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: 28 January 2022
This article explores the role of international law in relation to the extension of arbitration agreements contained in contracts concluded by States (or State entities) with non-signatory State entities (or States). As contract-based arbitrations involving States or State entities are on the rise, identifying the legal framework governing which parties are covered by the relevant arbitration agreements is of practical importance. The analysis demonstrates that international law forms part of the relevant law, alongside other applicable laws including law of contract, law of the seat and transnational law, concerning the extension of arbitration agreements concluded by States or State entities to non-signatories. Previous analyses have neglected the role of international law by not distinguishing contract-based arbitrations involving private parties from contract-based arbitrations involving States or State entities. Public international law recognises that arbitration agreements can be extended to non-signatories on the basis of implied consent, or abuse of separate legal personality and estoppel. Therefore, foreign investors can rely on international law to extend arbitration agreements to non-signatories in arbitrations conducted under investment contracts concluded by States or State entities, even if the relevant domestic law is agnostic or hostile to this. This has significant legal, and practical, importance.
The author is grateful to Dr Michail Dekastros, Dr Berk Demirkol, Dr Marco de Benito, Mr Alexey Vyalkov, and Dr Harry Annison for their input, as well as to the ICLQ editors and peer reviewers. Any errors or omissions are the author's sole responsibility. Part of the research leading to this article has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under ERC Grant Agreement No 313355, as part of the research project on ‘Transnational Private-Public Arbitration as Global Regulatory Governance: Charting and Codifying the Lex Mercatoria Publica’ (LexMercPub) carried out at the University of Amsterdam.
1 See eg Petrochilos, G, ‘Extension of the Arbitration Clause to Non-Signatory States or State Entities: Does It Raise a Difference?’ in Hanotiau, B and Schwartz, E (eds), Multiparty Arbitration (Wolters Kluwer 2010) 119–30Google Scholar. cf Stoehr, J, ‘A Question of Sovereignty, Development, and Natural Resources: A New Standard for Binding Third Party Nonsignatory Governments to Arbitration’ (2009) 66 Wash&LeeLRev 1409, 1434Google Scholar.
2 On the role of contracts with States or State entities, see J-F Lalive, ‘Contracts between a State or a State Agency and a Foreign Company: Theory and Practice: Choice of Law in a New Arbitration Case’ (1964) 13 ICLQ 987, 990.
3 ICC, ‘ICC Dispute Resolution 2019 Statistics’ (2020) 10, available at <https://iccwbo.org/publication/icc-dispute-resolution-statistics/>; the same figure was 8.6 per cent in 2001, C Leben, ‘La théorie du contrat d’État et l’évolution du droit international des investissements’ (2003) 302 RCADI 197, 297. See also J-F Lalive, ‘Contrats entre États ou entreprises étatiques et personnes privées: Développements récents’ (1983) 181 RCADI 9.
4 ICC, ‘ICC Dispute Resolution 2020 Statistics’ (2021) 11, available at <https://iccwbo.org/publication/icc-dispute-resolution-statistics-2020>.
5 See Hamilton, JC et al. , ‘Latin American Arbitration and Investment Protections’ in Hamilton, JC et al. (eds), Latin American Investment Protections (Martinus Nijhoff 2012) 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gaillard, E, ‘The Denunciation of the ICSID Convention’ (2007) 237 NYLJ 1Google Scholar; Schreuer, C, ‘Denunciation of the ICSID Convention and Consent to Arbitration’ in Waibel, M et al. (eds), The Backlash against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality (Kluwer Law International 2010) 353–68Google Scholar; Garibaldi, OM, ‘On the Denunciation of the ICSID Convention, Consent to ICSID Jurisdiction, and the Limits of Contract Analogy’ in Binder, C et al. (eds), International Investment Law for the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer (Oxford University Press 2009) 251–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Having denounced the ICSID Convention in 2009, Ecuador signed it again in June 2021 <https://icsid.worldbank.org/news-and-events/news-releases/ecuador-signs-icsid-convention>.
6 Examples include Ecuador and Indonesia, see N Bernasconi-Osterwalder et al., ‘Terminating a Bilateral Investment Treaty’ (International Institute for Sustainable Development, March 2020) <https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/terminating-treaty-best-practices-en.pdf>; see also T Voon and AD Mitchell, ‘Denunciation, termination and survival: the interplay of treaty law and international investment law’ (2016) 31 ICSID Review 413.
7 Case C-284/16 Slovak Republic v Achmea BV EU:C:2018:158. The CJEU held that Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses contained in intra-EU BITs are incompatible with EU law. Following the Achmea decision, 23 EU Member States signed the Agreement for the Termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union [2020] OJ L169/1.
8 Case C-741/19 Republic of Moldova v Komstroy EU:C:2021:655, para 66 (holding that art 26(2)(c) of the Energy Charter Treaty (providing for Investor-State arbitration) ‘must be interpreted as not being applicable to disputes between a Member State and an investor of another Member State concerning an investment made by the latter in the first Member State’).
9 Case C-109/20 Republic of Poland v PL Holdings Sàrl EU:C:2021:875, para 56 (holding that ‘Articles 267 and 344 TFEU [Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union] must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows a Member State to conclude an ad hoc arbitration agreement with an investor from another Member State that makes it possible to continue arbitration proceedings initiated on the basis of an arbitration clause whose content is identical to that agreement, where that clause is contained in an international agreement concluded between those two Member States and is invalid on the ground that it is contrary to those articles’).
10 Gaillard, E, ‘Effectiveness of Arbitral Awards, State Immunity from Execution and Autonomy of State Entities: Three Incompatible Principles’ in Gaillard, E and Younan, J (eds), State Entities in International Arbitration (Juris Publishing 2008) 189 (emphasis added)Google Scholar. See also in the same book: E Teynier, ‘Can a Party Benefiting from an Award Rendered against a State Enforce the Award against an Instrumentality of Such State? French Law’ (pp 103–30); J Gill, ‘Can a Party Benefiting from an Award Rendered against a State Enforce the Award against an Instrumentality of Such State? English Law’ (pp 131–47); E Gaillard, ‘Can a Party Benefiting from an Award Rendered against a State Enforce the Award against an Instrumentality of Such State? U.S. Law’ (pp 149–64).
