sornarajah, Muthucumaraswamy, The International Law on Foreign Investment, 3d ed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010) at 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 See Muchlinski, Multinational Enterprises, supra note 30 at 268.
32 See UNCTAD, supra note 11 at 130–31; Hassane, supra note 9 at 268.
33 See UNCTAD, supra note 11 at 137.
34 Ibid at 139.
35 See Andrew Newcombe & Lluís Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2009) at 506–7.
36 North American Free Trade Agreement, 17 December 1992, 32 ILM 289, art 2103 [NAFTA]. See also Newcombe & Paradell, supra note 35 at 507.
37 NAFTA, supra note 36, art 2103(1).
38 Ibid, art 2103(4).
39 Ibid, arts 2103(5) and 2103(6).
40 Ibid, art 2103(6).
41 Canada, Agreement between Canada and ____ for the Promotion and the Protection of Investments, art 16, online: International Treaty Arbitration <http://italaw.com/documents/Canadian2004-FIPA-model-en.pdf>. While this document results from the last formal revision of the model, other versions have also been adopted since 2004. The most recent version available at the time of writing was adopted on 25 August 2014 [on file with the author] and includes a similar provision at art 14.
42 See Sornarajah, supra note 30 at 405.
43 See, eg, Newcombe & Paradell, supra note 35 at 331–32; Sornarajah, supra note 30 at 405.
44 Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Ecuador for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, 29 April 1996, Can TS 1997 No 25 [Canada–Ecuador BIT].
45 EnCana, supra note 26 at para 1.
46 Ibid at para 23.
47 Ibid at para 107.
48 Ibid at para 8.
49 Canada–Ecuador BIT, supra note 44, art XII.
50 Ibid, art XII(1).
51 Ibid, art XII(3).
52 Ibid, art XII(4).
53 Ibid, art XII(5).
54 EnCana, supra note 26 at para 166.
55 Ibid.
56 Ibid at para 167.
57 Ibid.
58 Ibid at paras 109, 170.
59 Ibid at paras 109, 168.
60 Ibid at para 172.
61 Ibid at para 173 [emphasis added].
62 Ibid at para 177 [emphasis added]. See also Sornarajah, supra note 30 at 399; Newcombe & Paradell, supra note 35 at 361–62. It is worth noting that this test, set out in EnCana to assess the indirect expropriatory character of a taxation measure, was considered by another tribunal in a more recent case involving a foreign operating mining company. See Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Company and CJSC Vostokneftegaz Company v Mongolia, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability (28 April 2011) at para 333, online: International Treaty Arbitration <http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0622.pdf>.
63 See Newcombe & Paradell, supra note 35 at 356.
64 EnCana, supra note 26 at para 182.
65 EnCana Corporation v Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL, Partial Dissenting Opinion (30 December 2005) at para 23, online: International Treaty Arbitration <http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0287_0.pdf> [EnCana – Partial Dissenting Opinion].
66 Ibid at para 73. See also Newcombe & Paradell, supra note 35 at 356–57.
67 EnCana – Partial Dissenting Opinion, supra note 65 at 74.
68 EnCana, supra note 26 at para 194. See also Newcombe & Paradell, supra note 35 at 356.
69 By contrast, in Occidental Exploration and Production Company v Republic of Ecuador, the denial of value added tax (VAT) refunds was considered a violation of the host state’s obligations not to impair by arbitrary measures, to accord treatment that is no less favorable than that accorded to national companies, and to accord fair and equitable treatment to the investment. See Occidental Exploration and Production Company v Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL, Final Award (1 July 2004) at paras 162–3, 177, 187, 200, reprinted in (2004) 43 ILM 1248 [Occidental].
70 Glamis Gold, supra note 27. This case has been analyzed previously by the author in an article focusing on the asymmetry between the protections and obligations of Canadian mining companies. See Jean-Michel Marcoux, “La recherche d’un équilibre: Évolution des protections et des obligations des sociétés minières canadiennes dans les Amériques” (2012) 24:1 RQDI 309 at 320–25.
71 Ibid at para 107. See also Alison A Ochs, “Glamis Gold Ltd.: A Foreign United States Citizen: NAFTA and Its Potential Effect on Environmental Regulations and the Mining Law of 1872” (2005) 16 Colo J Int’l Envtl L & Pol’y 495 at 500–1; Jordan C Kahn, “Striking NAFTA Gold: Glamis Advances Investor-State Arbitration” (2009) 33 Fordham Int’l LJ 101 at 104–5; Julien Cantegreil, “Implementing Human Rights in the NAFTA Regime: The Potential of a Pending Case: Glamis Corp v USA” in Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Francesco Francioni & Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, eds, Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 366 at 371; Margaret Clare Ryan, “Glamis Gold, Ltd. v. The United States and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard” (2011) 56:4 McGill L J 919 at 923.
