Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements A Guide To The Key Issues 2Nd Edition Katia Yannaca Small Editor Full Chapter

Arbitration Under International
Investment Agreements: A Guide to the

Key Issues 2nd Edition Katia
Yannaca-Small (Editor)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/arbitration-under-international-investment-agreement
s-a-guide-to-the-key-issues-2nd-edition-katia-yannaca-small-editor/
ARBITRATION UNDER INTERNATIONAL
INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS
ARBITRATION
UNDER
INTERNATIONAL
INVESTMENT
AGREEMENTS
A Guide to the Key Issues
Second Edition
Edited by
Katia Yannaca-S mall
1
1
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Oxford University Press 2018
The moral rights of the authors‌have been asserted
First Edition publisthed in 2010
Second Edition published in 2018
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Crown copyright material is reproduced under Class Licence
Number C01P0000148 with the permission of OPSI
and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018936199
ISBN 978–0–19–875808–2
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
To David, Alexander, Sophia and Ileana
FOREWORD TO THE FIRST EDITION
International investment arbitration has a lineage that may be traced to concession and other
contracts of foreign investors with host governments. Disputes under those contracts gave
rise to a small number of large arbitrations between the two World Wars and for some three
decades after the Second World War. Only very large investors were normally in a position
to persuade host governments to agree to arbitration of disputes that might arise under con-
tracts between them. Implementation of the resultant arbitral obligations was in some cases
significant: in others frustrated.
Two developments transformed this episodic scene. The first was the conclusion of the World
Bank’s Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States
and Nationals of Other States, the ICSID Convention, which came into force in 1966. It
provides a standing forum for the settlement of disputes between foreign investors and host
governments. The second was the conclusion of bilateral investment treaties between states.
By this writing, there are—counting agreements arising not only bilaterally but those from
the Energy Charter Treaty, NAFTA, and CAFTA—some 2,700 such treaties in force. They
are the main source of the jurisdiction of ICSID. But they are by no means simply proced-
ural and jurisdictional in effect, because they provide standards for the treatment and taking
of foreign investment that represent a remarkable advance on the contentious content of
customary international law. By together enabling the foreign investor to require a host gov-
ernment to arbitrate disputes between them, on the basis of agreed international legal stand-
ards, a new era in international dispute settlement has opened. ICSID currently deals with as
many cases as has the International Court of Justice in the whole of its history.
This cascade of international litigation has spawned a multiplicity of problems, procedural,
jurisdictional, and substantive. This book analyses recurrent issues that arise in the dispos-
ition of those problems. Katia Yannaca-Small, drawing on her experience as a senior lawyer
both of the OECD and ICSID, has assembled a group of knowledgeable and acute authors,
many of them leading practitioners in this field, who address the most salient and persistent
of those issues. And she herself has written six of the chapters, which tackle some of the most
sensitive questions.
In the last few years, international investment arbitration has come under attack. The criti-
cism, much of it uninformed, has a nationalistic and autarchic tinge. Two South American
states members of ICSID, apparently under the influence of a third, have withdrawn from
the treaty, giving reasons that would have warmed the heart of Carlos Calvo. The European
Union is poised to displace bilateral investment treaties between its members by its own rules.
The adoption by the United States of a revised model bilateral investment treaty in 2004
was regressive, and current reconsideration in the Congress may lead the United States to
resile further from its traditional support of foreign investment. Nevertheless, fresh bilateral
investment treaties are being concluded, and international investment arbitration flourishes.
This valuable volume will assist the student and practitioner of international investment arbi-
tration in understanding and addressing its primary problems, which are as complex as they
are recurrent.
Stephen M Schwebel,
Former President of the International Court of Justice
vii
FOREWORD TO THE SECOND EDITION
When the first edition of this text was published a short seven years ago, it quickly be-
came an authoritative reference guide for practitioners, academics, and tribunals on investor-
state questions. While (relatively) little time has passed since publication of the first edition,
international investment law and investor-state dispute settlement have continued to evolve
rapidly.
Much of this change has been generated from the core of the discipline, through revision of
international investment agreements. This has been accomplished by the adoption of new or
revised ‘model’ treaties by numerous states, allowing them to update their obligations based
on current policies and state-of-the-art phrasing. A similar exercise has occurred on a multi-
lateral basis, where we have witnessed a trend towards negotiation of investment disciplines
on a multi-party level. In particular, the European Union has negotiated and continues to
negotiate a number of agreements with investment chapters.
The new generation agreements have addressed substantive and procedural matters, and their
hallmark is an increasingly detailed elaboration of the obligations undertaken by states and
the procedure available to ensure compliance with treaty undertakings. One good example of
the new approach to substance has been elaboration of the ‘right to regulate’, confirming that
states can take bona fide measures to act for the public good, without incurring an obligation
to compensate for the effects of such measures. Another example has been sharpening the
identification of who may invoke the protection of investment treaties, for example through
revised definitions of ‘investment’ and ‘investor’, increased use of exhaustion of local rem-
edies, and more frequent inclusion of denial of benefits clauses.
An equally significant evolution has occurred on the procedural side of investment treaties
and in investment practice. For example, many states have taken a more proactive role in
the supervision of treaties after ratification. This has been effected by committees’ super-
vising implementation of treaties, by according non-respondent treaty parties a right to par-
ticipate in arbitrations, and by giving states the ability to make interpretive declarations
about the meaning of a treaty. Another example has been the continuation of the move
towards increased transparency, which started in the NAFTA cases and in the 2006 amend-
ments to the ICSID Convention and Additional Facility arbitration rules. This evolution
was furthered in 2014 with the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency and the ratification of
the Mauritius Convention in October 2017. Another striking procedural innovation is the
policy of the European Union to conclude agreements with standing tribunals and appellate
bodies. A scant eleven years ago an Appellate Facility proposal was suggested by ICSID but
rejected by states as premature. By 2017, Canada and the European Union had agreed to a
standing body to adjudicate investment disputes arising under their free trade agreement,
with ICSID being named the Secretariat of that body. Perhaps the most significant proced-
ural innovation is one that is ongoing: ICSID has embarked upon a procedure to amend its
rules and regulations, and is consulting member states as well as the public for comments and
proposals. These amendments will apply to new cases in accordance with Articles 33 and 44
of the ICSID Convention and could have a far-reaching effect, given that ICSID administers
over 70 per cent of all investment arbitration.
While treaties have evolved, the number of cases initiated by investors has continued at a
steady pace. In fiscal year 2016, ICSID registered forty-eight cases, and had registered more
than 620 cases in total by June 2017. About three-quarters of these cases were commenced
ix
Foreword to the Second Edition
under treaties, predominantly bilateral investment treaties. However, a distinct trend towards
the use of multilateral treaties is evident, with 31 per cent of the ICSID cases commenced in
fiscal year 2016 having been initiated under the Energy Charter Treaty. Another new trend
has been the diversification of respondents and claimants in investment cases: for the first
time, western European Member States are being named in investment cases, while claim-
ants increasingly come from developing and transition economies. One trend that has proved
stable has been the outcome of cases: roughly 30–35 per cent of cases settle before an award is
rendered, and of those cases where an award is rendered, roughly half uphold the claim while
the other half dismiss the claim on jurisdictional or merits bases. The scope of issues raised in
arbitration has also continued to expand, and the interplay between individual awards and
systemic approaches to treaty drafting is clear.
As attested by the breadth and depth of the topics in this edition, investment treaties and
arbitration continue to raise novel legal questions. The editor is an expert in the field, having
dealt with investment law and procedure from the distinct perspectives of an international
organization, an arbitral institution, a law firm representing both states and investors in in-
dividual cases, and as a professor of law. Her knowledge and expertise is evident throughout.
In addition, the contributing authors are all well known in this discipline, with backgrounds
and knowledge that bring an intelligent and up-to-date perspective on the most important
questions in the field. Given this combination, it is certain that this edition will become
equally authoritative as the first edition.
Meg Kinnear,
Secretary-General, International Centre
for Settlement of Investment Disputes,
November 2017
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The fast pace at which investor-state arbitration has been evolving in the last decade has
made a second edition of this book an absolute necessity. Although its foundational elements
have remained the same in the last eight years, the wealth of claims, awards, scholarly writ-
ings, policy reconsiderations, and recalibrations driven by concerns and criticisms, point to a
system that has been maturing while changing at the same time. At the time of publication,
it is still unknown where these changes will take it but, wherever this will be, the need to
understand the key issues, as they evolve, will remain.
This second edition, following the path of the first, aims to serve as a guide on investment
treaty arbitration not only for the knowledgeable sophisticated reader but also the newcomer
to this field. This challenging task, to balance the educational and expert elements, could
not have been achieved without the wonderful group of outstanding contributors who very
graciously undertook this task with me again, with enthusiasm and no hesitation. I am also
thankful to those who joined us in this second edition and enriched the book greatly. I am
deeply grateful to all not only for their valuable contributions to this book but also for the
collegiality and cooperation I have enjoyed with all of them throughout the years.
I take the opportunity to thank the many people at Oxford University Press who saw the
need for a second edition and persuaded me to go ahead, as well as those who accompanied
me throughout the process with great professionalism, advice, and patience. Jamie Berezin,
Faye Mousley, Liana Green, and, during the last stretch, Catherine Rogers, who offered me
wise support in the last, most demanding phase of the editing process. I express my appreci-
ation to Newgen’s Nancy Rebecca for aptly managing the production process, and to Nicola
Prior for copy-editing.
Last but not least, my utmost thanks and gratitude go to my husband, David Small, former
General Counsel of the OECD, who not only greatly assisted with the editing of this volume
but also never stopped encouraging me and supporting me. Without his support, this second
edition would not have seen the light of day.
xi
CONTENTS
Table of Cases xxvii

International Legislation lxvii
National Legislation lxxxix
List of Contributors xci
PART I INVESTMENT TREATIES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF

INVESTMENT DISPUTES: THE FRAMEWORK
1. Bilateral Investment Treaties and Investment Provisions in Preferential Trade
Agreements: Recent Developments in Investment Rule-making
Roberto Echandi
I. Introduction 1.01
II. BITs and Investment Provisions in PTAs: The Gradual Shift from
Investment Protection to the Promotion of Liberalization
of Investment Flows 1.12
A. The Investment Protection Rationale of BITs 1.12
B. Investment Protection and Liberalization in ‘New Generation’ BITs and
Investment Chapters of RTAs 1.23
C. Impact of Investor-state Dispute Settlement Experience on Investment
Rule-making: A New Generation of IIAs 1.28
III. Conclusion 1.120
2. The Energy Charter Treaty

Emmanuel Gaillard and Mark McNeill
II. The Making of the Energy Charter Treaty 2.06
III. ‘Investments’ and ‘Investors’ Covered by the Energy Charter Treaty 2.10
IV. Denial of Benefits 2.21
V. Substantive Investment Protections 2.31
VI. Dispute Settlement 2.47
VII. Fork in the Road 2.53
VIII. Provisional Application 2.58
IX. Taxation Carve-out 2.85
X. Conclusion 2.89
3. International Investment Dispute Settlement Mechanisms

Ucheora Onwuamaegbu
II. Institutionally Supported Arbitration 3.03
A. Overview 3.03
B. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes 3.06
xiii
Contents
C. International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of

Commerce, Paris 3.14
D. The Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce 3.20
III. Selected Procedural Issues 3.24
A. Commencement of Proceedings and the Role of the Institution in the
Initial Determination of Jurisdiction 3.24
B. Appointment and Disqualification of Arbitrators 3.32
C. Interim Measures 3.38
D. Seat/Place of Arbitration, Language of Proceedings, and Applicable Law 3.42
E. Tribunal’s Experts 3.44
F. Transparency and Third-party Participation 3.45
G. The Award and Post-award Remedies 3.47
H. Costs 3.55
IV. Ad Hoc Dispute Settlement: UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 3.62
A. Overview of UNCITRAL 3.62
B. Commencement of Proceedings under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 3.66
C. Appointment and Disqualification of Arbitrators 3.67
D. Proceedings 3.70
E. Transparency 3.72
F. Other Provisions 3.76
G. Other UNCITRAL Texts 3.81
V. Conclusion 3.83
4. The Role of Precedent in Investment Treaty Arbitration

Jan Paulsson
II. The Anti-arbitrariness Vaccine 4.13
III. Limitations 4.18
IV. The Legal Status of Precedents 4.22
V. The Core Concepts 4.34
VI. Life and Death of Precedent in a Decentralized System 4.53
VII. Reconsidering the Value of Precedents 4.57
VIII. Towards More Rigorous Reasoning by Precedent 4.63
IX. Concluding Thoughts: Is a Synthesis Possible? 4.82
PART II GUIDE TO KEY PRELIMINARY AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES

5. An Overview of Procedure in an Investment Treaty Arbitration
Barton Legum
II. Overview of the Overview 5.04
III. Preparation of the Case 5.07
A. The Beginning 5.08
B. Initial Case Assessment 5.11
C. The Request for Arbitration 5.13
D. Selection of Arbitration Rules 5.17
xiv
Contents
E. Selection of the Arbitrators 5.24

F. The First Session with the Tribunal 5.27
IV. The Written Submissions 5.40
V. The Hearing 5.44
A. Post-hearing Activity 5.49
B. The Decision or Award and Its Aftermath 5.53
VI. Conclusion 5.59
6. Aspects of Procedure for Institution of Proceedings and Establishment of

Tribunals in Investment Treaty Arbitration
Milanka Kostadinova
II. The Initiation of Proceedings 6.04
A. The Issue of Consent 6.04
B. ‘Gate-keeping’ Provisions in Treaties 6.09
C. The Request for Arbitration 6.17
III. The Establishment of the Arbitral Tribunal 6.50
A. Preliminary Remarks 6.50
B. Composition of the Tribunal 6.52
C. Appointment of the Arbitral Tribunal 6.65
IV. Conclusion 6.100
7. The Fate of Frivolous and Unmeritorious Claims

Katia Yannaca-Small and David Earnest
II. Treatment of Frivolous Claims under International Investment
and Trade Agreements 7.02
A. The United States Model Bilateral Investment Treaty 7.02
B. The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) 7.05
C. Other International Investment Agreements 7.08
III. Summary Disposition under Institutional Rules 7.11
A. ICSID 7.11
B. Other International Arbitration Rules 7.16
IV. Investor-state Cases that Address Preliminary Objections to Frivolous
Claims 7.21
A. Cases under the Dominican Republic–United States–Central American
Free Trade Agreement 7.22
B. Cases under the United States–Peru Trade Promotion Agreement 7.26
C. Cases Applying ICSID Rule 41(5) 7.27
IV. Conclusion 7.31
8. Challenges of Arbitrators in Investment Arbitration: Still Work in Progress?

Loretta Malintoppi and Alvin Yap
II. The Role of Institutions and Professional Associations 8.10
A. International Centre for Settlement of International Disputes (ICSID) 8.10
xv
Contents
B. Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) 8.22

C. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) 8.27
D. International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) 8.34
E. Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) 8.43
F. London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) 8.47
G. Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) 8.52
H. The IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration
(IBA Guidelines) 8.56
III. Innovations in International Investment Agreements 8.60
IV. Selected Decisions on Challenges 8.81
A. ‘Issue Conflicts’ 8.86
B. Administrative Secretaries 8.99
C. Social Media 8.109
V. Conclusion 8.115
9. Piercing the Veil of Confidentiality: The Recent Trend towards Greater Public
Participation and Transparency in Investment Treaty Arbitration
Andrea J Menaker and Eckhard Hellbeck
II. Public Access to Documents 9.09
A. The NAFTA Approach 9.12
B. ICSID’s Disclosure Regime 9.21
C. The UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency 9.32
D. The Mauritius Convention 9.38
E. Mandating Disclosure Through Investment Treaty Provisions 9.41
III. Third-party Written Submissions 9.52
A. NAFTA Chapter 11: The Beginning of Modern Third-party Participation
in Investment Arbitration 9.54
B. The NAFTA Free Trade Commission Interpretation and Guidelines and
Subsequent NAFTA Practice 9.65
C. Third-party Submissions in ICSID Cases 9.77
D. Treatment of Third-party Submissions by Other Arbitral Rules 9.108
E. Treatment of Third-party Submissions by Other Investment Treaties 9.113
IV. Public Access to Arbitral Hearings 9.121
A. The NAFTA Experience: The First Open Hearings 9.122
B. Open Hearings Under the ICSID Arbitration Rules: Still Subject
to the Parties’ Consent 9.136
C. Open Hearings: Recent Developments 9.144
V. Conclusion 9.157
PART III GUIDE TO KEY JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES

10. Who is Entitled to Claim? The Definition of Nationality in Investment Arbitration
Katia Yannaca-Small
II. Natural Persons as Investors 10.03
A. Customary International Law 10.04
B. State Practice/Investment Agreements 10.08
xvi
Contents
C. Jurisprudence under the ICSID Convention 10.11

III. Legal Persons as Investors 10.22
A. Customary International Law 10.24
B. State Practice/Investment Agreements 10.34
C. Jurisprudence 10.52
11. The Meaning of ‘Investment’ in Investment Treaty Arbitration