11 Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow, Case No А40-230382/2018 (27 February 2019). See also La Générale des Carrières et des Mines v FG Hemisphere Associates LLC [2012] UKPC 27.
12 Swiss Federal Tribunal, 4A 128/2008 (19 August 2008) para 3.2.; Banque Arabe et Internationale d'Investissement v Inter-Arab Investment Guarantee Corp, Award (17 November 1994), (1996) 21 YBCA 13, 18; Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (adopted 10 June 1958, entered into force 7 June 1959) 330 UNTS 3 (New York Convention) art II.1; UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 with amendments as adopted in 2006 (UNCITRAL Model Law) art 7(1); E Gaillard and J Savage, Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 1999) 280; G Born, International Commercial Arbitration (3rd edn, Kluwer Law International 2021) 1518.
13 cf Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2020] EWCA Civ 6 and Cour d'appel (CA) Paris, Kabab-Ji SAL Company v Kout Food Group Company, Judgment (23 June 2020) (English translation available at <https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-kabab-ji-s-a-l-company-v-kout-food-group-company-judgment-of-the-paris-court-of-appeal-tuesday-23rd-june-2020#decision_11637>). See also Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2021] UKSC 48. On Dallah, see below Section IV.
14 cf Chevron Bangladesh Block Twelve, Ltd and Chevron Bangladesh Blocks Thirteen and Fourteen, Ltd v People's Republic of Bangladesh, ICSID Case No ARB/06/10, Award (17 May 2010) (Chevron v Bangladesh), (2011) 26 ICSID Review 265; Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd v Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration & Production Company Limited (Bapex) and Bangladesh Oil Gas and Mineral Corporation (Petrobangla), ICSID Case No ARB/10/18, Decision on Jurisdiction (19 August 2013) (Niko Resources v Bapex and Petrobangla). See below Section IV.
15 Swiss Federal Tribunal (19 July 1988), (1991) 16 YBCA 174, (1989) 80 ILR 652.
16 Brekoulakis, S, ‘Rethinking Consent in International Commercial Arbitration: A General Theory for Non-Signatories’ (2017) 8 JIDS 610, 612Google Scholar; Martines-Fraga, P, ‘The Dilemma of Extending International Commercial Arbitration Clauses to Third Parties: Is Protecting Federal Policy while Accommodating Economic Globalization a Bridge to Nowhere?’ (2013) 46 CornellIntlLJ 291, 294Google Scholar; see also Petrochilos (n 1) 119–30; A Mišović, ‘Binding Non-Signatories to Arbitrate—the United States Approach’ (2021) 37 ArbIntl 749.
17 M Magnarelli and AR Ziegler, ‘Irreconcilable Perspectives Like in an Escher's Drawing? Extension of an Arbitration Agreement to a Non-Signatory State and Attribution of State Entities’ Conduct: Privity of Contract in Swiss and Investment Arbitral Tribunals’ Case Law’ (2020) 36 ArbIntl 509, 519–20.
18 B Hanotiau, ‘The Issue of Non-Signatory States’ (2012) 23 AmRevIntlArb 379, 405. cf the approach of the arbitral tribunal and the Paris Court of Appeal in the Pyramides case, discussed below in Section IV.A.
19 See Born (n 12) 1525–6; B Hanotiau, ‘Problems Raised by Complex Arbitrations Involving Multiple Contracts - Parties - Issues – An Analysis’ (2001) 18 JIntlArb 251, 258; see also WW Park, ‘Non-Signatories and International Contracts: An Arbitrator's Dilemma’ in Permanent Court of Arbitration (ed), Multiple Party Actions in International Arbitration (Oxford University Press 2009) 3–33; G Petrochilos, ‘Extension of the Arbitration Clause to Non-Signatory States or State Entities: Does It Raise a Difference?’ in B Hanotiau and E Schwartz (eds), Multiparty Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2010) 119–28.
20 On the complexity of the issue, see Hosking, JM, ‘Non-Signatories and International Arbitration in the United States: the Quest for Consent’ (2004) 20 ArbIntl 289, 302Google Scholar and Girsberger, D and Hausmaninger, C, ‘Assignment of Rights and Agreement to Arbitration’ (1992) 8 ArbIntl 121, 149–50Google Scholar.
21 See BGH, III ZR 371/12 (8 May 2014); see also Landbrecht, J and Wehowsky, A, ‘Determining the Law Applicable to the Personal Scope of Arbitration Agreements and its “Extension”’ (2017) 35 ASA Bulletin 837, 851Google Scholar and K Schwedt, ‘When Does an Arbitration Agreement Have a Binding Effect on Non-Signatories? The Group of Companies Doctrine vs. Conflict of Laws Rules and Public Policy’ (Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 30 July 2014) <http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2014/07/30/when-does-an-arbitration-agreement-have-a-binding-effect-on-non-signatories-the-group-of-companies-doctrine-vs-conflict-of-laws-rules-and-public-policy/>.
22 Brekoulakis, ‘Rethinking Consent in International Commercial Arbitration: A General Theory for Non-Signatories’ (n 16) 629 (‘Under this approach, what matters is not whether a non-signatory has presumably consented to arbitration but whether and to what extent a non-signatory is actually implicated in the dispute before an arbitration tribunal’). However, in public international law, the fact that, without being subject to the jurisdiction of an international court or tribunal, a State is intrinsically implicated in a dispute between two States which is subject to that court's or tribunal's jurisdiction, speaks against—and not in favour of—the expansion of their jurisdiction ratione personae (personal jurisdiction). See Case of the monetary gold removed from Rome in 1943 (Preliminary Question) [1954] ICJ Rep 19, 32; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) [1984] ICJ Rep 392, 431, para 88; Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) (Application for Intervention) [1990] ICJ Rep 92, 114–16, paras 54–56; Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Preliminary Objections, Judgment) [1992] ICJ Rep 240, 258–62, paras 48–55; East Timor [1995] ICJ Rep 90, 102–5, paras 28–35; The M/V ‘Norstar’ Case (Panama v Italy) (Preliminary Objections Judgment of 4 November 2016) ITLOS Reports 2016, 44, para 172; Larsen v Hawaiian Kingdom, PCA Case No 1999-01, Award (5 February 2001) para 11.17; Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Corporation v Ecuador, PCA Case No 2009-23, Third Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (27 February 2012) para 4.60. cf N Zamir, ‘The Applicability of the Monetary Gold Principle in International Arbitration’ (2017) 33 ArbIntl 523; O Pomson, ‘Does the Monetary Gold Principle Apply to International Courts and Tribunals Generally ?’ (2019) 10 JIDS 88; M Paparinskis, ‘Revisiting the Indispensable Third Party Principle’ (2020) 103 Rivista di diritto internazionale 49; A Orakhelashvili, ‘The Competence of the International Court of Justice and the Doctrine of the Indispensable Party: From Monetary Gold to East Timor and Beyond’ (2011) 2 JIDS 373.
