Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:10:54.084Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Public—Private Distinction in the International Arbitration of Individual Claims against the State

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Gus Van Harten
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Does the rise of international arbitration signify a retreat of the State from classical adjudication? In examining this question, it is important to distinguish contract-based arbitration of individual claims against the State from arbitration pursuant to investment treaties. The former is broadly limited to the private sphere of the State's activity, whereas the latter gives arbitrators a comprehensive jurisdiction over public law. An elaboration of this distinction, and the grey area within it, demonstrates that the significance of international arbitration for juridical sovereignty is its privatization of the authority to define the very concept of the public sphere.

Type
Shorter Articles, Comments, and Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , April 2007 , pp. 371 - 393
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2007

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 Strange, S, The Retreat of the State (CUP, Cambridge, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Freeman, J, ‘The Private Role in Public Governance’ (2000) 75 NYU L Rev 543, 546–8.Google Scholar

3 Casella, A, ‘On Market Integration and the Development of Institutions: The Case of International Commercial Arbitration’ (1996) 40 Eur Econ Rev 155, 155–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sassen, S, Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization (Columbia University Press, New York, 1996) 14–16Google Scholar; Mattli, W, ‘Private Justice in a Global Economy: From Litigation to Arbitration’ (2001) 55 Intl Org 919, 923–6 and 944–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Teubner, G, ‘“Global Bukowina”: Legal Pluralism in the World Society’ in Teubner, (ed), Global Law Without a State (Dartmouth, Aldershot, 1997) 10–11Google Scholar; id, ‘Contracting Worlds: The Many Autonomies of Private Law’ (2000) 9 Social & Legal Studies 399, 402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Wai, R, ‘Transnational Liftoff and Juridical Touchdown: The Regulatory Function of Private International Law in an Era of Globalization’ (2002) 40 Col J Transnatl L 207, 215–19.Google Scholar Note that relevant treaties and domestic laws dealing with the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards generally limit the grounds on which a court may set aside an award to error of jurisdiction, gross procedural impropriety, or public policy; by excluding review for errors of law, therefore, disputes are left to be resolved on the merits by arbitrators. See, eg, United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 10 06 1958, 330 UNTS 3 (entered into force 7 06 1959)Google Scholar, Art V [hereinafter New York Convention]; Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 21 06 1985, UNCITRAL, UN Doc A/40/17, Annex I, 24 ILM 1302, Art 34–6.Google Scholar

6 Snyder, F, ‘Governing Economic Globalisation: Global Legal Pluralism and European Law’ (1999) 5 Eur LJ 334, 341–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Redfern, A and Hunter, M, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (4th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2004) 138–9 and 256.Google Scholar

8 eg International Law Commission, ‘Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts’ Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-Third Session, UN GAOR, 56th Sess, Supp No 10, UN Doc A/56/10 (2001) 43Google Scholar, Arts 4 and 5.

9 Hennigs, R Von, ‘European Convention on State Immunity and Other International Aspects of Sovereignty Immunity’ (2001) 9 Willamette J Intl L & Disp Resolution 185, 186–7.Google Scholar

10 Trendtex Trading Corp v Central Bank of Nigeria [1977] QB 529, 557–8 (CA)Google Scholar [hereinafter Trendtex]. Delaume, GR, ‘Sovereign Immunity and Transnational Arbitration’ (1987) 3 Arbitration Intl 28, 28–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 eg European Convention on State Immunity, 16 05 1972, 74 Euro TS, 11 ILM 470Google Scholar, Art 7(1) (entered into force 11 06 1976)Google Scholar; Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 USC, 847 F Supp 61, s 1605(a) (1976) (US); State Immunity Act 1978, c 33, s 3 (UK).Google Scholar

12 I Congreso del Partido [1983] 1 AC 244, 267 (HL)Google Scholar, citing Claim against the Empire of Iran (1963), 45 ILR 57, 80 (Ger Fed Const Ct).Google ScholarSee also Republic of Argentina v Weltover, 504 US 607, 613–14 (1992).Google Scholar