Katia Yannaca-Small and Dimitrios Katsikis
II. The Definition of ‘Investment’ in International Agreements 11.06
A. The Definition of ‘Investment’ in Investment Treaties 11.06
B. The Notion of ‘Investment’ in the ICSID Convention 11.16
III. Arbitral Jurisprudence on the Definition of ‘Investment’ 11.23
A. Types of Assets Constituting an ‘Investment’ 11.23
B. The Interpretation of ‘Investment’ by Arbitral Tribunals 11.47
C. The Requirement that an Investment Be Made ‘In Accordance with the
Host State’s Law’ 11.96
D. The Requirement that an Investment Be ‘In the Territory of
the Host State’ 11.101
12. Bifurcation of Investment Disputes

Baiju S Vasani and Sarah Z Vasani
II. The Framework under Major Arbitral Rules 12.03
A. ICSID Convention/Rules 12.03
B. ICSID Additional Facility Rules 12.06
C. UNCITRAL Rules 12.07
D. ICC Rules 12.09
E. SCC Rules 12.11
III. The Standard 12.12
A. Procedural Economy 12.14
B. Likelihood of Dismissal/Reduction in the Scope of Case 12.20
C. Overlapping Issues 12.24
IV. Bifurcation Procedure 12.28
V. Conclusion 12.30
13. Burden and Standard of Proof at the Jurisdictional Stage

Baiju S Vasani, Timothy L Foden, and Hafsa Zayyan
I. General Principles Regarding Burdens of Proof 13.01
II. Distinguishing the Burden of Proof from the Standard of Proof 13.05
III. Who Bears the Burden of Proof at the Jurisdictional Phase? 13.06
A. The Claimant Bears the Burden of Proving the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction 13.06
B. Either Party Can Bear the Burden of Proving or Disproving
the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction 13.14
xvii
Contents
C. The Respondent Bears the Burden of Proof 13.25

D. The Centrist Position: Neither Party Bears the Burden of Proving the
Tribunal’s Jurisdiction 13.29
IV. Who Bears the Burden of Proof Regarding Specific Jurisdictional
Objections? 13.35
A. The National Identity of the Natural Person Claimant is in Dispute 13.36
B. The Claim Does Not Arise out of an ‘Investment’ 13.37
C. The Claimant is Not an ‘Investor’ Within the Meaning of the BIT/Treaty 13.39
D. Consent to Arbitrate 13.40
E. Case Already Litigated Through Domestic Courts 13.41
F. Dispute Arose Prior to the Entry of the BIT into Force 13.44
G. Dispute Barred by a Provision of the BIT/Treaty 13.45
V. Once the Tribunal Determines Who Has the Burden of Proof, What
Standard of Proof Is Applicable at the Jurisdictional Phase? 13.46
A. Prima Facie Standard 13.46
B. The Standard Depends on the Facts 13.61
C. Establishing a Prima Facie Case 13.66
VI. Conclusion 13.72
14. Attribution: State Organs and Entities Exercising Elements

of Governmental Authority
Georgios Petrochilos
II. What Are State Organs? 14.10
A. Internal Law is the Source of Legal Data, Not Classifications 14.16
B. Institutional Separateness or Lack Thereof 14.21
III. Para-statal Entities 14.32
A. ‘Governmental Authority’ 14.37
B. Acts in Exercise of Governmental Authority 14.44
IV. Inexistence of ‘Non-justiciable’ Acts of state Organs 14.58
V. Attribution of Representations 14.67
A. Representations Frustrated by Later Conduct 14.68
B. Contractual breaches actionable under umbrella Clauses 14.78
15. Breach of Treaty Claims and Breach of Contract Claims:

When Can an International Tribunal Exercise Jurisdiction?
Stanimir A Alexandrov
II. Treaty-based Tribunals’ Jurisdiction over Treaty Claims
Arising out of an Underlying Contract 15.04
A. Contract Protection under Customary International Law 15.06
B. Contract Protection under Investment Treaties 15.11
C. Investment Treaty Claims Arising out of Contracts 15.17
xviii
Contents
III. Treaty-based Tribunals’ Jurisdiction over ‘Purely’ Contractual Claims 15.20

A. Umbrella Clause Provisions as a Basis for Jurisdiction over
Contract Claims 15.23
B. Provisions Granting Jurisdiction over ‘Any Disputes’ 15.24
C. Provisions Granting Jurisdiction over Disputes Relating
to ‘Investment Agreements’ 15.35
IV. Distinguishing Between Breach of Treaty Claims and Breach
of Contract Claims 15.38
A. The Power of Treaty-based Tribunals to Interpret Contracts 15.44
B. The Difficulty (and Irrelevance) of Attempting to Identify
Contract Claims ‘Dressed’ as Treaty Claims 15.48
C. The Impact of Contractual Forum Selection Clauses on
the Jurisdiction of Treaty-based Tribunals 15.57
D. The Role and Significance of ‘Fork-in-the-Road’ Provisions 15.72
V. Conclusion 15.80
16. The Umbrella Clause: Is the Umbrella Closing?

Katia Yannaca-Small
II. History of the Umbrella Clause and State Practice 16.06
III. Significance of the Umbrella Clause in Treaties 16.16
IV. Effects, Scope, and Conditions of Application of the Umbrella Clause 16.23
A. The Effects of the Umbrella Clause 16.26
B. The Scope of the Umbrella Clause or the Conditions of Its Application 16.52
V. Conclusion 16.84
17. Counterclaims in Investment Treaty Arbitration

Mark A Clodfelter and Diana Tsutieva
II. Milestone Cases 17.06
III. Counterclaims under the ICSID Convention 17.19
A. Introduction to Article 46 17.20
B. Counterclaims Arising Directly out of the Subject Matter of the Dispute 17.25
C. Counterclaims Within the Scope of the Parties’ Consent 17.37
D. Counterclaims Otherwise Within ICSID’s Jurisdiction 17.65
E. Conclusion 17.67
IV. Counterclaims Under the UNCITRAL Rules 17.68
A. Introduction 17.68
B. Ipso Facto Importation of Consent 17.73
C. The 1976 UNCITRAL Rules: Implied Modification by State Parties 17.82
D. The Connection Requirement under the New and Old
UNCITRAL Rules 17.88
E. Conclusion 17.94
V. Moving Forward: Greater Expectations in Counterclaim Practice 17.95
xix
Contents
18. The State’s Corruption Defence, Prosecutorial Efforts, and Anti-corruption

Norms in Investment Treaty Arbitration
Charles N Brower and Jawad Ahmad
II. Binary Outcomes of the Corruption Defence—Can the Playing
Field be Levelled? 18.12
A. Preliminary Remarks Regarding Jurisdiction, Admissibility, and Merits 18.14
B. Illegality Where There Is a Legality Clause 18.19
C. Illegality Where There Is No Legality Clause 18.24
D. The State’s Obligation to Prosecute or Investigate and the Corruption
Defence 18.29
III. Anti-corruption Norms in Recent Investment Agreements 18.84
A. Introduction 18.84
B. Independent Anti-corruption Provisions—the Japanese Treaties 18.88
C. Anti-corruption Norms as a Part of Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR)—the Canadian Treaties 18.102
PART IV GUIDE TO KEY SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

19. The Law Applicable in Investment Treaty Arbitration
Yas Banifatemi
II. Identification of the Law Chosen by the Parties 19.04
A. Choice of Law in Context 19.05
B. Variations on the Law of the Host State and International Law 19.09
III. Determination of the Applicable Law by the Arbitrators in
the Absence of the Parties’ Agreement 19.14
IV. Implications of the Specific Nature of Investment Treaties in
the Choice of Law Process 19.22
20. Fair and Equitable Treatment: Have Its Contours Fully Evolved?
Katia Yannaca-Small
II. Does FET Refer to Customary International Law or Is It
an Autonomous Standard? 20.08
A. The NAFTA Tribunals 20.12
B. Non-NAFTA Tribunals 20.20
C. What Difference Does It Make Whether Fair and Equitable Treatment
Refers to the Minimum Standard of Customary Law? 20.25
III. The Normative Content of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard 20.28
A. Denial of Justice, Due Process 20.31
B. Transparency, Stability, and Legitimate Expectations 20.45
C. Obligation of Vigilance and Protection 20.87
D. Lack of Arbitrariness and Non-discrimination 20.90
xx
Contents
21. The National Treatment Obligation

Andrea K Bjorklund
II. Precluding Nationality-based Discrimination 21.05
III. National Treatment in Practice 21.17
A. The Like Circumstances Inquiry 21.22
B. Treatment Accorded the Investor 21.59
C. ‘Arbitrary and Discriminatory’ Treatment 21.77
D. Determining the Level of Treatment that Must Be Accorded a Foreign
Investor 21.83
E. Objective Justifications for Differential Treatment: The Role
of Burden Shifting in National Treatment Analysis 21.89
IV. Reservations and Exceptions 21.94
A. State, Provincial, or Municipal Government Measures 21.97
B. Measures to Protect Health, Safety, and the Environment 21.103
C. Measures to Protect Local Culture 21.105
V. Conclusions 21.106
22. Indirect Expropriation and the Right to Regulate: Has the Line Been Drawn?
Katia Yannaca-Small
II. Basic Concepts of the Obligation to Compensate for Expropriation 22.06
III. The Notion of ‘Property’ 22.13
IV. Legal Instruments and Other Texts 22.25
V. Main Sources of Jurisprudence 22.35
A. The Iran–US Tribunal 22.39
B. The European Court of Human Rights 22.42
C. Investor-state Tribunals 22.46
VI. Criteria Indicating Whether an Indirect Expropriation Has Occurred 22.49
A. Degree of Interference with the Property Right 22.51
B. Duration of the Regulation 22.73
C. Economic Impact as the Exclusive Criterion 22.79
D. Character of Governmental Measures and the Police Powers of the State 22.85
E. Proportionality 22.97
F. Interference of the Measure with Reasonable Investment-backed
Expectations 22.109
VII. Conclusion 22.119
23. The MFN Clause and Its Evolving Boundaries

Abby Cohen Smutny, Petr Polášek, and Chad Farrell
II. Historical Background 23.04
A. Origins 23.04
B. Work of the International Law Commission 23.08
C. Early Jurisprudence 23.35
III. Bilateral Investment Treaty Practice 23.48
xxi
Contents
A. MFN Clauses and Dispute Settlement 23.48

B. The Cases 23.57
IV. Treaty-making Practice and Investment Treaty Jurisprudence 23.114
V. Conclusion 23.118
PART V REMEDIES AND COSTS

24. Interim Relief in Investment Treaty Arbitration
Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Aurélia Antonietti, and Michele Potestà
II. The Power to Grant Interim Relief 24.03
A. Interim Relief in the ICSID System 24.04
B. Interim Relief under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 24.11
C. Other Relevant Provisions 24.17
III. Purpose of the Measures: Preserving the Respective Rights of the Parties 24.19
A. ICSID System 24.20
B. NAFTA Proceedings 24.28
C. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 24.29
IV. Types of Measures 24.35
A. Preservation of a Right 24.37
B. Preservation of the Status Quo/Non-aggravation of the Dispute 24.47
C. Preserving the Integrity of the Proceedings/Preventing Prejudice to the
Arbitral Process Itself 24.62
D. Preserving Evidence 24.65
E. Protection of the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction 24.70
F. Non-frustration of the Award 24.84
V. Requirements for Interim Relief 24.92
A. The Initiative to Request Interim Relief 24.93
B. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal? 24.96
C. Prima Facie Case on the Merits? 24.105
D. Urgency 24.113
E. Necessity or Risk of Irreparable Harm 24.130
VI. Against Whom Can the Measures be Ordered? 24.144
VII. Effect of Interim Measures 24.147
A. ICSID Convention Cases 24.148
B. Additional Facility Cases 24.154
C. NAFTA Proceedings 24.157
D. UNCITRAL Rules 24.158
VIII. Concurrent Jurisdiction of Domestic Courts 24.162
A. ICSID Convention Proceedings 24.163
B. Additional Facility Rules 24.165
C. UNCITRAL Rules 24.166
D. NAFTA Proceedings 24.167
IX. Conclusion 24.168
xxii
Contents
25. Compensation and Damages in Investment Treaty Arbitration

Irmgard Marboe
II. Applicable Legal Rules and Principles 25.06
A. Rules on State Responsibility 25.07
B. BIT Provisions on Compensation 25.13
C. Other BIT Provisions 25.18
D. Contractual Obligations 25.21
III. Causation 25.26
IV. Valuation Date 25.33
V. Limiting Circumstances 25.40
A. Contributory Negligence 25.41
B. Mitigation of Damages 25.44
C. Country Risk 25.52
VI. Valuation Methods 25.56
A. Market Approach 25.59
B. Income Approach 25.62
C. Asset-based or Cost Approach 25.67
VII. Conclusion 25.70
26. Third-party Funding in Investment Treaty Arbitration

Nigel Blackaby and Alex Wilbraham
II. Does Third-party Funding Provoke Frivolous Claims? 26.12
III. The Different Forms of Funding 26.15
A. Non-recourse Financing 26.16
B. Financing by Lawyers 26.17
C. Insurance 26.18
D. Equity Financing 26.19
E. Debtor in Possession Financing 26.20
F. Pro Bono or Charitable Funding 26.21
G. Common Interest Funding 26.22
IV. Regulation of Litigation Funding 26.23
V. Jurisdiction and Admissibility 26.27
VI. Third-party Funding and Liability for Costs 26.34
A. The Right to Recover Costs if Successful 26.35
B. Recovery of Funding Costs 26.38
C. Security for Costs 26.44
VII. Disclosure of Third-party Funding 26.52
A. Disclosure of a Third-party Funder’s Identity 26.53
B. Should the Terms of Funding Agreements be Disclosed? 26.59
VIII. Concluding Remarks 26.63
xxiii
Contents
PART VI THE POST-AWARD PHASE

27. Annulment of ICSID Awards: Is it Enough or Is Appeal around the Corner?
Katia Yannaca-Small
II. Scope and Application of Annulment under the ICSID Convention 27.04
A. Annulment: An Exceptional Recourse? 27.08
B. Annulment versus Appeal: A Thin Line in ICSID Annulment Proceedings 27.15
III. The Grounds for Annulment 27.23
A. Improper Constitution of the Tribunal 27.24
B. Manifest Excess of Powers 27.30
C. Failure to State Reasons 27.44
D. Serious Departure from a Fundamental Rule of Procedure 27.50
IV. Stay of Enforcement 27.55
V. The Quest for Coherence and Consistency: Proposals for an Appeal
Mechanism 27.70
A. Past and Current Efforts to include Provisions on the Establishment
of an Appeal Mechanism in Investment Agreements 27.74
B. What Lies Ahead? A Multilateral Solution? 27.101
28. Review of non-ICSID Awards by National Courts

Kaj Hobér and Nils Eliasson
II. The Legal Framework for Review and Challenge of Investment Treaty
Awards 28.09
III. Decisions by National Courts 28.14
A. Republic of Poland v Saar Papier Vertriebs GmbH 28.15
B. Russian Federation v Sedelmayer 28.18
C. Republic of Ecuador v Occidental Exploration & Production Company 28.26
D. Petrobart Ltd v Kyrgyz Republic and Kyrgyz Republic v Pertrobart Ltd 28.34
E. Czech Republic v Saluka Investments BV 28.45
F. Bayview Irrigation District 11 and Ors v Mexico 28.49
G. Czech Republic v European Media Ventures SA 28.57
H. Mexico v Cargill, Incorporated 28.66
I. Argentina v BG Group PLC 28.76
J. Energoalians (Currently Known as Komstroy) v Moldova 28.83
K. Ecuador v Chevron (USA) and Texaco 28.88
L. Sanum Investments Ltd v Lao People’s Republic 28.98
M. Russian Federation v Renta 4 S.V.S.A. et al. 28.117
IV. Discussion 28.127
A. Do National Courts Have Jurisdiction to Determine Challenges of
Investment Treaty Awards? 28.128
B. Is It Appropriate for National Courts to Review
Investment Treaty Awards? 28.134
C. What Standards of Review Do National Courts Adopt for Reviewing
Challenges to the Jurisdiction of Investment Treaty Arbitral Tribunals? 28.145
V. Conclusion 28.159
xxiv
Contents
29. Enforcement of Investment Treaty Awards

August Reinisch
II. Enforcement of Non-ICSID Awards 29.03
A. Foreign Arbitral Awards 29.04
B. Investment Awards as Commercial Disputes 29.06
C. Investment Treaty Arbitration and the Requirement of a Written
Arbitration Agreement 29.10
D. Obligation of National Courts to Enforce Investment Awards 29.12
III. Obstacles to the Recognition and Enforcement of Investment Awards 29.13
A. The Article V(1) Grounds for Refusing Enforcement
of Investment Awards 29.16
B. The Article V(2) Grounds for Refusing Enforcement
of Investment Awards 29.29
C. State Immunity as an Additional Hurdle 29.44
IV. Enforcement of ICSID Awards 29.64
A. The Autonomous International Law Obligation to Comply
with ICSID Awards 29.66
B. Exclusivity 29.68
C. The Strict Obligation to Recognize and Enforce ICSID Awards 29.71
D. State Immunity Rules on Enforcement Measures as Remaining Obstacles 29.75
E. Other Failed Attempts to Enforce ICSID Awards 29.82
V. Alternative Enforcement Mechanisms 29.83
30. A Practical Guide: Research Tools in International Investment Law