23 Mavroidis, PC, ‘Legal Eagles? The WTO Appellate Body's First Ten Years’ in Janow, M et al. (eds), The WTO: Governance, Dispute Settlement, and Developing Countries (Juris Publishing 2008) 360Google Scholar. See also Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2021] UKSC 48, para 1: ‘When a court has to decide whether an international arbitration agreement is valid or whether it covers a particular dispute, the first step is to identify which system of law the court must apply to answer this question.’
24 See eg Born (n 12) Ch 10.
25 cf R Jennings, ‘State Contracts in International Law’ (1961) 37 BYBIL 156; A McNair, The General Principles of Law Recognized by Civilized Nations’ (1957) 23 BYBIL 1; FA Mann, ‘State Contracts and State Responsibility’ (1960) 54 AJIL 572; P Weil, ‘Problèmes relatifs aux contrats passés entre un État et un particulier’ (1969) 128 RCADI 95; W Wengler, ‘Les accords entre états et entreprises étrangères sont-ils des traités de droit international’ (1972) 76 Revue générale de droit international public 313; G Sacerdoti, I Contratti tra Stati e Stranieri nel Diritto Internazionale (Giuffrè 1972); J Verhoeven, ‘Droit international des contrats et droit des gens’ [1978–79] Revue belge de droit international 209; AA Fatouros, ‘International Law and the Internationalized Contract’ (1980) 74 AJIL 134; GR Delaume, ‘State Contracts and Transnational Arbitration’ (1981) 75 AJIL 784; P Leboulanger, Les Contrats entre états et entreprises étrangères (Economica 1985); F Rigaux, ‘Les situations jurisdiques individuelles dans un système de relativité générale’ (1989) 213 RCADI 9, 154–69; AFM Maniruzzaman, ‘State Contracts in Contemporary International Law: Monist versus Dualist Controversies’ (2001) 12 EJIL 309; L El-Zein Lankarani, Les contrats d’État à l’épreuve du droit international (Bruylant 2001); Leben (n 3); I Alvik, Contracting with Sovereignty: State Contracts and International Arbitration (Hart 2011) 45–96; J Ho, ‘Unraveling the Lex Causae in Investment Claims’ (2014) 15 Journal of World Investment and Trade 757; CL Lim, J Ho and M Paparinskis, International Investment Law and Arbitration: Commentary, Awards and other Materials (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2021) 37–56. See also J Ho, State Responsibility for Breaches of Investment Contracts (Cambridge University Press 2018).
26 See Leben (n 3) 212.
27 See also the difficulties in determining what constitutes a ‘State entity’ for the purposes of applying art 13(4) of the ICC Rules; ICC, ‘Arbitration Involving States and State Entities under the ICC Rules of Arbitration, Report of the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR Task Force on Arbitration Involving States or State Entities’ (2012) para 40.
28 See Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2020] EWCA Civ 6, para 10. See also ES Romero and LM Velarder Saffer, ‘The Extension of the Arbitral Agreement to Non-Signatories in Europe: A Uniform Approach?’ (2018) 5 American University Business Law Review 371, 373 (‘The analysis of the extension of the arbitral agreement to nonsignatories should begin by identifying the law applicable to said agreement’).
29 Hanotiau, ‘Problems Raised by Complex Arbitrations Involving Multiple Contracts - Parties - Issues – An Analysis’ (n 19) 251, 255; Park, ‘Non-Signatories and International Contracts: An Arbitrator's Dilemma’ (n 19) 3–33, para 1.03. Disputes regarding the law applicable to arbitration agreements usually arise because the arbitration agreement is valid under one law, but void or unenforceable under another legal system. See also New York Convention art V(1)(a); see also UNCITRAL Model Law art 34(2)(a)(i). For that reason, certain legal systems opt for greater flexibility and, by implication, higher chances of upholding the validity of the arbitration clause. See Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA) art 178(2) and Spanish Arbitration Act 60 / 2003 (23 December 2003) art 9(6).
30 Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38 (Enka v Chubb) para 29; Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA v Enesa Engenharia SA [2012] EWCA Civ 638 (Sulamérica v Enesa) para 25. The parties can also agree on what the applicable law is after a dispute erupts; see eg Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC v AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP [2013] UKSC 35, para 6.
31 Enka v Chubb (n 30) para 43; Sulamérica v Enesa (n 30) para 11; S Pearson, ‘Sulamérica v Enesa: The Hidden Pro-Validation Approach Adopted by the English Courts with Respect to the Proper Law of the Arbitration Agreement’ (2013) 29 ArbIntl 115, 117; KP Berger, ‘Re-Examining the Arbitration Agreement, Applicable Law Consensus or Confusion?’ in A van den Berg (ed), ICCA, International Arbitration 2006: Back to Basics? (Kluwer Law International 2007) 301–34.
32 The distinction between the law of the seat (governing procedural matters (lex loci arbitri)) and the law applicable to the dispute (lex causae) is fundamental in international arbitration; see WW Park, ‘The Lex Loci Arbitri and International Commercial Arbitration’ (1983) 32 ICLQ 21; R Goode, ‘The Role of the Lex Loci Arbitri in International Commercial Arbitration’ (2001) 17 ArbIntl 19, 19. See also N Blackaby and C Partasides, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (6th edn, Oxford University Press 2015) para 1.10; State Joint Stock Company (Uzbekistan) v State Agency (India), ICC Case No 14667, Final Award (2011), (2015) 40 YBCA 51, 59–61.
33 Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd [1993] 1 All ER 664, 682, [1993] AC 334, 357–8.