72 Glamis Gold, supra note 27 at paras 11, 185.
73 Ibid at paras 11, 175, 183, 185.
74 NAFTA, supra note 36, arts 1105, 1110.
75 See UNCTAD, supra note 11 at 145.
76 Ibid at 147. See also Muchlinski, “Social and Human Rights,” supra note 15 at 127; Yagenova & Garcia, supra note 15 at 164; Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Report 2011, supra note 20 at paras 30–31.
77 Dashwood, supra note 15 at 130.
78 See UNCTAD, supra note 11 at 150, 152; Yagenova & Garcia, supra note 15 at 163–64; Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Report 2011, supra note 20 at paras 34–39.
79 Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Report 2011, supra note 20 at para 20.
80 Ibid at para 55.
81 See UNCTAD, supra note 11 at 148 and 171–77; Muchlinski, “Social and Human Rights,” supra note 15 at 132.
82 See Andrew Newcombe, “Sustainable Development and Investment Treaty Law” (2007) 8 J World Investment & Trade 357 at 366; Newcombe & Paradell, supra note 35 at 64; Sornarajah, supra note 30 at 144; Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger & Andrew Newcombe, “An Integrated Agenda for Sustainable Development in International Investment Law” in Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger, Markus W Gehring & Andrew Newcombe, eds, Sustainable Development in World Investment Law (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2011) 101 at 113.
83 See, eg, Clara Reiner & Christoph Schreuer, “Human Rights and International Investment Arbitration” in Dupuy, Francioni & Petersmann, supra note 71, 82 at 90; Moshe Hirsch, “Investment Tribunals and Human Rights: Divergent Paths” in Dupuy, Francioni & Petersmann, supra note 71, 97 at 106–7; Sornarajah, supra note 30 at 472; Jorge Daniel Taillant & Jonathan Bonnitcha, “International Investment Law and Human Rights” in Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger, Markus W Gehring & Andrew Newcombe, eds, Sustainable Development in World Investment Law (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2011) 59 at 78; Kate Miles, The Origins of International Investment Law: Empire, Environment and the Safeguarding of Capital (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) at 210; J Anthony VanDuzer, Penelope Simons & Graham Mayeda, Integrating Sustainable Development into International Investment Agreements: A Guide for Developing Country Negotiators (London: Commonwealth Secretariat, 2013) at 256–57.
84 Glamis Gold, supra note 27 at para 8 [emphasis added]. See also Mary E Footer, “Bits and Pieces: Social and Environmental Protection in the Regulation of Foreign Investment” (2009) 18 Mich St U Coll L J Int’l L 33 at 42; Jorge E Viñuales, “Foreign Investment and the Environment in International Law: An Ambiguous Relationship” (2010) 80:1 BYIL 244 at 271–72.
85 See Newcombe & Paradell, supra note 35 at 91.
86 See generally Peter Leon, “Creeping Expropriation of Mining Investments: An African Perspective” (2009) 27 J Energy & Nat Resources L 597.
87 Glamis Gold, supra note 27 at para 356.
88 NAFTA, supra note 36, art 1110.
89 Glamis Gold, supra note 27 at para 356.
90 Ibid at para 356. See also Kahn, supra note 71 at 129.
91 Glamis Gold, supra note 27 at para 153.
92 Ibid at paras 159, 360. See also Kahn, supra note 71 at 130.
93 Glamis Gold, supra note 27 at para 362.
94 Ibid at para 363.
95 Ibid at para 535. See also Kahn, supra note 71 at 131–32.
96 Glamis Gold, supra note 27 at para 366 [emphasis added].
97 Kahn, supra note 71 at 133.
98 See ibid at 133–34.
99 See ibid at 121.
100 Glamis Gold, supra note 27 at para 537.
101 NAFTA, supra note 36, art 1105.
102 Glamis Gold, supra note 27 at para 537.
103 Ibid at para 561.
104 Neer v United Mexican States (1926) IV RSA 60 [Neer].
105 Glamis Gold, supra note 27 at para 612.
106 Ibid.
107 Ibid at para 613.
108 Ibid at para 614. See also Kahn, supra note 71 at 136.
109 Glamis Gold, supra note 27 at para 627 [emphasis in the original and footnotes omitted].
110 Ibid at paras 763–66, 774, 781, 783, 787. See also Kahn, supra note 71 at 139–41.
111 Glamis Gold, supra note 27 at para 774. See also Kahn, supra note 71 at 141, 149.
112 Glamis Gold, supra note 27 at para 789.
113 Ibid at para 791.
114 Ibid at paras 794–95.
115 Ibid at paras 801, 811.
116 Ibid at paras 802, 811.
117 Ibid at para 805.
118 See e.g. Ryan, supra note 71; Rudolf Dolzer & Christoph Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law, 2d ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) at 140–41.
119 Glamis Gold, supra note 27 at para 601. See also Ryan, supra note 71 at 934–43, 945; Dolzer & Schreuer, supra note 118 at 140.