13 See Freeman, (n 2) 547–9Google Scholar; Cutler, A Claire, ‘Critical Reflections on the Westphalian Assumptions of International Law and Organization: A Crisis of Legitimacy’ (2001) 27 Rev of Int'l Studies 133, 138Google Scholar; Mullan, D and Ceddia, A, ‘The Impact on Public Law of Privatization, Deregulation, Outsourcing, and Downsizing: A Canadian Perspective’ (2003) 10 Indiana J Global Legal Studies 199, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Harlow, C, ‘“Public” and “Private” Law: Definition Without Distinction’ (1980) 43 MLR 241.Google Scholar

15 Feldthusen, B, ‘The Recovery of Pure Economic Loss in Canada: Proximity, Justice, Rationality and Chaos’ (1996) 24 Manitoba LJ 1, 2.Google Scholar

16 Teubner, (1997) (n 4) 7Google Scholar; Oliver, D, Common Values and the Public–Private Divide (Butterworths, London, 1999) 1–2.Google Scholar

17 eg Brower, CN, Brower, CH II, and Sharpe, JK, ‘The Coming Crisis in the Global Adjudicative System’ (2003) 19 Arbitration Intl 415, 415 (characterizing all investment disputes as commercial disputes).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Harten, G Van and Loughlin, M, ‘Investment Treaty Arbitration as a Species of Global Administrative Law’ (2006) 17 EJIL 121, 122.Google Scholar

19 Roland, BR, ‘The Access of Individuals to International Trade Dispute Settlement’ (1996) 13 J Intl Arb 143, 146 (arguing that ‘[T]he foremost goal of trade law is to surmount outdated principles of State sovereignty for the sake of individual welfare’); Cutler (n 13) 134–7.Google Scholar

20 Jackson, R, ‘Sovereignty in World Politics: a Glance at the Conceptual and Historical Landscape’ (1999) 47 Pol Studies 431, 453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Palan, R, ‘Trying to Have Your Cake and Eating It: How and Why the State System Has Created Offshore’ (1998) 42 Intl Studies Q 625, 630CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sorensen, G, ‘Sovereignty: Change and Continuity in a Fundamental Institution’ (1999) 47 Pol Studies 590, 604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Wallerstein, I, ‘States? Sovereignty?’ in Smith, DA, Solinger, DJ, and Topik, SC (eds), States and Sovereignty in the Global Economy (Routledge, London, 1999) 23Google Scholar; Koskenniemi, M, ‘What Is International Law For?’ in Evans, MD (ed), International Law (OUP, Oxford, 2004) 96; Jackson (n 20).Google Scholar

23 Jackson, (n 20) 432Google Scholar; Brownlie, I, Principles of Public International Law (6th edn, OUP, Oxford, 2003) 119 and 289Google Scholar; Loughlin, M, Public Law and Political Theory (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992) 58 and 93.Google Scholar

24 Tollefson, C, ‘Games without Frontiers: Claims and Citizen Submissions under the NAFTA Regime’ (2002) 27 Yale J Intl L 141, 144.Google Scholar

25 Jennings, WI, The Law and the Constitution (University of London Press, London, 1959) 312Google Scholar; Cohen, D and Smith, JC, ‘Entitlement and the Body Politic: Rethinking Negligence in Public Law’ (1986) 64 Canadian Bar Rev 1, 5–6Google Scholar; Harlow, C and Rawlings, R, Law and Administration (Butterworths, London, 1997) 5 and 41–5; Loughlin (n 23) 6, 78, and 82.Google Scholar

26 eg Victory Transport case, 35 ILR 110Google Scholar, US District Court of Appeals (characterizing as exclusively sovereign: internal administrative acts, such as the expulsion of an alien; legislative acts, such as nationalization; acts concerning the armed forces; acts concerning diplomatic activity; and public loans); Waste Management Inc v United Mexican States (Merits) (30 04 2004), 43 ILM 967, 16(4) World Trade and Arb Mat 3, para 174Google Scholar (‘Any private party can fail to perform its contracts, whereas nationalization and expropriation are inherently governmental acts’).