34 Enka v Chubb (n 30) para 54. See also Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2020] EWCA Civ 6, para 62; Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2021] UKSC 48, para 35. See also Sulamérica v Enesa (n 30) para 26; Arsanovia v Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings [2012] EWHC 3702 (Comm) para 21; Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Ltd [1993] AC 334, 357–8 (per Lord Mustill); cf C v D [2007] EWCA Civ 1282, para 22; Abuja International Hotels Ltd v Meridien SAS [2012] EWHC 87 (Comm) paras 21 and 22. On the approach of the Courts in Singapore, see BNA v BNB and BNC [2019] SGCA 84; BCY v BCZ [2016] SGHC 249; FirstLink Investments Corp Ltd v GT Payment Pte Ltd and others [2014] SGHCR 12; A Yoong, ‘Of Principle, Practicality, and Precedents: The Presumption of the Arbitration Agreement's Governing Law’ (2021) 37 ArbIntl 653.
35 Enka v Chubb (n 30) para 118. See also Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2021] UKSC 48, para 35 (‘Once it is accepted that an express agreement as to the law which is to govern the arbitration agreement is not required and that any form of agreement will suffice, it seems difficult to resist the conclusion that a general choice of law clause in a written contract containing an arbitration clause will normally be a sufficient “indication” of the law to which the parties subjected the arbitration agreement. Furthermore, the considerations of principle which led us in Enka to reach the conclusions quoted at para 28 above apply with equal force where the question of validity arises, as it does in this case, after an award has been made in the context of enforcement proceedings under article V(1)(a) and section 103(2)(b) of the 1996 Act. Indeed, as we observed in Enka, at para 136, it would be illogical if the law governing the validity of the arbitration agreement were to differ depending on whether the question is raised before or after an award has been made. If there is to be consistency and coherence in the law, the same law should be applied - and therefore the principles for identifying the applicable law should be the same - in either case’).
36 Enka v Chubb (n 30) para 120. See also Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi AS v VSC Steel Company Ltd [2013] EWHC 4071 (Comm) para 101 and Balkan Energy (Ghana) Limited v Republic of Ghana, PCA Case No 2010-7, Interim Award (22 December 2010) para 151.
37 Peterson Farms Inc v C & M Farming Ltd [2004] EWHC 121 (Comm) para 45.
38 See also 2020 and 2014 LCIA Rules art 16(4); 1998 LCIA Rules art 16(3).
39 Ashot Egiazaryan and Vitaly Gogokhiya v OJSC OEK Finance and The City of Moscow [2015] EWHC 3532 (Comm) para 21.
40 See R Nazzini, ‘The Law Applicable to the Arbitration Agreement: towards Transnational Principles’ (2016) 65 ICLQ 681. The term ‘transnational’ is relatively new (coined by Philipp Jessup in the 1950s) compared to the term ‘international’, which was introduced by Jeremy Bentham in 1789 to describe what was known until then as the ‘law of nations’, P Jessup, Transnational Law (Yale University Press 1956) 2.
41 E Gaillard, ‘The Representation of International Arbitration’ (2010) 1 JIDS 271, 278. See also Government of Kuwait v American Independent Oil Company (Aminoil), Award (24 March 1982), (1982) 66 ILR 518, 560. cf FA Mann, ‘Lex Facit Arbitrum’ in P Sanders (ed), International Arbitration: Liber Amicorum for Martin Domke (Martinus Nijhoff 1967) 157 and E Gaillard, ‘International Arbitration as a Transnational System of Justice’ in A J Van Den Berg (ed), Arbitration – The Next Fifty Years, ICCA Congress Series No 16 (Kluwer Law International 2012) 66–73 (and more generally E Gaillard, Legal Theory of International Arbitration (Martinus Nijhoff 2010)); for a good overview of the debate see J Paulsson, ‘Arbitration in Three Dimensions’ (2011) 60 ICLQ 291 and Goode (n 32). See also FA Mann, ‘The UNCITRAL Model Law – Lex Facit Arbitrum’ (1986) 2 ArbIntl 241, 242; C Fragistas, ‘Arbitrage étranger et arbitrage international en droit privé’ (1960) Revue critique de droit international privé 1, 14; J-F Poudret and S Besson, Comparative Law on International Arbitration (2nd edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2007) 114–18; J Lew, L Mistelis and S Kröll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2003) and G Petrochilos, Procedural Law in International Arbitration (Oxford University Press 2004) Ch 2. See also Cour de Cassation (CC), Société PT Putrabali Adyamulia v Société Rena Holding et Société Moguntia Est Epices, 05-18.053 (29 June 2007).
42 CC, Municipalité de Khoms El Mergeb v Dalico, Judgment (20 December 1993), [1994] Rev Arb 116, 117. See Born (n12) Ch 4, fn 45 for further references.
43 Nazzini (n 40) 701–3.
44 Dow Chemical v Isover-Saint-Gobain, ICC Case No 4131, Interim Award (23 September 1982), (1984) 9 YBCA 131, 137. See also K Youssef, ‘The Limits of Consent: The Right or Obligation to Arbitrate of Non-Signatories in Groups of Companies’ in B Hanotiau and E Schwartz (eds), Multiparty Arbitration (Wolters Kluwer 2010) 71–110; Y Derains, ‘Is There a Group of Companies Doctrine?’ in B Hanotiau and E Schwartz (eds), Multiparty Arbitration (Wolters Kluwer 2010) 131–45; A Meyniel, ‘That Which Must Not Be Named: Rationalizing the Denial of U.S. Courts with Respect to the Group of Companies Doctrine’ (2013) 3 The Arbitration Brief 18–55. On the application of the ‘Group of Companies’ doctrine to arbitrations involving States, see M Henry, ‘La Théorie du Groupe de Sociétés Appliquée aux Arbitrages Impliquant un Etat – The Group of Companies Doctrine Applied to Arbitrations Involving a State’ [2006] IBLJ 297.
45 CA Paris, Société Isover-Saint-Gobain v Société Dow Chemical (21 October 1983), [1984] Rev Arb 98. See also Brekoulakis, ‘Rethinking Consent in International Commercial Arbitration: A General Theory for Non-Signatories’ (n 16) 615–17.