Julien Fouret
II. Arbitral Case Law and Public International Case Law 30.08
A. Case Law 30.09
B. Journal Reviews of Investment Arbitration Case Law 30.10
III. International Treaties: Identification and Interpretation 30.11
A. Resources to Identify Investment Treaties 30.12
B. Fundamental Rules of Treaty Interpretation in Public International Law 30.13
IV. Customary International Law 30.21
A. What Is International Custom and How Is a Customary Norm Created? 30.22
B. Means to Identify Customary Norms in Public International Law 30.27
C. Applicability and Relevance of Customary Norms in International
Investment Law 30.33
V. Conclusion 30.36
Index 837
xxv
TABLE OF CASES
INTERNATIONAL
Aanes v FILA, CAS 2000/A/317 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.86

Abaclat & Others v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction &
Admissibility (Aug 4, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.10, 15.50n85, 15.52, 26.22n47, 26.29
Abaclat & Others v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/5, Decision on
the Proposal to Disqualify a Majority of the Tribunal (Feb 4, 2014), . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.17, 8.83, 11.33–11.36, 11.103n183, 11.112, 11.113
Abaclat & Others v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/5,
Procedural Order No 11 (June 27, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.136
Abaclat & Others v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/5,
Procedural Order No 13 (Sept 27, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.66
Aboilard (1905), 11 RIAA 71 (France v Haiti). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.74n245
Antoine Abou Lahoud & Leila Bounafeh-Abou Lahoud v Democratic Republic of
the Congo, ICSID Case No ARB/10/4, Decision on Annulment
(July 25, 2017). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.38, 27.42
Accession Mezzanine Capital LP & Danabius Kereskedohaz v Hungary, ICSID Case No
ARB/12/3, Decision on Respondent’s Notice of Jurisdictional Objections & Request for
Bifurcation (Aug 8, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.13, 12.22
Accession Mezzanine Capital LP & Danabius Kereskedohaz v Hungary,
ICSID Case No ARB/12/3, Decision on Respondents Objection Under Arbitration
Rule 41(5) (Jan 16, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.29n67
Achmea BV v Slovak Republic [I]‌, PCA Case No 2008/13, Award on Jurisdiction,
Arbitrability & Suspension (Oct 26, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.111
Achmea BV v Slovak Republic [II], PCA Case No 2013/12, Award on Jurisdiction &
Admissibility (20 May 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.32n69, 20.04n4
ADC Affiliate Ltd & ADMC Management Ltd v Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/03/16 . . . . . .
25.04n6, 25.38,
Award (Oct 2, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.25n26, 19.26, 26.35, 26.41
Adel A. Hamadi Al Tamimi v Oman, ICSID Case No ARB/11/13, Procedural Order No 6 (Mar
18, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.12n21
Adel A. Hamadi Al Tamimi v Oman, ICSID Case No ARB/11/13, Award
(Oct 27, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.16n35
Adel A. Hamadi Al Tamimi v Oman, ICSID Case No ARB/11/13, Award
(Nov 3, 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.40, 14.34n109
Adem Dogan v Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No ARB/09/9 (Jan 15, 2016). . . . . . . . 26.10n26, 27.38
ADF Group Inc. v United States, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/00/1, Award
(Jan 9, 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.74, 20.14, 20.63, 21.25, 21.67, 30.29
Adriano Gardella S.p.A. v Republic of the Ivory Coast, ICSID Case No ARB/74/1,
Award (Aug 29, 1977), 1 ICSID Rep. 283 (1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.06
Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v Turkey), Order of September 11,
1976, ICJ Rep. 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.96n164, 24.131, 24.132
Aeroport Belbek LLC & Mr. Igor Valerievich Kolomoisky v Russia,
PCA Case No 2014-30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.104n185
AES Corporation v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/02/17,
Decision on Jurisdiction (Apr 26, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.71
AES Summit Generation Ltd & AES Tisza Erömü Kft v Republic of Hungary,
ICSID Case No ARB/07/22, Award (Sept 23, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.30, 9.104n176, 152n30
AES Summit Generation Ltd & AES Tisza Erömü Kft v Republic of Hungary,
ICSID Case No ARB/07/22, Decision on Annulment (June 29, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.42
AGIP v People’s Republic of the Congo ICSID Case No ARB/77/1,
Award (Nov 30, 1979), 1 ICSID Rep. 306. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.26n70, 19.09n15, 24.66, 24.151
xxvii
Table of Cases
Aguas del Tunari SA v Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No ARB/02/3, Decision on Jurisdiction
(Oct 21, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.65–15.67
Aguas del Tunari SA v Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No ARB/02/3, Decision on Jurisdiction
(Oct 21, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.12
Aguas del Tunari SA v Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No ARB/02/3, NGO Petition
to Participate as Amici Curiae (Aug 29, 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.77–9.80, 9.85–9.89,
10.74, 10.74n154
Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe SA, Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona SA &
InterAguas Servicios Integrales del Agua SA v Argentine Republic, ICSID
Case No ARB/03/17, Order in Response to a Petition for Participation
as Amicus Curiae (Mar 17, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.90
Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v Democratic Republic of Congo) Compensation
ICJ Rep. 322 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.01n1
Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v Democratic Republic of Congo) Compensation
ICJ Rep. 322 2012, Preliminary Objections (May 24, 2007). . . . . 4.85, 10.33, 10.33n60, 25.01
Ahmonseto, Inc. & Others v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/02/15,
Award (June 18, 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.26n61
AIG Capital Partners Inc. & CJSC Tema Real Estate Company v Republic of Kazakhstan,
ICSID Case No ARB/01/6, Award (Oct 7, 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.29n48, 29.78, 29.82
AIG Capital Partners, Inc. & CJSC Tema Real Estate Company v Republic of Kazakhstan,
ICSID Case No. ARB/01/6, Award (Oct 2, 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.44n80
AJ van den Berg, on behalf of the Arbitral Tribunal in Dunkeld International
Investment Ltd v Government of Belize, UNICTRAL, PCA
Case No 2010-13/DUN-BZ, Order No 6 (Mar 3 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.30
Aktau Petrol Ticaret AŞ v Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No ARB/15/8, Award
(Nov 13, 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.41n130
Alapli Elektrik B.V. v Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.10n26
Alasdair Ross Anderson & Others v Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID
Case No ARB (AF)/07/3, Award (May 19, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.63, 26.35
Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica Inc. v Jamaica, ICSID Case No ARB/74/2 Preliminary
Award (July 6, 1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.24n25
Giovanni Alemanni & Others v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/8,
Decision on Jurisdiction & Admissibility (Nov 17, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.33–11.36,
11.112n197, 13.17, 15.17n23, 15.53n92,
26.10n26, 26.22n47, 26.30
Alex Genin, Eastern Credit Ltd, Inc. & AS Baltoil v Republic of Estonia,
ICSID Case No ARB/99/2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.02n1
Alex Genin, Eastern Credit Ltd, Inc. & AS Baltoil v Republic of Estonia,
ICSID Case No ARB/99/2, Final Award (June 25, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.39, 20.46
Almås v Poland, PCA Case No 2015-13, Award (June 27, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.47, 14.50
Alpha Projektholding GmbH v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/07/16,
Award (Nov 8, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.41, 20.46, 20.55, 20.90n197
Alpha Projektholding GmbH v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/07/16, Decision on
Challenge to Arbitrator (Mar 19, 2010). . . . . . . 8.62n115, 11.78n133, 11.91n155, 11.100n175
Alps Finance & Trade AG v Slovak Republic (UNCITRAL),
Award (Mar 5, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.87, 11.58
The Ambatielos Claim 1952 ICJ 28 (Judgment on Preliminary Objection of July 1). . . . . . . . . . 23.43
The Ambatielos Claim 1953 ICJ 10 (Judgment on the Obligation to Arbitrate of May 19). . . . . 23.43
The Ambatielos Claim (Greece v UK), XII RIAA 91
(Award of Mar 6, 1956). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.43–23.47, 23.65
Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. & Others v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/08/09, Decision
of Jurisdiction & Admissibility (Feb 8, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.19n40, 6.19n42, 11.20n19,
11.33–11.36, 11.77, 11.93n163, 11.112,
13.14–13.16, 19.01, 26.29
Amco Asia Corporation et al. v Republic of Indonesia,
ICSID Case No ARB/81/1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.02n1, 27.38, 27.40, 27.43,
27.44, 27.44n107, 27.47
xxviii
Table of Cases
Amco Asia Corporation et al. v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No ARB/81/1, Decision on
Annulment (May 16, 1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.18n38, 27.09n17, 27.18
Jurisdiction (Sept 25, 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.33, 8.15n15, 8.81, 9.24, 10.67, 14.27n78, 14.62
Request for Provisional Measures (Dec 9, 1983) ICSID Rep. 1993 . . . . . . . . 24.21, 24.48, 24.58
Decisions on the Stay of Enforcement (May 17 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.58n135
Amco Asia Corporation et al. v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID (Resubmitted), Decision on
Jurisdiction (May 10, 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.06, 17.66, 17.89, 27.09n17, 27.18
Amco Asia Corporation et al. v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID (Resubmitted),
Award (June 5, 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.23, 25.28, 25.45n86, 25.66n125, 27.09n17,
27.18, 27.38, 27.47, 27.48
Interim Order (March 2, 1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.58n135
Second Decision on Annulment of the 1990 Award & the 1990
Supplemental Award (Dec 17, 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.19
American Manufacturing & Trading Inc. v Democratic Republic of
the Congo, ICSID Case No ARB/93/1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.02n4
American Manufacturing & Trading Inc. v Republic of Zaire, ICSID
Case No ARB/93/1, Award (Feb 21, 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.67, 20.88
Amoco International Finance v Iran 15 IUSCTR 189. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.18, 25.29, 25.38
Amoco International Finance v Iran 15 IUSCTR 189, Partial Award (July 14, 1987) . . . . . . 25.38n67
Ampal-American Israel Corporation & Others v Arab Republic of Egypt,
ICSID Case No ARB/12/11, Decision on Jurisdiction (Feb 1, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . 10.117, 12.28
AMTO Llc v Ukraine, Case No 080/2005 SCC, Final Award (Mar 26, 2008). . . . . . . . 2.12, 2.27n37,
14.34n109, 14.45, 14.47, 14.90, 16.69, 17.56n172
Anglo-French Continental Shelf Case (United Kingdom v France) (1977, 1978) 18 R.I.A.A. 3. . . 4.28
Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (UK v Iran), ICJ 1951, Interim Protection
Order (July 5, 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.19, 24.49, 24.141n246
Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (UK v Iran), ICJ 1951, Judgment on Preliminary
Objection (July 22, 1951) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.19n34, 23.36–23.39
Ansung Housing Co. Ltd v People’s Republic of China, ICSID
Case No ARB/14/25, Award (Mar 9, 2017). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.111
Apotex Holdings Inc. & Apotex Inc. v United States, ICSID
Case No ARB (AF)/12/1, Award (Aug 25, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.107n189, 12.06, 12.19,
20.18, 21.18n39, 21.47, 21.93
Apotex Holdings Inc. & Apotex Inc. v United States, ICSID
Case No ARB (AF)/12/1, Procedural Order No 2 (Oct 11, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.73, 9.75
Application of the Convention on the Prevention & Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.10
of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v Serb. & Montenegro). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.93
of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v Serb. & Montenegro), Counter-Claims
Order (Dec 17, 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.34n102
Application of the Convention on the Prevention & Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia & Herzegovina v Serbia & Montenegro),
Order of September 13, 1993. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.42n85
Archer Daniels Midland Co. et al. v United Mexican States, ICSID
Case No ARB (AF)/04/05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.02n1
Archer Daniels Midland Co. et al. v United Mexican States,
ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/04/05, Award, redacted version (Nov 21, 2007) . . . . 9.20n31, 21.36,
21.69, 22.50, 25.29n50, 28.70n106
Archer Daniels Midland Co. et al. v United Mexican States, ICSID
Case No ARB (AF)/04/05, Order of the Consolidation Tribunal (May 20, 2005) . . . . . . . 10.124
xxix
Table of Cases
Franck Charles Arif v Republic of Moldova, ICSID Case No ARB/11/23,

Award (Apr 8, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.92n159, 18.49, 20.60, 20.62n136, 23.49
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002)
(Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda), ICJ Rep. 2006. . . . . . . . . 17.26n73, 24.96n165
Asian Agricultural Products Ltd v Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No ARB/87/3,
Final Award (June 27, 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.101n231, 17.26n70,
19.05–19.07, 19.05n5, 19.23–19.24, 20.88, 25.69
Asylum Case (Columbia v Peru), Judgment (Nov 27, 1950) [1950] ICJ Rep. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.21
ATA Construction, Industrial & Trading Company v Jordan, ICSID
Case No ARB/08/2, Award (May 18, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.38
ATA Construction, Industrial & Trading Company v Jordan, ICSID Case No ARB/08/2,
Order Taking Note of the Discontinuance of the Proceeding (July 11, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . 26.36
Atlantic Richfield Co. & the Islamic Republic of Iran et al. No 50-396-1 IUSCTR.
Interim Award (May 8, 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.146
Atlantic Triton Company Ltd v People’s Revolutionary Republic of Guinea,
ICSID Case No ARB/84/1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.44n53, 24.72, 24.86, 24.163
Atlantic Triton Company Ltd v People’s Revolutionary Republic of Guinea,
ICSID Case No ARB/84/1, Award (Apr 21, 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.06, 19.09n14
Austrian Airlines v Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award (Oct 9, 2009). . . . . . 23.35n85, 23.98
Autopista Concesionada de Venezuela CA v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,
ICSID Case No ARB/00/5 Award (Sept 23, 2003) . . . . . . . . . . 14.64n224, 19.09n14, 19.19n39
Aven et al. v Republic of Costa Rica, UNCITRAL, UNCT/15/3, Procedural
Order No 2 (Feb 4, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.08
AWG Group Ltd v Argentine Republic, UNCITRAL, Decision on Liability
(July 30, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.27n65, 20.55, 22.60n95
Robert Azinian, Kenneth Davitian & Ellen Baca v United Mexican States,
ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/97/2, Mexico (1998), 5 ICSID Rep. 269. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.63
Robert Azinian, Kenneth Davitian & Ellen Baca v United Mexican States, Case No.
ARB (AF)/97/2, Award (Nov. 1, 1999) . . . . . . . . . 10.119n280, 10.119n281, 14.63n220, 21.18
Azurix Corp. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/12, Decision
on Jurisdiction (Feb 5 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.77n122
on Jurisdiction (Dec 8, 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.107, 19.01, 19.24
Azurix Corp. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/12, Award
(July 14, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.15n14, 15.50n83, 15.53, 16.71,
16.78–16.80, 20.23, 20.25, 20.88, 22.103, 22.117
Azurix Corp. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/12, Award
(July 26, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50n29
on Annulment (Sept 1, 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.04n6, 27.24–27.26, 27.29, 27.62
Azurix Corp. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/12, Decision on
the Annulment Application of the Argentine Republic (Sept 1, 2009). . . . . . . . 6.53n108, 15.16
B-Mex LLC et al. v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/16/3, Procedural
Order No 1 (Apr 4, 2017). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.28
Balkan Energy Company v Republic of Ghana, UNCITRAL, Award (Apr 1, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . 17.06
Michael Ballantine & Lisa Ballantine v Dominican Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No
2016-17, Procedural Order No 2 (Apr 21, 2017). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.20
Barcelona Traction see Case Concerning Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Company, Limited
Cas(Belg. v Spain) (Feb 5, 1970) (1970)
Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi AS v Pakistan, ICSID Case No ARB/03/29, Decision
on Jurisdiction (Nov 14, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.42, 11.74n122, 13.07,
14.51n172, 15.42n69,
15.51, 15.56, 24.87, 30.04
Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi AS v Pakistan, ICSID Case No ARB/03/29,
Award (Aug 27, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.47n106, 21.22, 21.53, 21.75
xxx
Table of Cases
Bayview Irrigation District et al. v Mexico, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/05/1,