27 Chayes, A, ‘The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation’ (1976) 89 Harv L Rev 1281, 1282–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Rau, AS, ‘Integrity in Private Judging’ (1997) 38 South Texas L Rev 455, 486–7; Redfern and Hunter (n 7) 131.Google Scholar

29 Damas˘ka, M, ‘Activism in Perspective’ (1983) 92 Yale LJ 1189, 1191–2; Loughlin (n 23) 5 and 12.Google Scholar

30 See UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2003 (United Nations, New York, 2003) c IV.Google Scholar

31 Including both bilateral investment treaties and regional agreements that contain provisions on compulsory investment arbitration. See, eg, UNCTAD, Bilateral Investment Treaties—1959–1999 (United Nations, New York, 2000)Google Scholar; North American Free Trade Agreement, 17 12 1992, 32 ILM 296 and 605 (entered into force 1 01 1994)Google Scholar, Arts 1116 and 1117; Energy Charter Treaty, 17 12 1994, 35 ILM 509, Art 26.Google Scholar

32 See Van Harten and Loughlin (n 18).

33 eg the Alabama Claims Arbitration established after the American Civil War, the Mixed Tribunals and Claims Commissions after the First World War, the Iran–United States Claims Commission after the Islamic revolution in Iran, and the UN Compensation Commission after the Gulf War of 1990–1. See Collier, J and Lowe, V, The Settlement of Disputes in International Law (OUP, Oxford, 1999) chs 1 and 3.Google Scholar

34 Paulsson, J, ‘Arbitration without Privity’ (1995) 10 ICSID Rev 232, 233, and 240.Google Scholar

35 eg Mattli (n 3) 945; Donovan, DF ‘Introduction to Articles—Dallas Workshop on Arbitrating with Sovereigns’ (2002) 18 Arbitration Intl 229, 229CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alvarez, GA and Park, WW, ‘The New Face of Investment Arbitration: NAFTA Chapter 11’ (2003) 28 Yale J Intl L 365, 393Google Scholar; Brower, et al. (n 17) 415 and 432–5.Google Scholar See also Toope, SJ, Mixed International Arbitration—Studies in Arbitration Between States and Private Persons (Grotius Publications, Cambridge, 1990) 389 (noting the tendency to approach investment arbitration ‘purely as a subcategory of international commercial arbitration and thus infused with the values of that process’).Google Scholar

36 The presiding arbitrator is normally appointed, in the absence of agreement between the disputing parties, by a designated appointing authority.

37 eg ICSID, Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings, rev 26 09 1984 and 1 01 2003 (original rules 1968), reprinted in Convention, Regulations and Rules (ICSID, Washington, 2003) 93Google ScholarPubMed; Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, UNGA Res 31/98, UN GAOR, 31st Session, Supp No 17, UN Doc A/31/17, c V, s C (1976)Google Scholar; and Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, rev 1 01 1998 (original rules 1922), online: International Chamber of Commerce <http://www.iccwbo.org/court/english/arbitration/rules.asp>..>Google Scholar

38 New York Convention (n 5).

39 For a more detailed discussion, see Van Harten and Loughlin (n 18) 139–45.

40 eg Congreso del Partido (n 12).

41 Trendtex (n 10) 558.

42 Chayes (n 27) 1294–5 and 1302. See also Abbot, EV, ‘The Police Power and the Right to Compensation’ (1889) 3 Harv L Rev 189CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fuller, LL, ‘Consideration and Form’ (1941) 41 Col L Rev 799, 806–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 eg Myers, SD, Inc v Government of Canada (Merits) (12 11 2000), 40 ILM 1408Google Scholar, 15(1) World Trade and Arb Mat 184 [claim arising out of a legislative prohibition on waste exports]; CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentine Republic (Merits) (12 05 2005), ICSID Case No ARB/01/8, online: Investment Treaty Arbitration <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/CMS_FinalAward.pdf>, para 53–6,+para+53–6>Google Scholar [legislative reform of currency system]; Metalclad Corporation v United Mexican States (Merits) (30 08 2000), 40 ILM 36, 13(1) World Trade and Arb Mat 45 [State Government designation of a park]Google Scholar; Occidental Exploration and Production Company v Republic of Ecuador (Merits) (1 07 2004)Google Scholar, London Court of International Arbitration Administered Case No UN 3467, online: Investment Treaty Arbitration <http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/Oxy-EcuadorFinalAward_001.pdf>, para 32 [administrative denial of value-added tax refunds] Loewen Group, Inc and Raymond L Loewen v USA (Merits) (26 06 2003), 42 ILM 811, 15(5) World Trade and Arb Mat 97 [judicial conduct of a jury trial].Google Scholar