46 CA Paris, Kabab-Ji SAL Company v Kout Food Group Company, Judgment (23 June 2020) para 25 (English translation available at <https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-kabab-ji-s-a-l-company-v-kout-food-group-company-judgment-of-the-paris-court-of-appeal-tuesday-23rd-june-2020>). For a criticism of transnational approaches, see B Wortmann, ‘Choice of Law by Arbitrators: The Applicable Conflict of Laws System’ (1998) 14 ArbIntl 97; J Paulsson, ‘Arbitration in Three Dimensions’ (2011) 60 ICLQ 291, 305–6. cf Kabab-Ji SAL Company v Kout Food Group Company, ICC, Award (11 September 2017) para 127, quoted in Paris Cour d'appel, Kabab-Ji SAL Company v Kout Food Group Company, Judgment (23 June 2020) para 26.
47 See eg ICC Case No 8385 (1995), (1997) 124 JDI (Clunet) 1061.
48 ICC Case No 14208/14236, Partial Award (2008), (2013) 24(2) ICC Court Bulletin, para 391.
49 Case concerning the payment of various Serbian loans issued in France, Judgment (12 July 1929) Series A, No 14, 41 (‘[a]ny contract which is not a contract between States in their capacity as subjects of international law is based on the municipal law of some country. The question as to which this law is forms the subject of that branch of law which is at the present day usually described as private international law or the ‘‘doctrine of the conflict of laws’’’). See also Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, AS v The Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/97/4, Award (29 December 2004) para 59.
50 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 22 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331, art 2(1)(a). See also RSM Production Corporation v Central African Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/2, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability (excerpts) (7 December 2010) para 79.
51 Maniruzzaman (n 25).
52 Texaco Overseas Petroleum Co / California Asiatic Oil Co v Government of the Libyan Arab Republic, Award on the Merits (19 January 1977), (1979) 53 ILR 389 (Texaco and Calasiatic v Libya) 447–8, para 32; as the sole arbitrator in Texaco and Calasiatic v Libya held, ‘the application of the principles of Libyan law does not have the effect of ruling out the application of the principles of international law, but quite the contrary: it simply requires us to combine the two in verifying the conformity of the first with the second’ (460, para 49); J Cantegreil, ‘The Audacity of the Texaco/Calasiatic Award: René-Jean Dupuy and the Internationalization of Foreign Investment Law’ (2011) 22 EJIL 441; Fatouros (n 25); G Cohen-Jonathan, ‘L'arbitrage Texaco-Calasiatic contre Gouvernement Libyen: décision au fond du 19 janvier 1977’ (1977) 23 AFDI 452; J-F Lalive, ‘Un grand arbitrage pétrolier entre un Gouvernement et deux sociétés privées étrangères (Arbitrage Texaco/Calasiatic c. Gouvernement Libyen)’ (1977) 104 JDI (Clunet) 319.
53 K-H Böckstiegel, ‘States in the International Arbitral Process’ in JDM Lew (ed), Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration (Springer 1987) 40–9, 45–6. See eg art 22 of the Agreement between the Imperial Government of Persia and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company Ltd (Teheran, 29 April 1933), reproduced in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co case (1952) ICJ Pleadings 31–2.
54 Article 41 of the Agreement between the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) and Enterprise de Recherches et d'Activités Petroliers (ERAP) and Société Française des Petroles d'Iran (SOFIRAN) (27 August 1966), quoted in Elf Aquitaine Iran v National Iranian Oil Company, Preliminary Award (14 January 1982), (1994) 96 ILR 251, 257.
55 Clause 28 of the Deeds of Concession between Texaco and Libya, quoted in Texaco Overseas Petroleum Co / California Asiatic Oil Co v Government of the Libyan Arab Republic, Preliminary Award (27 November 1975), (1979) 53 ILR 389, 404; Clause 28 of the Deeds of Concession between LIAMCO and Libya, quoted in LIAMCO v Libya, Award (12 April 1977), (1981) 20 ILM 1, 33; Article 15(2) of the Agreement between AGIP and the People's Republic of Congo (now the Republic of the Congo), quoted in AGIP SpA v People's Republic of the Congo, ICSID Case No ARB/77/1, Award (30 November 1979), (1984) 67 ILR 318, 330–1, para 43; Paragraph 6 of the Agreement between Kaiser and Jamaica (30 December 1969), quoted in Kaiser Bauxite Company v Jamaica, ICSID Case No ARB/74/3, Decision on Jurisdiction and Competence (6 July 1975) para 12. See also Article III(2) of the 1979 Arbitration Agreement between Aminoil and Kuwait quoted in Aminoil (n 41) 561, providing that ‘[t]he law governing the substantive issues between the Parties shall be determined by the Tribunal, having regard to the quality of the Parties, the transnational character of their relations and the principles of law and practice prevailing in the modern world’.
56 See eg Section 4 of the Venezuelan State oil company PDVSA Guaranty regarding the Petrozuata project, quoted in Phillips Petroleum Company Venezuela Limited (Bermuda) and ConocoPhillips Petrozuata BV (The Netherlands) v Petroleos de Venezuela, SA (Venezuela), ICC Case No 16848, Award (17 September 2012) para 131.
57 See C Greenwood, ‘State Contracts in International Law—The Libyan Oil Arbitrations’ (1983) 53 BYBIL 27.
58 ibid 79–80.
59 Böckstiegel (n 53) 45–6. Respect for party autonomy in relation to the choice of law is naturally part of public international law, Grenada Private Power Limited and WRB Enterprises, Inc v Grenada, ICSID Case No ARB/17/13, Award (19 March 2020) para 215.
60 For a counter-example, see Dunkwa Continental Goldfields Limited and Continental Construction and Mining Company Limited v The Government of the Republic of Ghana, ICC Case No 18294, Award (9 July 2015) paras 334–347.
61 Lena Goldfields Ltd v Soviet Government, Award (3 September 1930), reproduced in (1950) 36 CornellLRev 31. See also Himpurna California Energy Ltd v PT PLN (Persero), UNCITRAL, Final award (4 May 1999) paras 41–43 and 337.