120 See, eg, Merrill & Ring Forestry L.P. v Canada, UNCITRAL, Award (31 March 2010) at para 213, online: International Treaty Arbitration <http://italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0504.pdf> [Merrill]. See also Ryan, supra note 71 at 956–57; Dolzer & Schreuer, supra note 118 at 141.
121 In a similar way, Kahn suggests that the equation of Article 1105 with the Neer standard is ultimately not genuine. See Kahn, supra note 71 at 153.
122 See, eg, Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. v Mexico, ICSID Case no ARB(AF)/00/2, Award (29 May 2003) at para 154, reprinted in (2004), 43 ILM 133; Waste Management, Inc v United Mexican States, ICSID Case no ARB(AF)/00/3, Award (30 April 2004) at para 98, reprinted in (2004), 43 ILM 967; Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award (17 March 2006) at para 302, reprinted in (2006), 15 ICSID Reports 274. See also Newcombe & Paradell, supra note 35 at 279.
123 Occidental, supra note 69 at para 191. See also Dolzer & Schreuer, supra note 118 at 147.
124 For a discussion of these examples, see Newcombe & Paradell, supra note 35 at 282–83, 288–89; Dolzer & Schreuer, supra note 118 at 148–49.
125 Merrill, supra note 120 at para 233 [emphasis added].
126 International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v United Mexican States, UNCITRAL, Arbitral Award (26 January 2006) at para 147, online: International Treaty Arbitration <http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0431.pdf>. See also Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd., et al v United States of America, UNCITRAL, Award (12 January 2011) at para 140, online: International Treaty Arbitration <http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0384.pdf>. For the interpretation of other IIAs, see Parkerings-Companiet AS v Republic of Lithuania, ICSID Case no ARB/05/8, Award (11 September 2007) at paras 331–32, online: International Treaty Arbitration <http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0619.pdf>; EDF (Services) Limited v Romania, ICSID Case no ARB/05/13, Award (8 October 2009) at para 217, online: International Treaty Arbitration <http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0267.pdf>.
127 Dolzer & Schreuer, supra note 118 at 145.
128 Gold Reserve, supra note 1 at paras 590, 593–94.
129 See text accompanying notes 77–88 in this article.
130 Gold Reserve, supra note 1 at para 595 [emphasis added].
131 Ibid at para 570.
132 Ibid at para 567.
133 Ibid at paras 578–79.
134 Ibid at para 590.
135 Ibid at para 591.
136 Ibid at paras 604–6, 613.
137 Vannessa Ventures, supra note 28.
138 Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Venezuela for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, 1 July 1996, Can TS 1998 No 20; Vannessa Ventures, supra note 28 at paras 100, 106.
139 See Dolzer & Schreuer, supra note 118 at 79.
140 See Hassane, supra note 9 at 233, 237.
141 See Dolzer & Schreuer, supra note 118 at 80.
142 See Hassane, supra note 9 at 267–69.
143 See ibid at 269–71.
144 See ibid at 266–72.
145 See Newcombe & Paradell, supra note 35 at 438; Dolzer & Schreuer, supra note 118 at 166.
146 See Newcombe & Paradell, supra note 35 at 437–79; Dolzer & Schreuer, supra note 118 at 166–78.
147 Newcombe & Paradell, supra note 35 at 438. See also Dolzer & Schreuer, supra note 118 at 168.
148 See Dolzer & Schreuer, supra note 118 at 84.
149 Vannessa Ventures, supra note 28 at para 56. For a summary of this contractual relation, see also Andrew Mitchell, James Munro & Devon Whittle, “Vannessa Ventures Ltd. v The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela” (2014) 15 J World Investment & Trade 305 at 306–7; Charles-Emmanuel Côté, “Le Canada et le droit international de l’investissement en 2013” (2013) 51 ACDI 397.
150 Vannessa Ventures, supra note 28 at para 56.
151 Ibid at para 58.
152 Ibid at para 59.
153 Ibid at paras 59, 65, 74, 202–4.
154 Ibid at para 67.
155 Ibid at para 84.
156 Ibid at para 100.
157 Ibid at para 169. See also Mitchell, Munro & Whittle, supra note 149.
158 Vannessa Ventures, supra note 28 at para 112.
159 Ibid at para 112.
160 Ibid at para 196.
161 International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UN Doc A/56/83 (2001), reprinted in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2001, vol 2, part 2 (New York: United Nations, 2001) at 41.
162 Vannessa Ventures, supra note 28 at para 209 [emphasis added and footnotes omitted].
163 Ibid at para 210.
164 Ibid at paras 214–15.
165 Ibid at paras 222–23.
166 Ibid at para 227.
167 Gold Reserve, supra note 1 at para 661.
168 Ibid at para 663.
169 Ibid.
170 Ibid at para 666.
171 Ibid at para 667.
172 UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2013: Global Value Chains: Investment and Trade for Development (New York and Geneva: United Nations, 2013) at 112.