Award (June 19, 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.106, 11.107, 28.51, 28.75
BdB v Netherlands (Communication No 273/1989), Human Rights Committee, Report 1989,
U.N. Doc. A/44/40 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.41
Bear Creek Mining Corporation v Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No ARB/14/21,
Procedural Order No 6 (July 21, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.117, 9.150
Behring International, Inc. & the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force et al., Interim Award No
46-382-3 (Feb 22, 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.31, 24.46n56, 24.141, 24.142
Beijing Urban Construction Group Co. Ltd v Republic of Yemen, ICSID
Case No ARB/14/30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.95n217, 10.97
Bendone-Derossi International & Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
Award No 352-375-1 ITM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.57n176
Bernhard von Pezold & Others v Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No ARB/10/15 . . . . . . . . . . . 9.107, 9.143,
11.40, 11.68n104, 11.78n133, 11.79, 13.19–13.20
Bernhard von Pezold & Others v Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No ARB/10/15,
Award (July 28, 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.25n26, 17.26
Bernhard von Pezold & Others v Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No ARB/10/15, Decision on
Applicant’s Application for Provisional Measures to Exclude Consideration of
the Merits in Part I (Oct 13, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.20n12
Vladimir Berschader & Moïse Berschader v Russian Federation, SCC Case No 080/2004. . . . . . . 9.40
Award (Apr 21, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.19n21, 23.86n178, 23.90–23.94
BG Group Plc v Argentine Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award (Dec 24, 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.53n31, 28.76, 28.79, 29.23
William Bikoff & George Eisenpresser & Islamic Republic of Iran, Award
No 138-82-2 (June 29, 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.57n176
Bilcon v Government of Canada, PCA Case No 2009-04, Award on Jurisdiction &
Liability (Mar 17, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.02, 21.15, 21.18, 21.56
Rupert Binder v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award (Redacted)
(July 15, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.41n90, 20.43, 20.73n160, 20.92
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd v United Republic of Tanzania,
ICSID Case No ARB/05/22, Award (July 24, 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.26, 20.69, 25.29n50
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID
Case No ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No 1 (Mar 31, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.23n19, 24.27,
24.66, 24.116
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID
Case No ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No 3 (Sept 29, 2006). . . . . . . 9.20n29, 9.25, 9.29, 9.97,
9.99–9.102, 9.143, 11.67, 14.51n175,
14.62n214, 15.46
Blue Bank International & Trust (Barbados) Ltd v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,
ICSID Case No Arb/12/20, Decision on the Parties’ Proposal to Disqualify
the Majority of the Tribunal (Nov 12, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.16, 8.17
Blue Bank International & Trust (Barbados) Ltd v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,
ICSID Case No ARB/12/20, Award (Apr 26, 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.59n122
Boeing et al. & the Islamic Republic of Iran, Interim Award No 34-222-1 (Feb 17, 1984). . . . . 24.141
Border Timbers Ltd, Timber Products International (Private) Ltd & Hangani Development Co.
(Private) Ltd v Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No ARB/10/25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.20n12
Border Timbers Ltd, Timber Products International (Private) Ltd & Hangani Development Co.
(Private) Ltd v Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No ARB/10/25, Procedural Order No
2 (June 26, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.107n184, 9.143
Border Timbers Ltd, Timber Products International (Private) Ltd & Hangani
Development Co. (Private) Ltd v Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID
Case No ARB/10/25, Procedural Order No 5 (Apr 3, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.62, 24.122
Bosh International, Inc. & B&P Ltd Foreign Investments Enterprise v Ukraine,
ICSID Case No ARB/08/11, Award (Oct 25, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . 14.34n109, 14.41, 14.42n143,
14.46, 14.84, 16.74, 20.30n67
xxxi
Table of Cases
BP America Production Co. & Others v Argentine Republic, ICSID

Case No ARB/04/8, Decision on Jurisdiction (July 27, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.37n52
Brandes Investment Partners, LP v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID
Case No ARB/08/3, Decision on the Respondent’s Objection Under Rule 41(5)
of the ICSID Arbitration Rules (Feb 2, 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.26n54, 7.28, 7.28n62
Brazilian Loans Case (Braz. v Fr.) 1929 PCIJ (ser. A) No 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.55
Bridas v Turkmenistan, Third Partial Award & Dissent (Sept 6, 2000),
ICC Case No 9058/FMS/KGA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.44n81
Briegel v Germany (1923) 3 MAT 358. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.64n222
BSG Resources Ltd, BSG Resources (Guinea) Ltd & BSG Resources
(Guinea) SÀRL v Republic of Guinea, ICSID Case No ARB/14/22,
Procedural Order No 2 (Sept 17, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.37
BSG Resources Ltd, BSG Resources (Guinea) Ltd & BSG Resources
(Guinea) SÀRL v Republic of Guinea, ICSID Case No ARB/14/22, Procedural
Order No 3 (Nov 25, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.85n138
Bureau Veritas, Inspection, Assessment & Control BV v Republic of Paraguay,
ICSID Case No ARB/07/9, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections
to Jurisdiction (May 29, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.42n65, 11.110, 11.111,
15.17n22, 15.23n31, 15.50n83
Bureau Veritas, Inspection, Assessment & Control BV v Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case No
ARB/07/9, Decision on Jurisdiction (Oct 9, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . 14.51n172, 16.41, 16.49, 16.76
Burimi SRL & Eagle Games SA v Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No ARB/11/18,
Procedural Order No 1 & Decision on Bifurcation (Apr 18, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.25
Burimi SRL & Eagle Games SA v Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No ARB/11/18,
Procedural Order No 2 (May 3, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.87, 24.136
Burlington Resources Inc. & Others v Republic of Ecuador & Empresa Estatal
Petróleos del Ecuador (PetroEcuador), ICSID Case No ARB/08/5. . . . . . . . . . . 4.04, 8.17, 15.23
Burlington Resources Inc. & Others v Republic of Ecuador & Empresa Estatal Petróleos
del Ecuador (PetroEcuador), ICSID Case No ARB/08/5, Procedural Order No 1 on
Burlington Oriente’s Request for Provisional Measures (June 29, 2009). . . . . . . . . . 24.25–24.26,
24.27, 24.42, 24.52, 24.75n121, 24.92,
24.117, 24.135, 24.139
Petróleos del Ecuador (PetroEcuador), ICSID Case No ARB/08/5, Decision
on Jurisdiction (June 2, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.59, 16.73
Petróleos del Ecuador (PetroEcuador), ICSID Case No ARB/08/5, Decision on
Liability (Dec 14, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.20, 22.70, 22.84, 24.152
Burlington Resources Inc. & Others v Republic of Ecuador & Empresa Estatal Petróleos
del Ecuador (PetroEcuador), ICSID Case No ARB/08/5, Decision on Ecuador’s
Counterclaims (Feb 7, 2017). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.16n44, 17.19n59, 17.59n182
Camuzzi International SA v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/7,
Decision on Jurisdiction (May 11, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.104n242
Camuzzi International SA v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/7, Decision on
Jurisdiction (June 10, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.69
Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade v United States, NAFTA/UNCITRAL, Award on
Jurisdiction (Jan 28, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.14, 11.107
UNCITRAL, Decision on the Place of Arbitration, Filing of a Statement of Defence and
Bifurcation of the Proceedings (Jan 23, 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.16
Canfor Corp. v United States of America and Terminal Forest Products Ltd. v United States
of America, UNCITRAL, Decision on Preliminary Question (June 6, 2006) . . . . . 13.22–13.23,
13.45
Canfor Corporation v United States of America; Tembec Inc. et al. v United States of America
& Terminal Forest Products Ltd v United States of America, UNCITRAL, Order of the
Consolidation Tribunal (Sept 7, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.106n60, 9.20n29, 9.129
Capital Financial Holdings Luxembourg SA v Republic of Cameroon,
ICSID Case No ARB/15/18 Award (June 22, 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . 11.70n108, 11.92, 11.92n160
xxxii
Table of Cases
Caratube International Oil Company LLP & Devincci Salah Hourani v Republic of Kazakhstan,
ICSID Case No ARB/13/13, Decision on the Proposal for Disqualification of Mr. Bruno
Boesch (Mar 20, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.17, 8.90, 10.55, 11.71, 11.73n120,
11.92n159, 13.21, 13.36
Caratube International Oil Company LLP & Devincci Salah Hourani v Republic of Kazakhstan,
ICSID Case No ARB/13/13, Decision on the Claimant’s Request for Provisional
Measures (Dec 4, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.55n73, 24.98n168, 24.136
Caratube International Oil Company LLP & Devincci Salah Hourani v Republic of Kazakhstan
ICSID Case No ARB/13/13, Award (Sept 27 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.11
Caratube International Oil Company LLP v Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID
Case No ARB/08/12, Decision Regarding Claimant’s Application for Provisional
Measures (July 31, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.55n73
Caratube International Oil Company LLP v Republic of Kazakhstan,
ICSID Case No ARB/08/12, Decision on Annulment (Feb 21, 2014). . . . . . . 27.42, 27.44n107
Cargill Inc. v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/05/2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.11
Cargill Inc. v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/05/2, Award
(Sept 18, 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.47n106, 20.49, 21.15, 21.36, 29.20
Case Concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v Russian Federation),
Order (Oct 15, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.115n195, 24.116n200
Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of Congo, Counter-Claims
Order (Nov 29, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.34n102
Case Concerning Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Company, Ltd Cas
(Belgium v Spain) (Feb 5, 1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.85, 10.25–10.29, 10.25n43, 10.28n53,
10.32, 10.38n67, 10.60, 10.60n106, 10.100
Case Concerning Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v Honduras) (1986). . . . . 13.34
Case Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area,
Gulf of Maine ICJ Reports 1984, 246. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.28, 14.73
Case Concerning German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia & the Factory at
Chorzów (Ger. v Pol.), 1926 PCIJ (ser. A) No 7 (May 25, 1926). . . . . . 14.16, 15.07, 15.45n73,
22.15, 25.07, 25.10
Case Concerning German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia & the Factory at Chorzów
(Ger. v Pol.), 1926 PCIJ (ser. A) No 7 (May 25, 1926), Judgment No 13
(Claim for Indemnity) (Merits) (Sept 13, 1928). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.15, 26.41
Case Concerning Payment in Gold of Brazilian Federal Loans Issued in France
(France v Brazil), 1929 PCIJ (ser. A) Nos 21-22 (July 12, 1929) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.45n73
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd & Others v India, PCA Case No 2013-09, Decision on the
Respondent’s Challenge to Hon. Marc Lalonde as Presiding Arbitrator & Professor
Francisco Orrego Vicuña as Co-Arbitrator (Sept 30, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.95–8.97
CDC Group plc v Republic of the Seychelles, ICSID Case No ARB/02/14, Award
(Dec 17, 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.95n217
CDC Group plc v Republic of the Seychelles, ICSID Case No ARB/02/14,
Decision on Whether or Not to Continue Stay & Order (July 14, 2004). . . . . . . . . . . 27.58n158
CDC Group plc v Republic of the Seychelles, ICSID Case No ARB/02/14, Decision on
Annulment (June 29, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.13, 27.16n30, 27.31, 27.40, 27.47
CEMEX Caracas Investments BV & CEMEX II Caracas Investments BV v Bolivarian Republic
of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/08/15, Decision on the Claimant’s Request for
Provisional Measures (Mar 3, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.06n4, 24.53, 24.136
CEMEX Caracas Investments BV & CEMEX II Caracas Investments BV v Bolivarian Republic
of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/08/15, Decision on Jurisdiction
(December 30, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.106n246
Central European Aluminium Company (CEAC) v Montenegro, ICSID
Case No ARB/14/8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.88, 12.12
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua),
Provisional Measures, Order (Mar 8, 2011), ICJ Rep. 2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.106n181
Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v France), Provisional Measure,
Order of 17 June, 2003, ICJ Reports 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.115n195, 24.132n222
xxxiii
Table of Cases
Československá Obchondní Banka AS v Slovak Republic, ICSID

Case No ARB/97/4 (Dec 129, 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.06
Československá Obchondní Banka AS v Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/97/4, Decision
of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (May 24, 1999). . . . 10.95n217, 10.96, 11.21n20,
11.25n26, 11.30, 11.30n34,
11.53, 11.54, 11.65, 26.27
Československá Obchondní Banka AS v Slovak Republic, ICSID
Case No ARB/97/4, Orders No 4 & No 5 (Jan 11, 1999 & Mar 1, 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.74
Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v U.K.), Reasoned Decision
on Challenge (Nov 30, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.59n105
Champion Trading Co. et al. v Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/02/9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.18, 10.18n32
Champion Trading Co. et al. v Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/02/9,
Award (Oct 27, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.22, 21.37
Chemtura Corporation v Government of Canada (UNCITRAL), Award (Aug 2, 2010). . . . . . . 22.59
Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Co. v Ecuador, PCA Case No 2009-23. . . . . . . . . . . 29.25
Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Co. v Ecuador, PCA Case No 2009-23, Order on
Interim Measures (May 14, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.61, 24.64, 24.168
Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Co. v Ecuador, PCA Case No 2009-23, Order for
Interim Measures (Feb 9, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.104, 24.125
Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Co. v Ecuador, PCA Case No 2009-23, Procedural
Order No 8 (Apr 18, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.144
Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Co. v Ecuador, PCA Case No 2009-23, First Interim
Award on Interim Measures (Jan 25, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.125
Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Co. v Ecuador, PCA Case No 2009-23, Second
Interim Award on Interim Measures (Feb 16, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.146
Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Co. v Ecuador, PCA Case No 2009-23, Third
Interim Award on Jurisdiction & Admissibility (Feb 27, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.37n54
Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Co. v Ecuador, PCA Case No 2009-23, Fourth
Interim Award (Feb 7, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.146
Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Co. v Ecuador, PCA Case No 34877, Interim Award
(Nov 1, 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.37n54
Chevron Corporation & Texaco Petroleum Co. v Ecuador, PCA Case No 34877, Final Award
(Aug 31, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.11
Chorzów Factory see Case Concerning German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia & the Factory at
Chorzów (Ger. v Pol.), 1926 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No 7 (May 25, 1926)
Churchill Mining PLC & Planet Mining Pty Ltd v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No
ARB/12/14 & 12/40, Procedural Order No 2 (Feb 5, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.21
ARB/12/14 & 12/40, Procedural Order No 3 (Mar 4, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.101, 24.137
ARB/12/14 & 12/40, Procedural Order No 4 (Mar 4, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . 24.23n20, 24.25n23
ARB/12/14 & 12/40, Procedural Order No 9 (Aug 7, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.78n127, 24.92
ARB/12/14 & 12/40, Procedural Order No 14 (Dec 22, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . 24.56, 24.94n161
Churchill Mining PLC & Planet Mining Pty Ltd v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID
Case No ARB/12/14 & 12/40, Procedural Order No 15 (Jan 12, 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.29
City Oriente Ltd v Republic of Ecuador & Empresa Estatal Petroleos del Ecuador, ICSID Case
No ARB/06/21, Decision on Provisional Measures (Nov 19, 2007). . . . . . . 24.116, 24.119n206,
24.121, 24.134, 24.139, 24.142, 24.149
City Oriente Ltd v Republic of Ecuador & Empresa Estatal Petroleos del Ecuador, ICSID Case
No ARB/06/21, Decision on Revocation of Provisional Measures & Other Procedural
Matters (May 13, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.42
Clayton & Others v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No 2009-04, Procedural
Order No 20 (Jan 5, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.08n14, 12.14, 14.19, 14.24n67, 14.38n118
CME Czech Republic BV v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award
(Sept 13, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.104n59, 4.69n28, 10.115, 14.45, 21.82, 22.61, 29.08, 29.15
xxxiv
Table of Cases
CME Czech Republic BV v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL,, Final Award

(Mar 14, 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.12, 19.12n26, 25.33, 25.42, 25.44n80
CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID
Case No ARB/01/08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.21, 27.38, 27.40, 27.47, 27.48, 27.71
CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/08, Decision
on Jurisdiction (July 17, 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.29n11, 4.66n25, 10.103, 10.103n237,
10.103n240, 14.80, 15.77n123, 19.01
CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/08, Award
(May 12, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.15n14, 15.77, 16.57, 16.63, 16.82,
16.83, 20.54, 20.61, 20.62, 20.65, 20.91,
20.96, 21.11n18, 22.63, 25.48, 29.82
CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/08, Decision
on Stay of Enforcement (Sept 1, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.58n135
CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/08,
Decision on Annulment (Sept 25, 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.51n98
Commerce Group Corp. & San Sebastian Gold Mines Inc. v El Salvador, ICSID
Case No ARB/09/17, Public Hearing (Nov 17, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.142
Commerce Group Corp. & San Sebastian Gold Mines Inc. v El Salvador, ICSID
Case No ARB/09/17, Award (Mar 18, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.43n88, 7.01n1
Commerce Group Corp. & San Sebastian Gold Mines Inc. v El Salvador,
ICSID Case No ARB/09/17, Decision on El Salvador’s Application for Security for Costs
(Sept 20, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.20n12, 26.47
Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija SA & Vivendi Universal SA v Argentine Republic,
ICSID Case No ARB/97/3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.02n1, 27.31, 27.33n68
Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija SA & Vivendi Universal SA v Argentine Republic, ICSID
Case No ARB/97/3, Award (Nov 21, 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.60–15.64, 15.76
ICSID Case No ARB/97/3, Decision on the Challenge to the President of
the Committee (3 Oct 3, 2001). . . . . . . . . . 8.15n15, 9.29, 9.74, 9.85, 9.92–9.95, 9.102, 9.137
Case No ARB/97/3, Decision on Annulment (July 3, 2002) . . . . 14.80, 15.41–15.42, 15.42n69,
15.45, 15.47, 15.53, 15.60, 15.61, 15.70, 15.71, 15.76,
19.30, 27.07, 27.20, 27.44, 27.46–27.47
Case No ARB/97/3, Second Award (Aug 20, 2007) (Vivendi v Argentina II). . . . . . . . 15.15n15,
15.16, 15.47, 20.23, 22.65, 25.04n6, 25.38n68
ICSID Case No ARB/97/3, Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Request for
a Continued Stay of Enforcement of the Award (Nov 4, 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.58n135
Case No ARB/97/3, Second Decision on Annulment (Aug 10, 2010)
(Vivendi v Argentina II). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.24, 27.27–27.28, 27.47, 27.67
Compañía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena SA v Republic of Costa Rica,
ICSID Case No ARB/96/1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.83
Compañía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena SA v Republic of Costa Rica,
ICSID Case No ARB/96/1, Final Award (Feb 17, 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.11
Companie d’Exploitation du Chemin de Fer Transgabonais v Gabonese Republic, ICSID Case
No ARB/04/5, Decision on Stay of Enforcement of the award (Mar 13, 2009). . . . . . 27.58n135
Companie d’Exploitation du Chemin de Fer Transgabonais v Gabonese Republic,
ICSID Case No ARB/04/5, Decision on Annulment (May 11, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . 27.24, 27.28
Company General of the Orinoco Case (France v Venezuela), 10 RIAA 250 (1906) . . . . . . . . . . 15.08
Computer Sciences Corp. v Iran et al. (1986-I) 10 IUSCTR 269. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.42
Concessions des Phares de l’Empire Ottoman (1956) 12 RIAA 155 (France v Greece). . . . . . . . . 14.62
Condorelli (1984-VI) 189 RdC 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.51n174
ConocoPhillips Company et al. v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID
Case No ARB/07/30, Decision on the Proposal to Disqualify L. Yves Fortier,
Q.C. Arbitrator (Feb 27, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.14, 8.17, 8.62
xxxv
Table of Cases
ConocoPhillips Company et al. v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID

Case No ARB/07/30, Decision on the Proposal to Disqualify a Majority of the Tribunal
(May 5, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.17, 8.84, 8.86
Consistency of Certain Danzig Legislative Decrees with the Constitution of the Free City,
Advisory Opinion, 1935 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No 65 (Dec 4, 1935) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.45n73
Consortium Groupement LESI-DIPENTA v République Algérienne Démocratique
et Populaire, ICSID Case No ARB/03/08, Award (Jan 10, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . 11.91, 11.97n169,
11.100n175, 16.46, 16.46n76
Consortium RFCC v Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No ARB/00/6. . . . 6.66n140, 14.88, 15.12,
15.12n9, 15.21n29, 15.50n83, 15.53n92
Consortium RFCC v Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No ARB/00/6,
Award (Dec 22, 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.22, 21.70
Continental Casualty Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/9. . . . . . . . . 27.02n1
Continental Casualty Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/9,
Decision on Jurisdiction (Feb 22, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.66, 30.13
Continental Casualty Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/9,
Award (Sept 5, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.44, 16.83, 20.03, 20.70, 25.49
Continental Casualty Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/9, Decision
by ad hoc Committee on Continental Casualty Company’s preliminary objection to
Argentina’s application for annulment (Oct 23, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.62
Convial Callao SA & CCI-Compañía de Concesiones de Infraestructura SA v Republic of Peru,
ICSID Case No ARB/10/2, Decision on Application for Provisional Measures
(Feb 22, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.25, 24.57
Corfu Channel (UK v Albania) (Damages) [1949] ICJ Rep. 243. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.01n1
Corn Products International Inc v Mexico, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/04/01. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.124
Corn Products International Inc v Mexico, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/04/01, Decision on
Responsibility (Jan 15, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.30, 21.36, 21.69
Corona Materials LLC v Dominican Republic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.10n26
Cortec Mining Kenya Ltd, Cortec (Pty) Ltd & Stirling Capital Ltd v Kenya. . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.10n26
The Republic of Croatia v MOL Hungarian Oil & Gas Plc, PCA Case No 2014-15,
Final Award (Dec 23, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.60, 18.65
Crystallex International Co. v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID
Case No ARB (AF)/11/2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.10n26
Crystallex International Co. v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID
Case No ARB (AF)/11/2, Award (Apr 4, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.49, 19.20n41, 19.30n52,
20.50, 20.62, 20.62n136, 20.96, 25.19,
25.29n50, 25.30, 25.61, 25.66
Daimler Financial Services AG v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/05/1, Award (Aug
22, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.35n85, 23.47n102, 23.56
Daimler Financial Services AG v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/05/1,
Decision on Annulment (Jan 7, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.38
Dan Cake (Portugal) SA v Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/12/9, Decision
on Jurisdiction & Liability (Aug 24, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.38
Dawood Rawat v Republic of Mauritius (UNCITRAL), PCA Case 2016-20, Order Regarding
Claimant’s & Respondent’s Requests for Interim Measures (Jan 11, 2017). . . . 26.47, 26.59n158
Jan de Nul NV & Dredging International NV v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID
Case No ARB/04/13, Decision on Jurisdiction (June 16, 2006). . . . . . . . 11.73n119, 11.74n121,
11.77n129, 11.84n140, 11.90n153, 13.37,
13.41, 13.44, 14.30n89, 14.47, 14.48, 14.50, 14.51,
14.51n173, 14.53, 14.54, 15.64
Jan de Nul NV & Dredging International NV v Arab Republic of Egypt,
ICSID Case No ARB/04/13, Award (Nov 6, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.41, 20.89
Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda, Provisional Measures, Order
(July 10, 2002), ICJ Rep. 2002,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.96n165
Denunciation of the Treaty of 2 November 1865 between China & Belgium see Sino Belgian
Treaty Case, 1927 P.C.I.J. Series A, No 8, p. 7, Order (Feb 21, 1927)
xxxvi
Table of Cases
Desert Line Projects LLC v Republic of Yemen, ICSID Case No ARB/05/17, Award (Feb 6,
2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.100n175, 13.27, 14.75,
17.19n59, 18.47, 18.47n81, 25.09
Detroit International Bridge Company v Government of Canada, NAFTA/UNCITRAL,
Procedural Order No 8 (May 12, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.132
Deutsche Bank AG v Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No ARB/09/2,
Award (Oct 23, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.74n121, 11.83, 11.84n140, 11.86, 11.88n148,
11.91n155, 11.113, 14.28, 14.30n101, 15.50n85
Deutsche Bank AG v Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID
Case No ARB/09/2, Award (Oct 31, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.26, 22.68, 22.106
Deutsche Bank AG v Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No ARB/09/2,
Dissenting Opinion of Makhdoom Ali Khan (Oct 31, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.33n73
Dredging International NV v Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/04/13 Award (Nov 6, 2008). . . . 14.30n89
Duke Energy Electroquil Partners & Electroquil SA v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID
Case No ARB/04/19, Award (Aug 18, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.59, 20.26, 25.29n50
Duke Energy International Peru Investments No 1 Ltd v Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No
ARB/03/28, Award (Aug 18, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.74n246
Duke Energy International Peru Investments No 1 Ltd v Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No
ARB/03/28, Decision on Stay of Enforcement (not public) (June 23, 2009). . . . . . . . 27.58n135
E-Systems, Rockwell International Systems Inc. & Islamic Republic of Iran, Ministry of
Defence, Interim Award No 20-430-1 (June 6, 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.81
E-systems v Islamic Republic of Iran & Bank Melli (Feb 4, 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.60n87
ECE Projektmanagement International GmbH & Kommanditgesellschaft PANTA
Achtundsechzigste Grundstücksgesellschaft mbH & Co v Czech Republic,
PCA Case No 2010-5, Award, (Sept 19, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.51
EDF International SA (France) v Republic of Hungary, UNCITRAL Award (Dec 4, 2014). . . . 29.43
EDF International SA SAUR International SA & Leon Participaciones Argentinas SA v
Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/23, Challenge Decision Regarding Professor
Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler (June 25, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.15n15
Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/23, Award (June 11, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.49
Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/23, Decision on Stay of Enforcement (July
18, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.58n135
Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/23, Decision on Annulment
(Feb 5, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.24, 27.26–27.29, 27.38
EDF (Services) Ltd v Romania, ICSID Case No ARB/05/13, Award (Oct 8, 2009). . . . . . . 14.22n55,
14.30n101, 14.45, 18.57, 18.59,
18.108, 18.110, 20.84, 25.52n99, 26.35
EDF (Services) Ltd v Romania, ICSID Case No ARB/05/13, Dissenting
Opinion (Oct 8, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.84
El Paso Energy International Co. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/15 . . . 25.11, 25.24
El Paso Energy International Co. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/15, Decision
on Jurisdiction (Apr 27, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.66n101, 16.36, 16.37, 16.55
El Paso Energy International Co. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/15, Award
(Oct 31, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.05n5, 20.46, 20.59, 20.60, 20.82n174,
20.88, 22.69, 22.105, 22.118
El Paso Energy International Co. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/15,
Decision on Annulment (Sept 22, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.31, 27.40, 27.44n107
Electrabel SA v Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/07/19, Decision on
Jurisdiction, Applicable Law & Liability (Nov 30, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.33, 2.34, 2.45, 9.31,
9.104, 9.104n176, 9.105, 11.74n121, 14.30,
14.30n103, 14.45, 22.72
Electrabel SA v Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/07/19,
Award (Nov 25, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.30n67, 20.57
Electricity Company of Sofia & Bulgaria, Pleadings, PCIJ, Series C, No 88 (1939) 60 . . . . 14.63n221
xxxvii
Table of Cases
Electricity Company of Sofia & Bulgaria (Belgium v Bulgaria), Judgment (Dec 5, 1939), PCIJ
series A/B, No 79, 199. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.47
Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (US v Italy), ICJ Judgment (July 20, 1989), ICJ Rep. (1989) 15.
4.85, 10.32, 14.64, 20.96
Eli Lilly & Co. v Government of Canada, Case No UNCT/14/1, Procedural Order No 4 (Feb
23, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.76, 9.103n174, 9.127n211
Elsamex, SA v Republic of Honduras, ICSID Case No ARB/09/4, Award
(Nov 16, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.19n59
Elsamex, SA v Republic of Honduras, ICSID Case No ARB/09/4, Decision on
Elsamex S.A.’s Preliminary Objections (Jan 7, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.30
Elsamex, SA v Republic of Honduras, ICSID Case No ARB/09/4, Decision on Stay of
Enforcement (Jan 7, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.58n135
Emmis International Holding BV, Emmis Radio Operating BV & MEM Magyar Electronic
Media Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/12/2, Decision
on Objection under ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5) (Mar 11, 2013). . . . . 7.29n67, 12.18–12.19,
12.22, 12.27, 13.09, 13.58
Empresas Lucchetti SA & Lucchetti Peru SA v Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No ARB/03/4,
Award (Feb 7, 2005), 12 ICSID Rep. 219. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.26n70
EnCana Corporation v Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No UN3481, UNCITRAL (Canada/
Ecuador BIT). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.38, 14.53n181
EnCana Corporation v Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No UN3481, UNCITRAL
(Canada/Ecuador BIT), Award (Feb 3, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.88
EnCana Corporation v Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No UN3481, UNCITRAL
(Canada/Ecuador BIT), Interim Award, Request for Interim Measures of
Protection (Jan 31, 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.103, 24.123
Energoalians TOB v Republic of Moldova, Ad Hoc UNCITRAL Award
(Oct 23, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.13, 2.15n23, 2.20n30, 11.61
Enkev Beheer BV v Republic of Poland, PCA Case No 2013-01, First Partial
Award (Apr 29, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.61
Enron Corp. & Ponderosa Assets LP v Argentine Republic, ICSID
Case No ARB/01/3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.02n1, 27.38, 27.43, 27.48
Enron Corp. & Ponderosa Assets LP v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/3,
Decision on Jurisdiction (Jan 14, 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.51n79, 10.111, 15.77
Enron Corp. & Ponderosa Assets LP v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/3, Award
(May 22, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.15n14, 16.64, 20.22, 20.56, 20.75, 21.78
Enron Corp. & Ponderosa Assets LP v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/3,
Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Request for a Continued State
of Enforcement of the Award (Oct 7, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.57n134
Enron Corp. & Ponderosa Assets LP v Argentine Republic, ICSID
Case No ARB/01/3, Decision on Annulment (July 30, 2010) . . . . . . . . . 25.51n98, 27.22, 27.68
Ethyl Corp v Canada (Jurisdiction) (1999) 38 I.L.M. 708. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.65n227
Eudoro Armando Olguín v Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case No ARB/98/5, Decision on
Jurisdiction (Aug 8, 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.77n123
Eudoro Armando Olguín v Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case No ARB/98/5,
Award (July 26, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.11
Eureko BV v Republic of Poland, Ad Hoc Partial Award (Aug 19, 2005). . . . . . . 11.42, 14.65, 14.83,
15.12n9, 15.17, 15.64, 16.17, 16.41, 16.41n61,
16.51, 16.60, 16.64
EuroGas Inc. & Belmont Resources Inc. v Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/14/14,
Procedural Order No 2 (Apr 16, 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.45, 9.46
EuroGas Inc. & Belmont Resources Inc. v Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/14/14,
Procedural Order No 3 (June 23, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.54n71, 24.87, 26.10n26
European American Investment Bank AG v Slovak Republic, PCA Case No 2010-17, Award on
Jurisdiction (Oct 22, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.56, 23.101
European American Investment Bank AG v Slovak Republic, PCA Case No 2010-17, Second
Award on Jurisdiction (June 4, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.16
xxxviii
Table of Cases
Fábrica de Vidrios Los Andes CA & Owens-Illinois de Venezuela CA v Venezuela, ICSID Case
No ARB/12/21, Notice of Arbitration (Aug 10, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.116
Fábrica de Vidrios Los Andes CA & Owens-Illinois de Venezuela CA v Venezuela,
ICSID Case No ARB/12/21, Reasoned Decision on the Proposal to Disqualify L. Yves
Fortier, Q.C., Arbitrator (Mar 28, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.14n10, 8.111, 8.114
“Factory at Chorzów” see Case Concerning German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia & the
Factory at Chorzów (Ger. v Pol.), 1926 PCIJ (ser. A) No 7 (May 25, 1926)
Saba Fakes v Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/07/20, Award (July 14, 2010). . . . . 11.56n84,
11.71, 11.91n155, 11.94n165, 11.97,
11.100n175, 11.100n177, 18.20n25
Fedax NV v Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/96/3,
Award (Mar 9, 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.03, 16.03n5
Fedax NV v Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/96/3, Decision of the Tribunal on
Objections to Jurisdiction (July 11, 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.19, 11.24, 11.29, 11.52,
11.63, 11.65, 11.74, 11.74n122, 11.112n195
Fedders Corp. v Loristan Refrigeration Industries et al. (1986-IV) 13 IUSCTR 97 . . . . . . . . . . . 14.42
Marvin Ray Feldman Karpa v United Mexican States, Case No ARB (AF)/99/1 . . . . . . . . . . . 27.02n1
Marvin Ray Feldman Karpa v United Mexican States, Case No ARB (AF)/99/1, Procedural
Order No 2 concerning request for provisional measures & the schedule of the
proceeding (May 3, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.28
Marvin Ray Feldman Karpa v United Mexican States, Case No ARB (AF)/99/1, Award (Dec 16,
2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.47n106, 22.58, 22.87, 22.113, 29.08, 29.18, 29.38
Feldman v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/99/1, Award
(Dec 16, 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.48–21.51, 21.55, 21.62, 21.74, 21.75,
21.87, 21.90, 21.91, 25.29
Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/02/1, Award
(Redacted) (July 17, 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.20n31, 14.19
Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Spain v Canada), 1998 ICJ 432, 1998 WL 1797317. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.32
Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (UK v Iceland), 1972 ICJ 12 (Interim Protection Order of 17
August) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.54, 24.141n246
Flemingo Duty Free Shop Private Ltd v Poland, Award (Aug 12, 2016). . . . . 14.07, 14.19, 14.42n140
Flexi-Van Leasing, Inc. v Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
Award No 259-36-1 (Oct 13, 1986), 12 IUSCTR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.10n8
Flughafen Zürich y Gestión e Ingeniería IDC SA v Bolivarian Republic
of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/10/19, Award (Nov 18, 2014) . . . . . . . 6.66n140, 19.26n47
Fluor Corporation & Islamic Republic of Iran, Interim Award No I62-333-1
(Aug 6, 1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.82n135
Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation & the Air Force of the Islamic
Republic of Iran, Interim Award No 39-159-3 (June 4, 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.103n176
Piero Foresti, Laura de Carli and Others v Republic of South Africa, ICSID Case No. ARB
(AF)/07/1, Letter from the Tribunal to the Legal Resources Centre & the International
Commission of Jurists (Oct 5, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.106
Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v The Republic of the Philippines, ICSID
Case No ARB/03/25 (Fraport I). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.50–4.51, 4.66n25
Case No ARB/03/25 (Fraport I), Award (Aug 16, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.63n96,
18.19n20, 18.30, 18.30n41, 18.46–18.48, 18.54, 18.59
Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v The Republic of the Philippines,
ICSID Case No ARB/03/25 (Fraport I), Decision on Annulment
(Dec 23, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.30n41,27.22, 27.54
Case No ARB/11/12 (Fraport II), Award (Dec 10, 2014). . . . . . 17.57n177, 18.19n20, 18.30n41
Frontier Petroleum Services Ltd v Czech Republic, PCA Final Award
(Nov 12, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.37n54, 11.37n55, 14.43n148, 20.89n195
Ron Fuchs v Republic of Georgia, ICSID Case No ARB/07/15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.02n4, 27.56
Ron Fuchs v Republic of Georgia, ICSID Case No ARB/07/15, Decision
on Stay of Enforcement (Nov 12, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.58n135
xxxix
Table of Cases
Funnekotter v Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No ARB/05/6, Award (Apr 22, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.38
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), Judgment (Sept 25, 1997) (1997) ICJ
Reports, 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.44n80
Gabriel Resources Ltd & Gabriel Resources (Jersey) Ltd v Romania ICSID
Case No ARB/15/31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.150, 26.10n26
GAMI Investments Inc. v United Mexican States, Final Award
(Nov 15, 2004) [2005] 44 ILM 545. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.29n12, 10.105, 14.04, 14.24n66,
21.52, 21.55, 21.64
Garanti Koza LLP v Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No ARB/11/20, Decision on
Jurisdiction of 3 July 2013. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.97
Gas Natural SDG SA v Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No ARB/03/10, Decision on
Jurisdiction (June 17, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.108, 10.108n248
GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/08/16
Award (Mar 31, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.39, 22.19
Gemplus SA, SLP SA & Gemplus Industrial SA de CV v United Mexican States, ICSID Case
No ARB (AF)/04/3 & ARB (AF)/04/4, Award (June 16, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.17n22, 22.67,
25.29n50, 26.35, 26.41n92
Generation Ukraine, Inc. v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/00/9, Award
(Sept 16, 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.66n25, 10.81, 11.46n71, 14.80n256, 14.87,
14.87n270, 15.35–15.36, 22.47
Genin, Eastern Credit Ltd Inc. & AS Baltoil v Estonia, ICSID Case No ARB/99/2,
Award (June 25, 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.34n109, 14.41, 15.77n123, 15.78
German Settlers in Poland, Advisory Opinion, 1923 PCIJ (ser. B) No 6
(Sept 10, 1923) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.45n73
Glamis Gold, Ltd v United States of America, NAFTA/UNCITRAL, Procedural Order No 2
(May 31, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.08n13, 12.13n25, 12.21, 12.25
Glamis Gold, Ltd v United States of America, NAFTA/UNCITRAL, Decision on Application
& Submission by Quechan Indian Nation (Sept 16, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.70–9.71, 9.130
Glamis Gold, Ltd v United States of America, NAFTA/UNCITRAL, Award
(June 8, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.32n69, 20.15, 20.66
Global Trading Resource Corp. & Globex International Inc. v Ukraine, ICSID
Case No ARB/09/11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.13n41
Global Trading Resource Corp. & Globex International Inc. v Ukraine, ICSID
Case No ARB/09/11, Award (Dec 1, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.29, 11.43n67
Antoine Goetz et al. v Republic of Burundi I, ICSID Case No ARB/95/03,
Award (Feb 10, 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.51n79, 19.08
Antoine Goetz et al. v Republic of Burundi II, ICSID Case No ARB/01/2,
Award (June 21, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . 17.11, 17.14–17.15, 17.29, 17.40, 17.42, 17.52, 25.42n75
Gold Reserve Inc. v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/09/1 . . . . . . . 10.73
Gold Reserve Inc. v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/09/1, Award
(Sept 22, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.64n141, 25.07n10, 25.19, 25.30,
25.55, 25.66, 29.40
Grand River Enter. Six Nations Ltd et al. v United States, NAFTA/UNCITRAL,
Transcripts of the Hearing on Jurisdiction (Mar 23-25, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.135n216, 11.107
Grand River Enter. Six Nations Ltd et al. v United States, NAFTA/UNCITRAL,
Decision on Jurisdiction (July 20, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.29
Grynberg (Rachel, Stephen & Miriam) & RSM Production Corporation v Grenada, ICSID
Case No ARB/10/6, Decision on Respondent’s Application for Security
for Costs (Oct 14, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.46n109
Grynberg (Rachel, Stephen & Miriam) & RSM Production Corporation v Grenada, ICSID
Case No ARB/10/6, Award (Dec 10, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.29
Guaracachi America Inc. & Rurelec PLC v Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA
Case No 2011–17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.10n26
Guaracachi America Inc. & Rurelec PLC v Plurinational State of Bolivia,
PCA Case No 2011–17, Procedural Order No 13 (Feb 21, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.54
Guaracachi America Inc. & Rurelec PLC v Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No
2011–17, Procedural Order No 14 (Mar 11, 2013). . . . . . . . 24.90, 24.110, 26.45, 26.47, 26.49
xl
Table of Cases
Guinea-Bissau v Senegal, ICJ Arbitral Award of July 31, 1989. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.20n14

Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd & others v Republic of Yemen, ICC Arbitration No
19299/MCP, Award (July 10, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.26
Gustav FW Hamester GmbH & Co KG v Republic of Ghana, ICSID
Case No ARB/07/24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.07, 14.22
Gustav FW Hamester GmbH & Co KG v Republic of Ghana, ICSID Case No ARB/07/24,
Award (June 18, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.62–13.63, 14.45, 14.47, 14.49,
14.50, 17.52, 18.19n20, 18.23, 26.49
Hanocal Holding BV & IPIC International BV v Republic of Korea, ICSID Case No ARB/15/
17, Order of the Tribunal discontinuing the proceedings (Oct 5, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . 10.95n217
Helnan International Hotels AS v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/05/19,
Decision on Jurisdiction (Oct 17, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.93n162, 14.41, 14.55n191
Helnan International Hotels AS v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/05/19, Award
(July 3, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.35
Helnan International Hotels AS v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/05/19,
Decision on Annulment (June 14, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.22
Hesham TM Al-Warraq v Republic of Indonesia, UNCITRAL, Award on Respondent’s
Preliminary Objections to Jurisdiction & Admissibility of the Claims
(June 21, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.37–18.39, 24.61, 24.89, 26.46, 26.47
Hesham TM Al-Warraq v Republic of Indonesia, UNCITRAL, Award (Dec 1, 2014). . . . . . . . . 20.37
Hesham TM Al-Warraq v Republic of Indonesia, UNCITRAL, Final Award
(Dec 15, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.06, 17.17–17.18, 17.88, 18.35–18.36,
18.98, 23.49
Himpurna California Energy Ltd v PT (Persero) Perusahaan Listruik Negara (Indonesia), Final
Award (May 4, 1999), 25 YB Comm. Arb. 13 (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.04n6, 25.45n84
Hochtief AG v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/31, Decision
on Jurisdiction (Oct 24, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.99, 23.104
Hoffland Honey v NIOC, Award (Jan 26, 1983), 2 IUSCTR 41. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.29n53
Holiday Inns SA & Others v Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No ARB/72/1. . . . . . . . . . . 9.21n33
Holiday Inns SA & Others v Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No ARB/72/1, Order (July 2,
1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.48, 24.74, 24.94
Holiday Inns SA & Others v Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No ARB/72/1,
Decision on Jurisdiction (May 12, 1974). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.24n25
Joseph Houben v Burundi, ICSID Case No ARB/13/7, Award (Jan 12, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.40
Hrvatska Elektroprivreda DD v Republic of Slovenia, ICSID Case No ARB/05/24,
Decision on the treaty interpretation issue (June 12, 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.95n217
Hulley Enterprises Ltd (Cyprus) v Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No AA 226,
Interim Award on Jurisdiction & Admissibility (Nov 30, 2009)
(Yukos Interim Award). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.15, 2.20, 2.25, 2.25n35, 2.29, 2.44, 2.58, 2.84,
2.88, 11.60, 11.92n159, 11.99
Hulley Enterprises Ltd (Cyprus) v Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No AA 226,
Final Award (July 18, 2014). . . . . . . 8.100–8.103, 10.82n185, 12.29, 14.30n101, 14.43, 14.67,
18.27n39, 18.28, 25.41n73, 29.27
Hussein Nuaman Soufraki v United Arab Emirates, ICSID Case No ARB/02/7, Decision on
Jurisdiction (July 7, 2004). . . . . 10.13, 10.16, 10.16n23, 10.16n24, 10.16n25, 10.16n27, 10.17
Hussein Nuaman Soufraki v United Arab Emirates, ICSID Case No ARB/02/7, Decision on
Annulment (June 5, 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.36, 13.55, 27.31, 27.38, 27.41, 27.47
Hydro S.r.l. & Others v Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No ARB/15/28, Order on
Provisional Measures (Mar 3, 2016), revoked & modified by a Decision
of September 1, 2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.54n70, 24.57
Iberdrola SA & Iberdrola Energía SAU v Plurinational State of Bolivia,
PCA Case No 2015-05, Procedural Order (Aug 7, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.37
İçkale İnşaat Ltd Şirketi v Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No ARB/10/24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.02n1
İçkale İnşaat Ltd Şirketi v Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No ARB/10/2, Decision on
Claimant’s Proposal to Disqualify Professor Phillipe Sands (July 11, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.14
İçkale İnşaat Ltd Şirketi v Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No ARB/10/2, Award
(Mar 8, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.25n26, 23.49n110
xli
Table of Cases
ICS Inspection & Control Services Ltd v Argentine Republic, PCA Case No 2010-9, Award on
Jurisdiction (Feb 10, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.40, 23.35n85, 23.95, 23.104
Impregilo S.p.A. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.69
Impregilo S.p.A. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/17, Award
(June 21, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.17, 20.57, 20.89, 20.90n198
Impregilo S.p.A. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/17, Decision on Annulment
(Jan 24, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.31, 27.40
Impregilo S.p.A. v Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No ARB/03/3, Decision on
Jurisdiction (Apr 22, 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.42, 13.52, 14.30n95, 14.51n172,
14.90, 15.12, 15.12n10, 15.34, 15.42, 15.50n83, 15.53, 16.70, 17.26n70
Inceysa Vallisoletana SL v Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No ARB/03/26,
Award (Aug 2, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.100n176, 18.19n20, 18.25
Industria Nacional de Alimentos SA & Indalsa Perú SA v Republic of Peru ICSID
Case No ARB/03/4, Decision of the Ad hoc Committee on Annulment
(Sept 5, 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.34
Industria Nacional de Alimentos SA & Indalsa Perú SA v Republic of Peru ICSID
Case No ARB/03/4, Dissenting Opinion Attached to Decision on Annulment. . . . . . . . . . 27.34
Infinito Gold Ltd v Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No ARB/14/5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.10n26
Infinito Gold Ltd v Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No ARB/14/5, Procedural Order No 2
(June 1, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.31, 9.103, 9.144
Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH & Others v Ukraine,
ICSID Case No ARB/08/8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.21
Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH & Others v Ukraine,
ICSID Case No ARB/08/8, Decision on Jurisdiction (Mar 8, 2010). . . . . . . . . 11.42, 18.47n81
Interhandel (Switzerland v U.S.), Judgment (Mar 21, 1959) [1959] ICJ Rep. 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.22
International Fisheries (1931), 4 RIAA 631 (US-Mexico General Claims Commission). . . . . . . 14.63
International Technical Products Corp v Iran et al. (1985-II) 9 IUSCTR 206. . . . . 14.51n175, 14.57
International Thunderbird Gaming Corp. v Mexico, UNCITRAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.135n216
International Thunderbird Gaming Corp. v Mexico, UNCITRAL, Award
(Jan 26, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.76, 22.114
International Thunderbird Gaming Corp. v Mexico, UNCITRAL, Procedural
Order No 4 (Dec 24, 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.25, 13.46n95
International Thunderbird Gaming Corp. v Mexico, UNCITRAL, Separate
Opinion (Dissent in Part) by Professor Thomas Wälde (Jan 26, 2006). . . . . . 20.61, 20.64, 20.80
Intertrade Holding GmbH v Czech Republic, PCA Case No 2009-12,
Final Award (May 29, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.47, 14.51
Invesmart v Czech Republic, Ad Hoc UNCITRAL Award (June 26, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.22
Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America, Award (Dec 28, 1998), IUSCTR Cases
A15(IV). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.26n43
Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America, Case No B1 (Counterclaim), Interlocutory
Award (Sept 9, 2004), ITL No 83-B1-FT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.60n184, 17.76, 17.77n228
Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America, IUSCTR, Case No A/2,
Decision (Jan 13, 1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.60n184
Islamic Republic of Iran v United States America (Case No A27), (1998) 34 IUSCTR 39. . . . . . 14.62
Italba Corporation v Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No ARB/16/9, Decision on
Claimant’s Application for Provisional Measures & Temporary Relief (Feb 15, 2017) . . . . . 24.55
Italian Republic v Republic of Cuba, Ad-Hoc, Final Award (Jan 15, 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.38
Itera International Energy LLC & Itera Group NV v Georgia, ICSID Case No ARB/08/7,
Decision on Admissibility of Ancillary Claims (Dec 4, 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.28n83
Iurii Bogdanov, Agurdino-Invest Ltd & Agurdino-Chimia JSC v Moldova, SCC
Award (Sept 22, 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.42n74
JKX Oil & Gas plc v Ukraine, PCA Case No 2015-11, Award (Feb 6, 2017). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.79
Joy Mining Machinery Ltd v Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/03/11, Award
(Aug 6, 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.21n23, 11.43n67, 11.55, 11.77n131,
11.93n162, 14.65, 15.48, 15.50n83,
15.68, 16.21, 16.35, 16.35n47
xlii
Table of Cases
Kaiser Bauxite Company v Jamaica, ICSID Case No ARB/74/3, Decision on Jurisdiction (July
6, 1975). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.24n25,19.09n15
Ioannis Kardassopoulos v Republic of Georgia, ICSID Case No ARB/05/18. . . . . 26.10n26, 27.02n4,
27.56, 27.57
Ioannis Kardassopoulos v Republic of Georgia, ICSID Case No ARB/05/18, Decision on
Jurisdiction (July 6, 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.90n153, 28.147n225
Ioannis Kardassopoulos v Republic of Georgia, ICSID Case No ARB/05/18, Award
(Mar 3, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.44, 2.64, 2.68, 2.74, 25.38n68, 26.36
Khan Resources Inc., Khan Resources BV, CAUC Holding Company Ltd v Government of
Mongolia & MonAtom LLC, PCA Case No 2011-09, Decision on Jurisdiction
(July 25, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.25n35, 2.28, 2.39, 2.57, 10.83, 16.67
Khan Resources Inc., Khan Resources BV, CAUC Holding Company Ltd v Government of
Mongolia & MonAtom LLC, PCA Case No 2011-09, Award (Mar 2, 2015). . . . . . 26.40, 26.61
Kılıç İnşaat İthalat İhracat Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No
ARB/10/1, Award (July 2, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.47, 23.107
Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH & Others v Republic of Cameroon, ICSID Case No ARB/
81/2, Award (Oct 21, 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.67, 17.07–17.09, 17.33, 27.09
Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH & Others v Republic of Cameroon, ICSID Case No ARB/
81/2, Decision on Annulment (May 3, 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.18n38, 27.09n16, 27.18,
27.38, 27.39, 27.43, 27.44n107, 27.48
Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH & Others v Republic of Cameroon: Resubmitted Case,
Second Decision on Annulment (May 17, 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.19
KT Asia Investment Group B.v v Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID
Case No ARB/09/8, Award (Oct 17, 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.56n84, 11.73, 11.73n119,
11.79n134, 11.83, 11.85, 11.88n148, 11.91n155,
11.92, 11.92n160
The Government of the State of Kuwait & the American Independent Oil Co.,
Ad-Hoc, Final Award (Mar 24, 1982), 21 I.L.M. 976, 1051 (1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.39n61
LaGrand Case (Germany v United States), Judgment (June 27, 2001), ICJ Rep.
[2001] 466. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.47, 24.149n263
Lalanne & Ledour (1903), 10 RIAA 17 (France-Mexico Commission) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.59n202
Lanco International Inc. v Republic of Argentina, Preliminary Decision on
Jurisdiction (Dec 8, 1998), 40 ILM 457 (2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.102, 15.59, 15.75
Lao Holdings NV v Lao People’s Democratic Republic, ICSID Case No ARB
(AF)/12/6, Decision on Jurisdiction (Feb 21, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.76n164, 13.28, 14.27n77
Lao Holdings NV v Lao People’s Democratic Republic, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/12/6, Ruling
on Motion to Amend the Provisional Measures Order (May 30, 2014) . . . . . . . . 24.09n6, 24.57
Ronald S. Lauder v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award (Sept 3, 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.104,
4.69n28, 10.115, 10.127,
14.45, 15.77n122, 21.80–21.82, 22.93
Joseph C. Lemire v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/06/18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.92n159, 25.09–25.10
Joseph C. Lemire v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/06/18, Decision on
Jurisdiction & Liability (Jan 14, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.63n96
Joseph C. Lemire v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/06/18, Dissenting Opinion of Arbitrator
Dr. Jürgen Voss (March 28, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.28n66, 20.30, 20.30n67, 20.49
Joseph C. Lemire v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/06/18, Award (May 28, 2011) . . . . . 25.11, 25.30
Joseph C. Lemire v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/06/18, Decision on Stay
of Enforcement (Feb 14, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.58n135
LESI S.p.A. & ASTALDI S.p.A. v République Algérienne Démocratique et Populaire, ICSID
Case No ARB/05/3, Merits (July 26, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.30n91, 14.35n110,
14.41, 14.55, 14.86
LESI S.p.A. & ASTALDI S.p.A. v République Algérienne Démocratique et Populaire, ICSID
Case No ARB/05/3, Award (Nov 12, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.82, 26.35
Liberian Eastern Timber Corporation v Republic of Liberia, ICSID Case No. ARB/83/2, Award
(Mar 31, 1986), 2 ICSID Rep. 343. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.77
LG&E Energy Corp, LG&E Capital Corp & LG&E Int’l Inc v Argentine Republic, ICSID
Case No ARB/02/1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.02n1
xliii
Table of Cases
Case No ARB/02/1, Decision on Jurisdiction (Apr 30, 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.12
LG&E Energy Corp, LG&E Capital Corp & LG&E Int’l Inc v Argentine Republic,
ICSID Case No ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability (Oct 3, 2006). . . . . 1.53n31, 3.44, 15.15n14,
16.43, 16.65, 16.83, 19.24, 20.55, 20.74,
20.93, 21.11n20, 21.78, 22.77, 22.103
Case No ARB/02/1, Award (July 25, 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.11, 25.29n53, 25.30, 25.49
Libyan American Oil Company (LIAMCO) v The Libyan Arab Republic, Mahmassani,
Sole Arbitrator (Apr 12, 1977), 62 ILR 141. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.32
Libananco Holdings Co. Ltd v Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/06/8, Decision on
Preliminary Issues (June 23, 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.20n12, 24.62, 26.47, 26.49
Libananco Holdings Co. Ltd v Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/06/8, Procedural
Order (Dec 17, 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.26
Libananco Holdings Co. Ltd v Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/06/8,
Award (Sept 2, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.29, 13.65
Libananco Holdings Co. Ltd v Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/06/8, Decision on
Applicant’s Request for a Continued Stay of Enforcement of the Award
(May 7, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.57, 27.60
Liberian Eastern Timber Corporation v Liberia, ICSID Case No ARB/83/2 Award
(Mar 31, 1986), 2 ICSID Rep (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.24n25
Liman Caspian Oil BV & NCL Dutch Investment BV v Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case
No ARB/07/14, Excerpts of the Award (June 22, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.28, 2.34
Lion Mexico Consolidated LP v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/15/
2, Decision on Respondent’s Preliminary Objection Under Art. 45(6) of the ICSID
Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rules (Dec 12, 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.29n67
Loewen Group Inc. & Raymond L. Loewen v United States of America, ARB (AF)/98/3 . . . . 27.02n1
Loewen Group Inc. & Raymond L. Loewen v United States of America, ARB (AF)/98/3,
Decision on Hearing of Respondent’s Objection to Competence & Jurisdiction
(Jan 5, 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.16
Loewen Group Inc. & Raymond L. Loewen v United States of America, ARB (AF)/98/3, Final
Award (June 26, 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.35, 20.41n93, 20.49n111, 21.27, 21.68
Lotus Case (Series A-N 10), PCIJ Judgment (Sept 7, 1927). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.22, 30.25
Lundin Tunisia v Tunisian Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/12/30 Award
(Dec 22, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.56n85
M/V ‘SAIGA’ (No 2) Case (Saint Vincent & the Grenadines v Guinea)
(Judgment of July 1, 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.01n1
M/V ‘Virginia G’ (No, 19) Case (Panama v Guinea-Bissau)
(Judgment of April 14, 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.01n1
Emilio Agustín Maffezini v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No Arb/97/7, Decision of the
Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (Oct 28, 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.26n70
Emilio Agustín Maffezini v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No Arb/97/7, Decision on Request
for Provisional Measures (Oct 28, 1999) . . . . . . . . . 24.22, 24.38, 24.87, 24.92, 24.115, 24.149
Emilio Agustín Maffezini v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No Arb/97/7,
Procedural Order No 2 (Oct 28, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.47n112
Emilio Agustín Maffezini v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No Arb/97/7, Decision on
Jurisdiction (Jan 25, 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.47, 13.39, 14.18n43,
14.27n76, 14.42, 23.52, 23.57–23.61, 23.62, 23.64,
23.67–23.68, 23.81, 23.88, 23.116
Malaysian Historical Salvors SDN, BHD v Government of Malaysia, ICSID
Case No ARB/05/10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.66n25
Malaysian Historical Salvors SDN, BHD v Government of Malaysia, ICSID
Case No ARB/05/10, Award on Jurisdiction (17 May 17, 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.66n25, 11.21,
11.86n143, 11.87, 11.88n148, 13.38
Malaysian Historical Salvors SDN, BHD v Government of Malaysia, ICSID Case No ARB/05/
10, Decision on the Application for Annulment (Apr 16, 2009) . . . . . . 11.81n135, 27.35, 27.42
xliv
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Stridulating Organs.—When
Arthropod animals are capable of
producing a sound, the result is
nearly always obtained by
“stridulation,” that is, by the
friction of two rough surfaces
against each other. The surfaces
which are modified for this
purpose form what is called a
“stridulating organ.” Such organs
have been found in three very Fig. 182.—A, Spinnerets of
distinct Spider families, the Amaurobius similis ♀ . Much enlarged.
Theridiidae, the Sicariidae, and a, Anus; cr, cribellum; i.s, inferior
the Aviculariidae. Hitherto they spinneret; m.s, median spinneret; s.s,
have only been observed in three superior spinneret. B, Part of the 4th
leg of the same Spider, showing the
positions—either between the calamistrum (ca) on the metatarsus.
thorax and abdomen, or between
the chelicerae and the pedipalpi,
or between the pedipalpi and the first legs.
In the Sicariidae and the Aviculariidae, the sounds have been
distinctly heard and described. Those produced by the Theridiidae
would appear to be inaudible to human ears.
Westring[260] was the first to discover (1843) a stridulating organ in
the small Theridiid spider Asagena phalerata. The abdomen, where
the pedicle enters it, gives off a chitinous collar, which projects over
the cephalothorax, and has the inner surface of the dorsal part finely
toothed. When the abdomen is raised and depressed, these teeth
scrape against a number of fine striae on the back of the posterior
part of the cephalothorax. A similar organ has been since found in
various allied spiders, of which the commonest English species is
Steatoda bipunctata. In this group it is generally possessed by the
male alone, being merely rudimentary, if present at all, in the female.
In 1880 Campbell[261] observed that in some of the Theridiid
Spiders of the genus Lephthyphantes, the outer surface of the
chelicera and the inner surface of the femur of the pedipalp were
finely striated at the point, where they were rubbed together when
the palps were agitated, but though the appropriate motion was
frequently given, he could hear no sound.
Meanwhile the noise produced
by a large Theraphosid spider in
Assam (Chilobrachys stridulans)
had attracted attention, and its
stridulating apparatus was
described in 1875 by Wood-
Mason.[262] The sound resembled
that obtained by “drawing the
back of a knife along the edge of a
strong comb.”
Subsequently certain Sicariid
Fig. 183.—Stridulating apparatus of spiders of a genus confined to the
Steatoda bipunctata, ♂ . Much southern hemisphere were heard
enlarged. A, Ridged and toothed to produce a sound like the
abdominal socket; B, striated area on
the cephalothorax; C, profile of the buzzing of a bee by the agitation
Spider, × 5. of their palps, and both sexes
were found to possess a very
perfect stridulating organ,
consisting of a row of short teeth
on the femur of the pedipalp, and
a striated area on the paturon of
the chelicera.
Pocock has recently discovered
that all the large kinds of
Theraphosidae in the countries
between India and New Zealand
are, like Chilobrachys, provided
with a stridulating organ. In these
spiders also it is between the palp
and the chelicera, and consists of
a row of teeth or spines
constituting a “pecten,” and a Fig. 184.—Chilobrachys stridulans in
series of vibratile spines or “lyra,” stridulating attitude. After Wood-
but whereas in Chilobrachys and Mason. Natural size.
its near relations the lyra is on the
palp and the pecten on the paturon, in other spiders the positions are
reversed. The lyra is a very remarkable organ, consisting of club-
shaped, often feathery bristles or spines, which lie parallel to the
surface to which they are attached, and which is slightly excavated
for their reception.
Lastly, many African Theraphosids possess a similar organ, not
between the palp and the chelicera, but between the palp and the
first leg.
Various suggestions have been hazarded as to the use of these
organs, but they partake largely of the nature of conjecture,
especially in connexion with the doubt as to the possession of a true
auditory organ by the Araneae. They may be summarised as follows.
The Theridiid spiders are among those which show most indication
of auditory powers, and the stridulating organs, being practically
confined to the male, may have a sexual significance. Chilobrachys
stridulates when attacked, assuming at the same time a “terrifying
attitude,” and its stridulating organ may serve the purpose attributed
to the rattle of the rattlesnake, and warn its enemies that it is best let
alone. If this be the case, there is no need that it should itself hear the
sound, and, indeed, there is no evidence that the Aviculariidae
possess the power of hearing. In the inoffensive stridulating Sicariid
spiders the sounds could hardly serve this purpose, and the presence
of the organ in both sexes, and in immature examples, precludes the
idea that its function is to utter a sexual call. Instead of trying to
escape when disturbed, the spider starts stridulating, and Pocock
suggests that the similarity of the sound produced to the buzzing of a
bee may be calculated to induce its enemies to leave it in peace.
Internal Anatomy.
Alimentary System.—The alimentary canal of the Spider is