62 VV Veeder, ‘The Lena Goldfields Arbitration: The Historical Roots of Three Ideas’ (1998) 47 ICLQ 747, 750.
63 In the matter of an arbitration between Petroleum Development (Trucial Coast) Ltd and the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi, Award (28 August 1951), reproduced (1952) 1 ICLQ 247; Ruler of Qatar v International Marine Oil Company Ltd, Award (June 1953), (1957) 20 ILR 534. See also N Mersadi Tabari, Lex Petrolea and International Investment Law: Law and Practice in the Persian Gulf (Routledge 2017); I Alvik, ‘Arbitration in Long-Term International Petroleum Contracts: The “Internationalization” of the Applicable Law’ in KP Sauvant (ed), Yearbook on International Investment Law and Policy 2011–2012 (Oxford University Press 2013); AZ El-Chiati, ‘Protection of Investment in the Context of Petroleum Agreements’ (1987) 204 RCADI 9; K Mohammed Al-Jumah, ‘Arab State Contract Disputes: Lessons from the Past’ (2002) 17 ALQ 215. cf T Daintith, ‘Against “Lex Petrolea”’ (2017) 10 The Journal of World Energy Law & Business 1. Outside the oil concessions context, see Societe Rialet v Government of Ethiopia (1928–29) 8 Recueil des décisions des tribunaux arbitraux mixtes 742 (applying European Public Law in the absence of sufficiently developed Ethiopian law). See also J Gillis Wetter and SM Schwebel, ‘Some Little-Known Cases on Concessions’ (1964) 40 BYBIL 183 and A Leiter, ‘Protecting concessionary rights: General principles and the making of international investment law’ (2022) LeidenJIL (forthcoming).
64 Saudi Arabia v Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO), Award (23 August 1958), (1963) 27 ILR 117 (Aramco v Saudi Arabia) 165.
65 ibid 172.
66 Sapphire International Petroleums Ltd v National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Award (15 March 1963), (1967) 35 ILR 136 (Sapphire v NIOC) 172.
67 ibid 173.
68 ibid 175; see also M Paparinskis, ‘Sapphire Arbitration’, Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law (2010).
69 Alvik, Contracting with Sovereignty: State Contracts and International Arbitration (n 25) 35.
70 Texaco and Calasiatic v Libya (n 52) 455, para 44; Greenwood, ‘State Contracts in International Law—The Libyan Oil Arbitrations’ (n 57) 51; RB v Mehren and PN Kourides, ‘International Arbitrations between States and Foreign Private Parties: The Libyan Nationalization Cases’ (1981) 75 AJIL 476. See also Mobil Oil Iran, Inc v The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Partial Award (14 July 1987), 16 Iran–USCTR 1, 37, para 81.
71 Unpublished, cited in Weil (n 25) 169.
72 Bankswitch Ghana Ltd v The Republic of Ghana, UNCITRAL, Award Save as to Costs (11 April 2014) (Bankswitch v Ghana) para 11.68. See also CPconstruction Pioneers Baugesellschaft Anstalt v Government of the Republic of Ghana, Ministry of Roads and Transport, ICC Case No 12048, Partial Award (22 December 2003) para 131. See also Bankswitch v Ghana, para 11.64; ICC Case 5030, Award (1992), Y Derains, ‘Chronique des sentences arbitrales de la CCI’ (1993) JDI (Clunet) 1004–16; and Deutsche Schachtbau-und Tiefbohrgesellschaft mbH (DST) et al v The Government of the State of R'as Al Khaimah (UAE), The R'as Al Khaimah Oil Company (Rakoil) (UAE), ICC Case No 3572, Final Award (1982), (1989) 14 YBCA 117. cf HE Kjos, Applicable Law in Investor-State Arbitration: The Interplay between National and International Law (Oxford University Press 2013) 196–7; SM Schwebel, L Sobota and R Manton, International Arbitration: Three Salient Problems (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2020) 65–151.
73 Bankswitch v Ghana (n 72) paras 11.71–11.97.
74 ibid para 11.97.
75 Cambodia Power Company v Kingdom of Cambodia, ICSID Case No ARB/09/18, Decision on Jurisdiction (22 March 2011) (CPC v Cambodia) para 332. See also K Parlett, ‘Claims under Customary International Law in ICSID Arbitration’ (2016) 31 ICSID Review 434.
76 CPC v Cambodia (n 75) para 339.
77 Sandline International Inc and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea, Interim Award (9 October 1998), (2000) 117 ILR 552 (Sandline v Papua New Guinea) 560. See also Société d'Investigation de Recherche et d'Exploitation Minière v Burkina Faso, ICSID Case No ARB 97/1, Award (19 January 2000) paras 5.39 and 5.44. cf Wintershall AG, International Ocean Resources, Inc (formerly Koch Qatar, Inc) and others v The Government of Qatar, Partial Award on Liability (5 February 1988), (1989) 28 ILM 795, para 2.
78 Sandline v Papua New Guinea (n 77) 561–3.
79 Caratube International Oil Company LLP and Devincci Salah Hourani v Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No ARB/13/13, Award (27 September 2017) para 290.
80 Convention on the settlement of investment disputes between States and nationals of other States (adopted 18 March 1965, entered into force 14 October 1966) 575 UNTS 159, art 42(1).
81 Leben (n 3) 344.
82 Sapphire v NIOC (n 66) 171.
83 H Flavier and C Froge, ‘Administrative justice in France: Between singularity and classicism’ (2016) 2 BRICS Law Journal 80; G Langrod, ‘Administrative Contracts: A Comparative Study’ (1955) 4 AmJCompL 325.
84 Texaco and Calasiatic v Libya (n 52) 467–8; Mohamed Abdulmohsen Al-Kharafi & Sons Co v The Government of the State of Libya, The Ministry of Economy in the State of Libya, The General Authority for Investment Promotion and Privatization Affairs (formerly the General Authority for Investment and Ownership), Ministry of Finance in Libya, The Libyan Investment Authority, Final Award (22 March 2013) para 14.4.3.
85 See also Alvik, Contracting with Sovereignty: State Contracts and International Arbitration (n 25) 288.
86 It is another matter whether the investment treaty system radically enhanced the protection that foreign investors already enjoyed under contracts providing for international arbitration. See J Webb Yackee, ‘Pacta Sunt Servanda and State Promises to Foreign Investors before Bilateral Investment Treaties: Myth and Reality’ (2008) 32 FordhamIntlLJ 1550. On the ‘pre-history’ of international investment law, see J Hepburn et al., ‘Investment Law before Arbitration’ (2020) 23 EJIL 929.
