This presentation is twofold. The first part shows that the Nicaragua case played a significant role in reconciling the Third World with the International Court of Justice and, more generally, in revitalizing the Court. In the second part, the author, who was counsel for Nicaragua in that case, casts an eye as external analyst on the judgments of 1984, about which he has some reluctance, and 1986, which he largely approves of, even though Nicaragua did not win 100 per cent and some points may be debatable.

Jurisdiction — Competence of icsid and the Tribunal — Article 25 prerequisites of icsid competence — Legal dispute arising out of investment — Dispute arising between Contracting State and national of another Contracting State — Consent to submit dispute to Centre

Non-appearance — Absence of representation on the part of Zaire — Oral phase inevitable — Issues of competence and merits joined

Treaties — Alleged violation of 1984 Zaire–US Bilateral Investment Agreement — Requirement of consultation and negotiation

State responsibility — Obligation of protection and security of investment — Measures necessary to ensure full enjoyment of rights — Zaire responsible for inability to prevent consequences

Expropriation — No expropriation found — Failure to respect minimum standard of treatment — Soldiers acted individually — Armed forces not found to have expropriated property

Compensation — Method of calculating compensation — What is plausible and realistic in the circumstances — Not reasonable to expect same levels of compensation as in Switzerland or Germany

Expropriation — Taking of property — Repudiation by State of its contractual obligations — Confiscation of property without proper notice — Proper law of agreement — Law of Contracting State to be supplemented by international law

Non-appearance — Procedure in default of appearance by State — No lack of notification — Tribunal required to examine substantive merits of both parties’ assertions — Non-appearance of one party not entitling other to award as matter of right

Nationality — Of party to dispute — Company incorporated in Contracting State party wholly owned and controlled by nationals of another Contracting State — Whether company national of other Contracting State for purposes of icsid jurisdiction — Relevance of ownership and control — Relevance of evidence indicating company to be treated as national of other Contracting State

Jurisdiction — Of arbitration tribunal — Legal dispute ansmg from an investment — Meaning of “investment” — Whether amounts paid and undertakings carried out under concession agreement an investment — Nationality of parties — Whether company incorporated in one Contracting State a national of another Contracting State — Relevance of nationality of controlling stock holders

Compensation — For expropriation — Measure of damages — Damnum emergens and lucrum cessans — Amounts invested and lost due to confiscation — Loss of profits — Costs and expenses incurred

Arbitrators — Appointment — Arbitration clause submitting disputes to icsid contained in agreements — Arbitrators to be appointed by parties — State refusing to appoint arbitrator — Procedure in event of default of party to appoint arbitrator

Jurisdiction — Of tribunal — Agreement to arbitrate — Requirement of written consent — Arbitration clause submitting disputes to icsid contained in agreements — Whether arbitration clause sufficient written consent to arbitrate

Jurisdiction — Of tribunal — Unilateral notification by State of intention to exclude type of dispute from icsid jurisdiction operative in respect of prior consent to arbitrate Whether notification

Non-appearance — Company instituting arbitration proceedings — State failing to appear before tribunal — Procedure in default of appearance

Jurisdiction — Of tribunal — Legal dispute arising from investment — Meaning of “investment”