divided into three regions, the “stomodaeum,” the mid-gut or
“mesenteron,” and the hind-gut or “proctodaeum.”
The Stomodaeum consists of the pharynx, the oesophagus, and
the sucking stomach. As we have said, the mouth is to be found
between the rostrum and the labium. It opens into the pharynx, the
anterior wall of which is formed by a chitinous plate on the inner
surface of the rostrum, sometimes called the palate. As the inner
surfaces of the rostrum and labium are practically flat, the cavity of
the pharynx would be obliterated when they are pressed together,
were it not for a groove running down the centre of the palate, which
the apposed labium converts into a tube, up which the fluids of the
prey are sucked. In the Theraphosidae there is a corresponding
groove on the inner surface of the labium.
At the top of the pharynx, which is nearly perpendicular, the canal
continues backwards and upwards as a narrow tube, the oesophagus,
passing right through the nerve-mass, which embraces it closely on
all sides, to the sucking stomach. At the commencement of the
oesophagus is the opening of a gland, probably salivary, which is
situated in the rostrum.
We now reach the sucking
stomach, which occupies the
centre of the cephalothorax. It is
placed directly over a skeletal
plate, the “endosternite” (Fig.
185, e), to which its lower surface
is connected by powerful muscles,
while its upper wall is protected
by a hard plate or “buckler,”
which is similarly attached to the
roof of the cephalothorax in the
region of the “fovea media.” The
walls of the stomach are not
themselves muscular, but by the
contraction of the muscles above
mentioned its cavity is enlarged,
and fluids from the pharynx are
Fig. 185.—Diagram showing the
anatomy of the cephalothorax of a
pumped up into it.
Spider. The right alimentary The canal thus far is lined by
diverticulum has been removed. a, chitin, like the exterior of the
Aorta; c, left diverticulum with body, and forms a sort of
secondary caeca; e, endosternite; oes, complicated mouth-apparatus.
oesophagus, descending to the mouth;
s, sucking stomach; sh, dorsal shield of The Mesenteron lies partly in
sucking stomach. the cephalothorax and partly in
the abdomen. The thoracic
portion, shortly behind the
sucking stomach, sends forward on either side a large branch or
“diverticulum,” from each of which five secondary branches or
“caeca” are given off (Fig. 185). Of these the anterior pair sometimes
join, thus forming a complete ring; but usually, though adjacent, they
remain distinct. The other four pairs of caeca curve downwards,
protruding into the coxae of the legs, where they often terminate, but
sometimes (Epeira) they continue their curve until they meet,
though they never fuse, under the nerve-mass. Behind the origin of
the diverticula the mesenteron continues as a widish tube, and
shortly passes through the pedicle and enters the abdomen, where,
curving slightly upwards, it proceeds along the middle line till it ends
in the proctodaeum.
In the abdomen it is surrounded by a large gland, the so-called
liver, and is dilated at one spot (Fig. 186) to receive the ducts from
this gland. The fluid elaborated by this large abdominal gland has
been shown to have more affinity with pancreatic juice than with
bile.
The Proctodaeum consists of a short rectum, from the dorsal
side of which protrudes a large sac, the “stercoral pocket.” At its
origin, the rectum receives the openings of two lateral tubes which
reach it after ramifying in the substance of the liver. These have been
called “Malpighian tubules,” but their function is unknown.
Loman[263] has shown that they open into the mid-gut and not into
the rectum, and there is reason to believe that true Malpighian
tubules homologous to those of Insecta are absent in Arachnida,
where their place seems to be taken by the coxal glands, which are
considered to be the true excretory organs. In most spiders they open
near the third coxae. Like the stomodaeum, the proctodaeum has a
chitinous lining.
Vascular System.—The earlier investigations on the circulation
of the blood in Spiders were made by direct observations of the
movements of the blood corpuscles through the more or less
transparent integuments of the newly-hatched young.
[264]
Claparède’s results were arrived at by this method. It is
invaluable for demonstrating roughly the course taken by the blood,
but in these immature spiders the blood-system has not attained its
full complexity, and other methods of research have shown the
spider to possess a much more elaborate vascular system than was at
first suspected.
The tubular heart lies along the middle line in the anterior two-
thirds of the abdomen, sometimes close up against the dorsal wall,
but occasionally at some little distance from it, buried in the
substance of the liver. It is a muscular tube with three pairs of lateral
openings or “ostia,” each furnished with a simple valve which allows
the entrance, but prevents the exit, of the blood. It is contained in a
bag, the “pericardium,” into which the ostia open. Both heart and
pericardium are kept in place by a complicated system of connective
tissue strands, by which they are anchored to the dorsal wall of the
abdomen. Eight arteries leave the heart, the principal one, or “aorta,”
plunging downward and passing through the pedicle to supply the
cephalothorax. Besides this, there is a caudal artery at the posterior
end, and three pairs of abdominal arteries, which proceed from the
under surface of the heart, and the ramifications of which supply, in
a very complete manner, the various organs of the abdomen. The
heart is not divided up into compartments. The anterior aorta passes
through the pedicle, above the intestine, and presently forks into two
main branches, which run along either side of the sucking stomach,
near the front of which they bend suddenly downwards and end in a
“patte d’oie,” as Causard[265] expresses it—a bundle of arteries which
proceed to the limbs (Fig. 185). Where the downward curve begins, a
considerable artery, the mandibulo-cephalic, runs forward to supply
the chelicerae and the head region. We have omitted certain minor
branches from the main trunks which supply the thoracic muscles.
The nerve-mass receives fine vessels from the “patte d’oie.”
Fig. 186.—Diagram of a Spider, Epeira diademata, showing the
arrangement of the internal organs, × about 8. 1, Mouth; 2,
sucking stomach; 3, ducts of liver; 4, so-called Malpighian
tubules; 5, stercoral pocket; 6, anus; 7, dorsal muscle of sucking
stomach; 8, caecal prolongation of stomach; 9, cerebral ganglion
giving off nerves to eyes; 10, sub-oesophageal ganglionic mass; 11,
heart with three lateral openings or ostia; 12, lung-sac; 13, ovary;
14, acinate and pyriform silk-glands; 15, tubuliform silk-gland; 16,
ampulliform silk-gland; 17, aggregate or dendriform silk-glands;
18, spinnerets or mammillae; 19, distal joint of chelicera; 20,
poison-gland; 21, eye; 22, pericardium; 23, vessel bringing blood
from lung-sac to pericardium; 24, artery.
There are no capillaries, but the blood is delivered into the tissues
and finds its way, by irregular spaces or “lacunae,” into certain main
venous channels or “sinuses.” There are three such in the
cephalothorax, one median and the others lateral, considerably
dilated in front, in the region of the eyes, and connected by
transverse passages. By these the blood is brought back through the
pedicle to the lung-books. In the abdomen also there are three main
sinuses, two parallel to one another near the lower surface, and one
beneath the pericardium. These likewise bring the blood to the lung-
books, whence it is conducted finally by pulmonary veins (Fig. 186)
back to the pericardial chamber, and thus, by the ostia, to the heart.
The Spider’s blood is colourless, and the majority of the corpuscles
are “amoeboid,” or capable of changing their shape.
Generative System.—The internal generative organs present no
great complexity, consisting, in the male, of a pair of testes lying
beneath the liver, and connected by convoluted tubes, the “vasa
deferentia,” with a simple aperture under the abdomen, between the
anterior stigmata.
The ovaries are hollow sacs with short oviducts which presently
dilate to form chambers called “spermathecae,” which open to the
exterior by distinct ducts, thus forming a double orifice, fortified by
an external structure already alluded to as the “epigyne.” The eggs
project from the outer surface of the ovary like beads, connected with
the gland by narrow stalks, and it was not at first clear how they
found their way into the interior cavity, but it has been ascertained
that, when ripe, they pass through these stalks, the empty capsules
never presenting any external rupture.
The palpal organs have already been described. The spermatozoa,
when received by them, are not perfectly elaborated, but are
contained in little globular packets known as “spermatophores.”
Nervous System.—The Spider’s central nervous system is
entirely concentrated in the cephalothorax, near its floor, and
presents the appearance of a single mass, penetrated by the
oesophagus. It may, however, be divided into a pre-oesophageal
portion or brain, and a post-oesophageal or thoracic portion.
The brain supplies nerves to the eyes and chelicerae, while from
the thoracic mass nerves proceed to the other appendages, and
through the pedicle to the abdomen. The walls of the oesophagus are
closely invested on all sides by the nerve-sheath or neurilemma.
Sense-Organs.—Spiders possess the senses of sight, smell, and
touch. Whether or not they have a true auditory sense is still a matter
of doubt. Since sounds are conveyed by vibrations of the air, it is
never very easy to determine whether responses to sounds produced
near the animal experimented upon are proofs of the existence of an
auditory organ, or whether they are only perceived through the
ordinary channels of touch. In any case, the organs of hearing and of
smell have not yet been located in the Spider. M‘Cook considers
various hairs scattered over the body of the spider to be olfactory, but
from Gaskell’s researches upon allied Arachnid groups it would seem
that the true smelling organ is to be sought for in the rostrum.
Eyes.—Spiders possess from two to eight simple eyes, the external
appearance and arrangement of which have already been briefly
explained. They are sessile and immovable, though often so placed as
to command a view in several directions. In structure they are
essentially like the ocelli of Insects. Externally there is a lens,
succeeded by a mass of transparent cells, behind which is a layer of
pigment. Then come the rods and cones of the retina, to which the
optic nerve is distributed. A comparison of this with the arrangement
in the Vertebrate eye will show a reversal of the positions of the
retina and the pigment-layer. The lens is part of the outside covering
of the animal, and is cast at the time of moulting, when the spider is
temporarily blind. It is stated, however, that the eyes do not all moult
simultaneously. There is often a considerable difference between the
various eyes of the same spider, especially with regard to the
convexity of the lens and the number of rods and cones.
Though most spiders possess eight eyes, the number is sometimes
smaller, and in some groups of eight-eyed spiders two of the eyes are
sometimes so reduced and degenerate as to be practically
rudimentary. As might be expected, Cave-spiders (e.g. Anthrobia
mammouthia) may be entirely sightless.
Touch.—The sense of touch would appear to be extremely well
developed in some spiders, and there is reason for believing that the
Orb-weavers, at all events, depend far more upon it than upon that of
sight.
Among the hairs which are distributed over the spider’s body and
limbs, several different forms may be distinguished, and some of
them are undoubtedly very delicate sense-organs of probably tactile
function.
Spinning Glands.—Spiders vary greatly in their spinning
powers. Some only use their silk for spinning a cocoon to protect
their eggs, while others employ it to make snares and retreats, to
bind up their prey, and to anchor themselves to spots to which they
may wish to return, and whence they “drag at each remove a
lengthening chain.”
All these functions are performed by the silk-glands of the Orb-
weavers, and hence it is with them that the organs have attained
their greatest perfection. We may conveniently take the case of the
common large Garden-spider, Epeira diademata. The glands occupy
the entire floor of the abdomen. They have been very thoroughly
investigated by Apstein,[266] and may be divided into five kinds.
On either side of the abdomen
there are two large “ampullaceal”
glands debouching on “spigots,”
one on the anterior, and one on
the middle spinneret; there are
three large “aggregate” glands
which all terminate on spigots on
the posterior spinneret; and three
“tubuliform” glands, two of which
have their orifices on the
posterior, and one on the middle
spinneret. Thus, in the entire
abdomen there are sixteen large
glands, terminating in the large
fusulae known as spigots. In
addition to this there are about
200 “piriform” glands whose
openings are on the short conical
fusulae of the posterior and
anterior spinnerets, and about Fig. 187.—Spinning glands. A,
400 “aciniform” glands which Aciniform; B, tubuliform; C, piriform
debouch, by cylindrical fusulae, gland.
on the middle and posterior
spinnerets. Thus there are, in all,
about 600 glands with their separate fusulae in the case of Epeira
diademata.
The great number of orifices from which silk may be emitted has
given rise to the widespread belief that, fine as the Spider’s line is, it
is woven of hundreds of strands. This is an entire misconception, as
we shall have occasion to show when we deal with the various
spinning operations.
A few families are, as has already been stated, characterised by the
possession of an extra spinning organ, the cribellum, and the orifices
on this sieve-like plate lead to a large number of small glands, the
“cribellum glands.”
Respiratory Organs.—Spiders possess two kinds of breathing
organs, very different in form, though essentially much alike. They
are called respectively “lung-books” and “tracheae.” The
Theraphosae (and Hypochilus) have four lung-books, while all other
spiders, except Nops, have two. Tracheae appear to be present
almost universally, but they have not been found in the Pholcidae.
The pulmonary stigmata lead into chambers which extend
forwards, and which are practically filled with horizontal shelves, so
to speak, attached at the front and sides, but having their posterior
edges free. These shelves are the leaves of the lung-book. Each leaf is
hollow, and its cavity is continuous, anteriorly and laterally, with the
blood-sinus into which the blood from the various parts of the
Spider’s body is poured.
The minute structure of the leaf is curious. Its under surface is
covered with smooth chitin, but from its upper surface rise vast
numbers of minute chitinous points whose summits are connected to
form a kind of trellis-work. The roof and floor of the flattened
chamber within are connected at intervals by columns. The
pulmonary chamber usually contains from fifteen to twenty of these
leaves, and the two chambers are always connected internally
between the stigmata.
The tracheae are either two or four (Dysderidae, Oonopidae,
Filistatidae) in number, and their stigmata may be separate or fused
in the middle line. Each consists of a large trunk, projecting
forwards, and giving off tufts of small tubes which lose themselves
among the organs of the abdomen, but do not ramify. In the tracheae
of Argyroneta[267] a lateral tuft is given off immediately after leaving
the stigma, and another tuft proceeds from the anterior end.
Histologically the main trunk of the trachea is precisely like the
general chamber of the pulmonary sac, and differs greatly from the
trachea of an insect.
Cephalothoracic Glands.—In addition to the generative glands
and the so-called “liver” which occupy so large a portion of the
abdomen, there are, in Spiders, certain glandular organs situated in
the cephalothorax which call for some notice. These are the coxal
glands and the poison-glands.
The COXAL GLANDS are two elongated brownish-yellow bodies,
situated beneath the lateral diverticula of the stomach, and between
it and the endosternite. They present four slight protuberances which
project a short distance into the coxae of the legs. The glands appear
to be ductless, but their function is thought to be excretory. They
were first observed in the Theraphosae.
All Spiders possess a pair of POISON-GLANDS, connected by a narrow
duct with a small opening near the extremity of the fang of the
chelicerae. The glands are sac-like bodies, usually situated in the
cephalothorax, but sometimes partially (Clubiona) or even entirely
(Mygale) in the patura, or basal joints of the chelicerae. Each sac has
a thin outer layer of spirally-arranged muscular and connective
tissue fibres, and a deep inner epithelial layer of glandular cells. The
cavity of the gland acts as a reservoir for the fluid it secretes. The
virulence of the poison secreted by these glands has been the subject
of much discussion, and the most diverse opinions have been held
with regard to it. The matter is again referred to on p. 360.
CHAPTER XIV
ARACHNIDA EMBOLOBRANCHIATA
(CONTINUED)—ARANEAE (CONTINUED)
HABITS—ECDYSIS—TREATMENT OF YOUNG—MIGRATION—
WEBS—NESTS—EGG-COCOONS—POISON—FERTILITY—
ENEMIES—PROTECTIVE COLORATION—MIMICRY—SENSES
—INTELLIGENCE—MATING HABITS—FOSSIL SPIDERS
EARLY LIFE OF SPIDERS.
Ecdysis or Moulting.—Spiders undergo no metamorphosis—