44 Paulsson, (n 34) 256Google Scholar; Wälde, TW, ‘Investment Arbitration Under the Energy Charter Treaty—From Dispute Settlement to Treaty Implementation’ (1996) 12 Arbitration Intl 429, 434–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Afilalo, A, ‘Constitutionalization Through the Back Door: A European Perspective on NAFTA's Investment Chapter’ (2001) 34 NYU J Intl L & Pol 1, 4.Google Scholar

45 Yu, H-L and Shore, L, ‘Independence, Impartiality, and Immunity of Arbitrators—US and English Perspectives’ (2003) 52 ICLQ 935, 965–6.Google Scholar

46 Dicey, AV, An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution [1885] (8th edn, Macmillan, London, 1915) 4, 18–19, 68–72, and 103.Google Scholar

47 eg Schreuer, C, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (CUP, Cambridge, 2001) 233Google Scholar; Douglas, Z, ‘The Hybrid Foundations of Investment Treaty Arbitration’ (2003) 74 BYIL 151, 221–2 and 237.Google Scholar

48 The investor's consent is akin to a party's entry into an agreement to arbitrate—or compromis—after the dispute has arisen.

49 This is ‘generally speaking’ only because some investment treaties allow counter-claims by the respondent State after an investor has made a claim under the treaty although in all cases it is the investor who triggers the use of the system.

50 Such as in the case of the International Criminal Court whose jurisdiction is limited (but for cases referred to the court by the UN Security Council) to acts of individuals that were committed either within the territory of a State Party or by a national of a State Party: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 07 1998, 37 ILM 999 (entered into force 1 08 2002) Art 12(2).Google Scholar

51 Peter, W, Arbitration and Renegotiation of International Investment Agreements (Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 1995) 136–42.Google Scholar

52 See Amnesty International, ‘Contracting out of Human Rights: The Chad—Cameroon pipeline project’ (London, 09 2005).Google Scholar

53 Reproduced in ibid 46, n 67.

54 ibid 28–33.

55 Peter (n 51) 11–12.

56 McLean, J, ‘Government to State: Globalization, Regulation, and Governments as Legal Persons’ (2003) 10 Indiana J Global Legal Stud 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57 See generally Jennings, RY, ‘State Contracts in International Law’ (1961) 37 BYIL 156, 177–8Google Scholar; Lalive, J-F, ‘Contracts Between a State or a State Agency and a Foreign Company’ (1964) 18 ICLQ 987, 1008–11.Google Scholar

58 Wetter, JG, ‘Pleas of Sovereign Immunity and Act of Sovereignty before International Arbitral Tribunals’ (1985) 2 J Intl Arbitration 7, 14–15.Google Scholar

59 Texaco Overseas Petroleum Co & California Asiatic Oil Co v Government of the Libyan Arab Republic (Merits) (19 01 1977), 17 ILM 4 [hereinafter Texaco].Google Scholar

60 First, R, Libya—The Elusive Revolution (Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1974) c 10.Google Scholar

61 Texaco (n 59) paras 70–1.

62 Lillich, R, ‘The Law Governing Disputes Under Economic Development Agreements: Reexamining the Concept of “Internationalization”’ in Lillich, R and Brower, CN (eds), International Arbitration in the 21st Century (Transnational Publishers, New York, 1994) 68–9.Google Scholar For a contrary view see, eg, Bowett, , ‘State Contracts With Aliens’ (1988) 59 BYIL 49.Google Scholar

63 Texaco (n 59) para 73. See also AGIP SpA v People's Republic of Congo (Merits) (30 11 1979) 1 ICSID Rep 306, 21 ILM 726, para 85 (‘The unilaterally-decided dissolution which took place under Order No 6/75 represented a repudiation of these stability clauses, whose application results not from the automatic play of the sovereignty of the contracting State but from the common will of the parties expressed at the level of international juridical order’).Google Scholar

64 Ghai, Y, ‘Management Contracts’ in Ghai, Y, Luckham, R, and Snyder, F (eds), The Political Economy of Law (OUP, Dehli, 1987) 389–98.Google Scholar

