Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:40:39.249Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Saipem S.P.A. v. The People’s Republic of Bangladesh

ICSID (Arbitration Tribunal).  21 March 2007 ; 30 June 2009 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

Jurisdiction — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Scope of “legal dispute” — Relationship between ICSID and ICC arbitration — Admissibility of a claim concerning ICC award — Claim not abuse of process — ICSID Tribunal not a controlling body of ICC arbitration — Whether immunity in favour of domestic judiciary

State responsibility — Whether courts qualify as State organs — ILC Articles on State Responsibility — Attribution to be examined in merits phase

Foreign investment — Whether ICC award an investment — Whether residual contractual rights crystallized by ICC award an investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Scope of an investment — Conclusion of contract as an investment — “Salini” test — Duration of contract not an applicable criterion — Irrelevance of origin of funds, unless expressly limited — Use of local funds for investment — Advance payment and assessment of commercial risk

Expropriation — Expropriation through decisions of national courts or tribunals — Court decisions as “measures having similar effects” to direct expropriation — Immaterial rights capable of expropriation — Contractual rights to arbitrate — Measures depriving of the benefit of ICC award — Governmental nature of an expropriation act — “Sole effects” doctrine — Requirement of “illegality” — Assumption of jurisdiction by local courts over arbitration not illegal per se — Illegality of revocation of arbitrators — Abuse of rights by courts

Jurisdiction — Exhaustion of local remedies — ICSID Convention, Article 26 — Exhaustion of remedies a substantive requirement — No applicability in expropriation law — Obligation to exhaust effective remedies, not resort to “improbable” remedies

Provisional measures — ICSID Convention, Article 47 — Discretion of tribunal — Requirements of necessity and urgency — Consideration of the parties’ divergent interests — Measures to prevent the increase of harm suffered by party

Applicable law — Whether tribunal bound by previous decisions — Duty to adopt solutions decided in previous cases — Legitimate expectations of parties — Harmonious development of international investment law

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 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.)