87 See also Section I above.
88 Quoted in An industrial and agricultural investments company established by a convention between two Arab states to do business in the territory of one of them v The Minister of Economy and Finance in the host state, Award, CRCICA Case No 112/1998 (29 September 1998) in MEI Alam Eldin (ed), Arbitral Awards of the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration II (Kluwer Law International 2003) 148. See also Aramco v Saudi Arabia (n 64) 156 and JJ van Haersolte-van Hof and EV Koppe, ‘International Arbitration and the Lex Arbitri’ (2015) 31 Arbitration International 27, 47–8.
89 Lalive, ‘Contracts between a State or a State Agency and a Foreign Company: Theory and Practice: Choice of Law in a New Arbitration Case’ (n 2) 1000.
90 Government of the Province of East Kalimantan v PT Kaltim Prima Coal and others, ICSID Case No ARB/07/3, Award on Jurisdiction (28 December 2009) paras 14–15.
91 ibid.
92 M Dekastros, ‘Portfolio Investment: Reconceptualising the Notion of Investment under the ICSID Convention’ (2013) 14 Journal of World Investment and Trade 286, 290–3. This is often described as the ‘double-barrelled test’. Τhe relevant requirements are to be found in Article 25 of the Convention on the settlement of investment disputes between States and nationals of other States (adopted 18 March 1965, entered into force 14 October 1966) 575 UNTS 159 (the ICSID Convention). See, generally, CH Shreuer et al., The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2009) 71–341.
93 Government of the Province of East Kalimantan v PT Kaltim Prima Coal and others, ICSID Case No ARB/07/3, Award on Jurisdiction (28 December 2009) para 162.
94 ibid para 163.
95 ibid para 164.
96 ibid para 166 (emphasis added).
97 ibid paras 167–168.
98 ibid paras 177–185.
99 ibid paras 186–202.
100 ibid para 219.
101 See M Potesta, ‘The Interpretation of Consent to ICSID Arbitration Contained in Domestic Investment Laws’ (2011) 27 ArbIntl 149.
102 Mobil Corporation, Venezuela Holdings, BV, Mobil Cerro Negro Holding, Ltd, Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos Holdings, Inc, Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd, and Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos, Inc v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/07/27, Decision on Jurisdiction (10 June 2010) (Mobil v Venezuela) para 76.
103 Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/84/3, Decision on Jurisdiction (14 April 1988) para 61; Zhinvali Development Ltd v Republic of Georgia, ICSID Case No ARB/00/1, Award (24 January 2003) para 297; Mobil v Venezuela (n 102) para 85; Brandes Investment Partners, LP v The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/08/3, Award (2 August 2011) para 81. Tidewater Inc, Tidewater Investment SRL, Tidewater Caribe, CA, et al v The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/10/5, Decision on Jurisdiction (8 February 2013) para 81; OPIC Karimun Corporation v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Award (28 May 2013) para 76; Lighthouse Corporation Pty Ltd and Lighthouse Corporation Ltd, IBC v Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, ICSID Case No ARB/15/2, Award (22 December 2017) para 151. See also Société Resort Company Invest Abidjan, Stanislas Citerici and Gérard Bot v Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, ICSID Case No ARB/16/11, Decision on the Respondent Preliminary Objection to Jurisdiction, Dissenting Opinion of Kaj Hobér (1 August 2017) para 5; see also WM Reisman, ‘The Regime for Lacunae in the ICSID Choice of Law Provision and the Question of Its Threshold’ (2000) 15 ICSID Review 362.
104 Unpublished, see M Blessing, ‘Extension of an Arbitration Clause to Non-Signatories (Third Parties)’ (Summary/Hand-out by Marc Blessing, prepared for the KIEV Arbitration Days 14/15 November 2013) para 32 <http://www.uba.ua/documents/doc/mark_blessing_1.pdf>.
105 Chevron v Bangladesh (n 14) paras 129–149.
106 Niko Resources v Bapex and Petrobangla (n 14) para 247.
107 ibid.
108 See ILC, ‘Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries’ in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2001 (United Nations 2001) vol II(2), 39.
109 J Crawford, ‘Treaty and Contract in Investment Arbitration’ (2008) 24 ArbIntl 351, 363. EDF (Services) Limited v Romania, ICSID Case No ARB/05/13, Award (8 October 2009) para 319. See also Georg Gavrilovic and Gavrilovic d.o.o. v Republic of Croatia, ICSID Case No ARB/12/39, Award (25 July 2018) para 856; The City of London v Sancheti [2008] EWCA Civ 1283, para 35. On a more nuanced analysis of attribution rules in international investment arbitration, see C Kovacs, Attribution in International Investment Law (Kluwer International Law 2018). In Gécamines, references to these rules were made only to support the argument that ‘[t]he express distinction between a state and a separate entity has also achieved more general international legal recognition’, La Générale des Carrières et des Mines v FG Hemisphere Associates LLC [2012] UKPC 27, para 15.
110 Joint Venture Yashlar and Bridas SAPIC v Government of Turkmenistan, ICC Case No 9151, Interim Award (8 June 1999), Mealey's International Arbitration Report, Document 05-011026-020A, (2001) 16(10) International Arbitration Report 6, para 568.
111 For an excellent background of the saga, see J Paulsson, ‘The Pyramids Case’ (2014) 1 Collected Courses of the International Academy for Arbitration Law Year 2012, 1.
112 SPP (Middle East) Ltd and Southern Pacific Properties Ltd v Arab Republic of Egypt and Egyptian General Company for Tourism and Hotels, ICC Case No 3493, Award (16 February 1983), (1984) IX YBCA 111, (1985) 112 JDI (Clunet) 130, (1991) 86 ILR 434.
113 CA Paris, (1987) JDI (Clunet) 638, (1991) 86 ILR 474, 477. SPP successfully initiated ICSID arbitration against Egypt on the basis of Egypt's investment promotion legislation marking the beginning of a new era of ‘arbitration without privity’, J Paulsson, ‘Arbitration without Privity’ (1995) 10 ICSID Review 232; Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/84/3, Decision on Jurisdiction (14 April 1988).
114 Bridas SAPIC, Bridas Energy International Ltd, Intercontinental Oil and Gas Ventures Ltd and Bridas Corporation v Government of Turkmenistan and State Concern Tukmenneft, 345 F 3d 347, 358 (5th Cir 2003) (Bridas I) (emphasis added). cf Joint Venture Yashlar and Bridas SAPIC v Government of Turkmenistan (n 110) Section 6.