65 Asante, SKB, ‘Stability or Contractual Relations in the Transnational Investment Process’ (1979) 28 ICLQ 401, 403–4Google Scholar; Sornarajah, M, The Settlement of Foreign Investment Disputes (Kluwer, Boston, 2001).Google Scholar See also UNCTADM, State Contracts, UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements (United Nations, New York, 2004) 3–5.Google ScholarPubMed

66 Texaco (n 59) paras 54–7.

67 Such as the principle that one elected government may not bind another, so as to maintain the ability of the sovereign ‘to change its policies in order to reflect the will of the people (particularly after a change of government) or to reflect new circumstances (such as evidence of a new risk to public health)’: Davies, ACL, ‘Ultra Vires Problems in Government Contracts’ (2006) 122 LQR 98, 105.Google Scholar

68 Nassar, N, ‘Internationalization of State Contracts: ICSID, The Last Citadel’ (1997) 14 J Intl Arbitration 185, 192Google Scholar; Maniruzzaman, AFM, ‘State Contracts in Contemporary International Law: Monist versus Dualist Controversies’ (2001) 12 EJIL 309, 315.Google Scholar

69 Wena Hotels Ltd v Egypt (Merits) (8 12 2000), 41 ILM 896Google Scholar [hereinafter Wena Hotels]. See also Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija SA & Vivendi Universal v Argentine Republic (Annulment) (3 07 2002), 6 ICSID Rep 340, paras 95–6.Google Scholar

70 Wena Hotels, ibid para 84.

71 UNCTAD (n 65) 19–23.

72 Sinclair, AC, ‘The Origins of the Umbrella Clause in the International Law of Investment Protection’ (2004) 20 Arbitration Intl 411, 412–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

73 Karl, J, ‘The Promotion and Protection of German Foreign Investment Abroad’ (1996) 11 ICSID Rev—FILJ 1, 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schreuer, C, ‘Travelling the BIT route: of waiting periods, umbrella clauses and forks in the road’ (2004) 5 J World Investment and Trade 231, 250Google Scholar; Vicuña, FO, ‘Of Contracts and Treaties in the Global Market’ (2004) 8 Max Planck Ybk UN Law 341.Google Scholar

74 SGS Société Générale de Surveillance v Pakistan (Jurisdiction) (6 08 2003), 18 ICSID Rev 307Google Scholar, 16(2) World Trade and Arb Mat 167 [hereinafter SGS v Pakistan]; SGS Société Générale de Surveillance v Philippines (Jurisdiction) (29 01 2004), 16 World Trade and Arb Mat 91Google Scholar [hereinafter SGS v Philippines]. See Franck, SD, ‘The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law Through Inconsistent Decisions’ (2005) 73 Fordham L Rev 1521, 1569–74Google Scholar; T-H, Cheng, ‘Power, Authority and International Investment Law’ (2005) 20 Am U Intl L Rev 465, 473–4.Google Scholar

75 SGS v Pakistan, ibid para 171.

76 Although the tribunal also reserved the possibility that a contractual breach by the State could violate the umbrella clause in exceptional circumstances, such as where the State impeded the ability of an investor to prosecute its claims before an international arbitration tribunal, having previously agreed to such arbitration in a contract with the investor: ibid para 172.

77 ibid para 119.

78 ibid para 168. The tribunal also found that a broad reading would make superfluous the other substantive obligations of the States Parties, that the language of the umbrella clause did not expressly refer to ‘contractual’ commitments, and that the location of the umbrella clause in the treaty text indicated that it was not meant to be a substantive obligation: paras 168–9.

79 SGS v Philippines (n 74) para 126.

80 ibid para 22.

81 See UNCTAD (n 65) 27–31.

82 As suggested in SGS v Pakistan (n 74).

83 Hogg, PW and Monahan, PJ, Liability of the Crown (3rd edn, Carswell, Toronto, 2000) 143–4.Google Scholar

84 UNCTAD (n 65) 35, n 15.

85 See Harlow, C, State Liability—Tort Law and Beyond (OUP, Oxford, 2004) 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

86 Dezaley, Y, ‘Between the State, Law, and the Market: The Social and Professional Stakes in the Construction and Definition of a Regulatory Arena’ in Bratton, WW et al. (eds), International Regulatory Competition and Coordination (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996) 84–6; Rau (n 28) 455, 488, 496–7 and 521.Google Scholar