115 Bridas I (n 114) 358. However, the US Court of Appeal held that ‘[b]ecause the district court failed to take into account all of the aspects of the relationship between the Government and Turkmenneft, it committed an error of law and must reconsider the issue on remand’ (p 360). On the second Bridas case before the US Court of Appeal, see below Section IV.B.
116 Lord Mance, ‘Arbitration: A Law unto Itself’ (2016) 32 ArbIntl 223; J Kleinheisterkamp, ‘Lord Mustill and the Courts of Tennis – Dallah v Pakistan in England, France and Utopia’ (2012) 75 MLR 639, 653; P Mayer, ‘The Extension of the Arbitration Clause to Non-Signatories – the Irreconcilable Positions of French and English Courts’ (2012) 27 AmUIntlLRev 831; Hanotiau, ‘The Issue of Non-Signatory States’ (n 18) 398–401; D Khanna, ‘Dallah: The Supreme Court's Positively Pro-Arbitration “No” to Enforcement’ (2011) 28 JIntLArb 127; GA Bermann, ‘The UK Supreme Court Speaks to International Arbitration: Learning from the Dallah Case’ (2011) 22 AmRevIntlArb 1. See, generally, SL Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration (Oxford University Press 2011).
117 Dallah v Government of Pakistan [2010] UKSC 46, para 145, per Lord Collins.
118 CA Paris, Gouvernement du Pakistan – Ministère des Affaires Religieuses c Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company, Case No 09/28533 (17 February 2011) (English translation in (2012) 51 ILM 288, 291).
119 cf the analysis in Mohamed Abdulmohsen Al-Kharafi & Sons Co v The Government of the State of Libya and others (ad hoc arbitration subject to the Unified Agreement for the Investment of Arab Capital in the Arab States), Final Arbitral Award (22 March 2013) 257–67, as well as CA Paris, Le Gouvernement de l'Etat Libyen et al c Société Mohamed Abdel Moshen Al-Kharafi et Fils (28 October 2013) 13/18811 and 13/19246.
120 Banque Arabe et Internationale d'Investissement v Inter-Arab Investment Guarantee Corp (n 12). See C Greenwood, ‘Some Challenges of International Litigation’ (2012) 1 CJICL 1, 14–16.
121 Ambatielos case (Judgment) [1953] ICJ Rep 10, 19; Status of Eastern Carelia PCIJ Rep Series B No 5 (1923) 27; see also Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, 32, para 44; Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia / Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Judgment) [1985] ICJ Rep 192, 216, para 43; Interpretation of Peace Treaties (Advisory Opinion) [1950] ICJ Rep 65, 71; Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening) (Judgment) [2002] ICJ Rep 303, 421, para 238.
122 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda) (Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment) [2006] ICJ Rep 6, 39, para 88; see also Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v France) (Judgment) [2008] ICJ Rep 177, 200–1, para 48.
123 Case concerning the factory at Chorzów PCIJ Rep Series A No 9 (27 July 1927) 32.
124 Corfu Channel case (Judgment on Preliminary Objection) [1948] ICJ Rep 15, 27.
125 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda) (Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment) [2006] ICJ Rep 6, 18–19, para 21.
126 ICC Case No 1939 cited by Y Derains in [1973] Rev Arb 145; also quoted in Company Z and Others v State Organization ABC [Framatome v Atomic Energy Organization of Iran], Award (April 1982), (1983) 8 YBCA 94, 115.
127 Benteler v Belgium, Award (18 November 1983), (1984) JIntlArb 184, 190.
128 A Insurance Companies v B and C, Interim Award, ICC Case No 10947 (June 2002), (2004) 22 ASA Bulletin 320–1.
129 J Paulsson, ‘May a State Invoke Its Internal Law to Repudiate Consent to International Commercial Arbitration?’ (1986) 2 ArbIntl 90, 98. See also Malicorp Ltd (UK) v The Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and others, CRCICA Case No 382/2004, Final Award (7 March 2006) in MEI Alam Eldin (ed), Arbitral Awards of the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration Vol IV (Kluwer Law International 2014) 18.
130 Company Z and Others v State Organization ABC [Framatome v Atomic Energy Organization of Iran] (n 126) 108–9 (emphasis added).
131 S v State X [Salini Costruttori SPA v The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority], ICC Case No 10623, Award (7 December 2001), (2003) 21(1) ASA Bulletin 82, 92, para 161. See also ICC Case No 14470, Final Award (2008), (2011) JDI 1229, 1233.
132 S v State X [Salini Costruttori SPA v The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa Water and Sewerage Authority] (n 131) 96, para 166. See also CA Paris, Bec Frères v The Ministry of Infrastructure of Tunisia (24 February 1994). See also Sapphire v NIOC (n 66), Sandline v Papua New Guinea (n 77), and Bankswitch v Ghana (n 72) discussed above in Section III.
133 D Sarooshi, ‘Investment Treaty Arbitration and the World Trade Organization: What Role for Systemic Values in the Resolution of International Economic Disputes?’ (2014) TexIntlLJ 445, 456. See also Sandline v Papua New Guinea (n 77) 561.
134 Niko Resources v Bapex and Petrobangla (n 14) para 255.
135 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Judgment) [1970] ICJ Rep 3, 39, para 58. See also Leben (n 3) 237.
136 First National City Bank v Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba 462 US 611 (1983) 621–3.
137 ibid 633. See also MA Finklestein, ‘First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba: Act of State and Choice of Law Aspects of Suing Foreign Governmental Corporations’ (1983) 9 NCJIntlL&ComReg 147; M Leigh, ‘The Supreme Court and the Sabbatino Watchers: First National City Bank v. Banco Nacional de Cuba’ (1972–73) 13 VaJIntlL 33; AF Lowenfeld, ‘Act of State and Department of State: First National City Bank v. Banco Nacional de Cuba’ (1972) 66 AJIL 795.
138 B Hanotiau, Complex Arbitrations, Multiparty, Multicontract, Multi-Issue (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2020) para 132 (emphasis added).
139 Bridas SAPIC v Government of Turkmenistan, 447 F 3d 411, 420 (5th Cir 2006) (Bridas II).
140 Wass, J, ‘Jurisdiction by Estoppel and Acquiescence in International Courts and Tribunals’ (2015) 86 BYBIL 155, 194Google Scholar.