that is to say, no marked change of form takes place, as is so often
the case among Insects, in the period subsequent to the hatching of
the egg. This fact, by the by, is a great trouble to collectors, as it is
generally extremely difficult, and sometimes quite impossible, to
identify immature specimens with certainty.
But although unmistakably a spider as soon as it leaves the egg,
the animal is, at first, in many respects incomplete, and it is only
after a series of moults, usually about nine in number, that it attains
its full perfection of form.
Until the occurrence of its first moult it is incapable of feeding or
spinning, mouth and spinning tubes being clogged by the membrane
it then throws off. It is at first pale-coloured and less thickly clothed
with hairs and spines than it eventually becomes, and the general
proportions of the body and the arrangement of the eyes are by no
means those of the adult in miniature, but will be greatly modified by
unequal growth in various directions. It speedily, however, attains its
characteristic shape and markings, and after one or two ecdyses little
alteration is to be noticed, except increase in size, until the final
moult, when the spider at length becomes sexually mature.
The first moult takes place while the newly-hatched spider is still
with the rest of the brood either in or close to the “cocoon” or egg-
bag. M‘Cook[268] thus describes the conclusion of the operation in the
case of Agelena naevia:—
“While it held on to the flossy nest with the two front and third
pairs of legs, the hind pair was drawn up and forward, and the feet
grasped the upper margin of the sac-like shell, which, when first
seen, was about half-way removed from the abdomen. The feet
pushed downwards, and at the same time the abdomen appeared to
be pulled upward until the white pouch was gradually worked off.”
The later moults are generally accomplished by the spider
collecting all its legs together and attaching them with silk to the web
above, while the body, also attached, hangs below. The old skin then
splits along the sides of the body, and the animal, by a series of
violent efforts, wriggles itself free, leaving a complete cast of itself,
including the legs, suspended above it. For a day or two before the
operation the spider eats nothing, and immediately upon its
completion it hangs in a limp and helpless condition for a quarter of
an hour or so, until the new integument has had time to harden. It is
not unlikely that the reader has mistaken these casts for the
shrivelled forms of unlucky spiders, and has had his sympathies
aroused, or has experienced a grim satisfaction, in consequence—an
expenditure of emotion which this account may enable him to
economise in future.
Limbs which the animal has accidentally lost are renewed at the
time of moulting, though their substitutes are at first smaller than
those they replace. On the other hand, the struggle to get rid of the
old skin sometimes results in the loss of a limb, and the spider is
doomed to remain short-handed until the next ecdysis.
Until the last moult the generative apertures, which are situated
under the anterior part of the abdomen, are completely sealed up.
Their disclosure is accompanied, in the case of the male, by a
remarkable development of the last joint of each pedipalp, which
becomes swollen and often extremely complicated with bulbs,
spines, and bristles. A mature male spider may at once be
distinguished by the consequent knobbed appearance of its palps;
and the particular form they assume is highly characteristic of the
species to which the spider belongs.
The number of moults, and the intervals at which they occur, no
doubt vary with different species. In the case of Argiope aurelia,
Pollock[269] has found that the female moults nine times after leaving
the cocoon, the first ecdysis occurring after an interval of from one to
two months, according to the abundance or scarcity of food. The
subsequent intervals gradually increase from about a fortnight to
something over three weeks.
Behaviour of the Newly-hatched Spider.—The mode of life
of a spider just freed from the cocoon will of course vary greatly
according to the Family to which it belongs.
The Epeiridae are the builders of the familiar wheel or orb-web.
Spiders of this Family usually remain together on friendly terms for a
week or more after leaving the nest. Most of the time they are
congregated in a ball-like mass, perhaps for the sake of warmth, but
upon being touched or shaken they immediately disperse along the
multitudinous fine lines which they have spun in all directions, to
reassemble as soon as the panic has subsided. Such a ball of the
yellow and black offspring of the large Garden-spider, Epeira
diademata, is no uncommon sight in the early autumn, and the
shower of “golden rain” that results from their disturbance is not
likely to be forgotten if it has ever been observed by the reader. This
harmonious family life only continues as long as the young spiders
are unable to feed—a period which, in some of the larger species, is
said to extend to ten days or a fortnight.
Individual life then commences, and each member of the dispersed
group sets up housekeeping on its own account, constructing at the
first attempt a snare in all respects similar, except in size, to those of
its parent.
Of course the young Spiders have not migrated far, and a bush
may frequently be seen covered by the often contiguous nets of the
members of a single brood. This, as Dr. M‘Cook thinks, is the true
explanation of some of the cases of “gregarious spiders” which
Darwin[270] and other naturalists have occasionally described, though
social spiders exist (see Uloborus, p. 411).
Very similar habits obtain among the Theridiidae, or line-
weaving spiders, a familiar example of which is the pretty little
Theridion sisyphium, whose highly-irregular snare may be found on
any holly bush during the summer months.
The Lycosidae, or Wolf-spiders, which chase their prey instead of
lying quietly in ambush to ensnare it, are exceedingly interesting in
their treatment of their young. The cocoon, or bag of eggs, is carried
about on all their expeditions,
attached beneath the abdomen,
or held by the jaws, and the
young spiders, on escaping from
it, mount on the mother’s back,
and indulge vicariously in the
pleasures of the chase from this
point of vantage. The empty egg-
bag is soon discarded, but the
brood continues to ride on the
mother’s back for about a week,
dismounting only to follow her as
she enters her little silk-lined
retreat in the ground.
During this time they appear to
require no food, but they at
length begin to disperse, the
mother gently but firmly
removing such individuals as are
Fig. 188.—A, Pardosa sp. ♀ , with
young on the abdomen; B, young
disposed to trespass upon her
Pardosa detached; C, outline of the maternal solicitude longer than
Spider with young removed. (From the she considers desirable.
living specimen.) Many young spiders of various
Families proceed immediately to
seek new hunting-grounds by the aid of the wind, and become for the
time being diminutive aeronauts. This habit was observed by the
earliest British araneologist, Martin Lister,[271] as long ago as 1670,
and has been alluded to by many writers since his time.
The topmost bar of an iron railing in spring or early autumn will
generally be found peopled with minute spiders, and if the day be fair
and the wind light, the patient observer may be rewarded by a
curious and interesting sight.
The spider seeks the highest spot available, faces the wind, and
straightens its legs and body, standing, so to speak, upon its toes, its
abdomen with its spinning tubes being elevated as much as possible.
Streamers of silk presently appear from the spinnerets and float
gently to leeward on the light current of air. The spider has no power
to shoot out a thread of silk to a distance, but it accomplishes the
same result indirectly by spinning a little sheet or flocculent mass
which is borne away by the breeze.
When the streaming threads
pull with sufficient force the
animal casts off, seizes them with
its legs, and entrusts itself to the
air, whose currents determine the
height to which it is carried and
the direction of its journey. The
duration, however, is not quite
beyond the spider’s control, at all
events in calm weather, for it can
furl its sail at will, hauling in the
threads “hand-over-hand,” and
rolling them up into a ball with
jaws and palps.
This curious ballooning habit of
young Spiders is independent of
the particular family to which
they belong, and it is remarkable
that newly-hatched Lycosidae and
Aviculariidae, whose adult
existence is spent entirely on or
under the ground, should
manifest a disposition to climb
any elevated object which is at
hand. Fig. 189.—Young Spider preparing for
The “Gossamer,” which so an aerial voyage. (After Emerton.)
puzzled our forefathers, is
probably no mystery to the
reader. It is, of course, entirely the product of Spider industry,
though not altogether attributable to the habit of ballooning above
described. Only a small proportion of gossamer flakes are found to
contain spiders, though minute insects are constantly to be seen
entangled in them. They are not formed in the air, as was supposed
long after their true origin was known, but the threads emitted by
multitudes of spiders in their various spinning operations have been
intermingled and carried away by light currents of air, and on a still,
warm day in spring or autumn, when the newly-hatched spider-
broods swarm, the atmosphere is often full of them.
They rise to great heights, and may be carried to immense
distances. Martin Lister relates how he one day ascended to the
highest accessible point of York Minster, when the October air
teemed with gossamer flakes, and “could thence discern them yet
exceeding high” above him. Gilbert White describes a shower, at least
eight miles in length, in which “on every side, as the observer turned
his eyes, he might behold a continual succession of fresh flakes
falling into his sight, and twinkling like stars as they turned their
sides toward the sun.” The ascent of a hill 300 feet in height did not
in the least enable him to escape the shower, which showed no sign
of diminution.
The mortality among very young spiders must be exceedingly
great; indeed, this is indicated by the large number of eggs laid by
many species, an unfailing sign of a small proportion of ultimate
survivors. We shall have, by and by, to speak of some of their natural
enemies, but apart from these their numbers are sadly reduced by
the rigours of the weather, and appreciably also by their tendency to
cannibalism. A thunderstorm will often destroy a whole brood, or
they may perish from hunger in the absence of an adequate supply of
insects minute enough for their small snares and feeble jaws. In the
latter case they sometimes feed for a time on one another, and it is
even said that two or three of a brood may be reared on no other food
than their unfortunate companions.
The large and handsome Garden-spider, Epeira diademata, has
been known, when well fed, to construct six cocoons, each containing
some hundreds of eggs, and some species are even more fertile, while
their adult representatives remain stationary, or even diminish in
number.
Spider-Webs.—Some account has already been given of the
external and internal spinning organs of Spiders. Within the body of
the animal the silk is in the form of a gummy fluid; and this, being
emitted in exceedingly fine streams, solidifies as it meets the air. It
cannot be shot out to any distance, but the animal usually draws it
out by its hind legs, or attaches it to a spot, and moves away by
walking or allowing itself to drop. It has some power of checking the
output, and can stop at will at any point of its descent; but the
sphincter muscles of the apertures are but weak, and by steady
winding the writer has reeled out a hundred yards of the silk, the
flow of which was only then interrupted by the spider rubbing its
spinnerets together and breaking the thread.
There is, of course, no true spinning or interweaving of threads in
the process, but parallel silken lines are produced, varying in number
according to the special purpose for which they are designed, and
sometimes adhering more or less to one another on account of their
viscidity and closeness.
The silk is utilised in many ways, serving for the construction of
snares, nests, and cocoons, as well as for enwrapping the captured
prey, and for anchoring the spider to a spot to which it may wish to
return.
Spiders may be roughly distinguished as sedentary or vagabond,
the former constructing snares, and the latter chasing their prey in
the open. We will first consider the various forms of snare, beginning
with that characteristic of the Epeiridae.
The Circular Snare.—This familiar object, sometimes spoken of
as the orb-web or wheel-web, is always the work of some spider of
the Family Epeiridae.
The accuracy and regularity of form exhibited by these snares has
caused their architects to be sometimes called the geometric spiders.
The ingenuity displayed by them has always excited the admiration
of the naturalist, and this is increased on closer observation, for the
snares are in reality even more complex than they appear at first
sight.
The first care of the spider is to lay down the foundation threads
which are to form the boundary lines of its net. If the animal can
reach the necessary points of attachment by walking along
intervening surfaces the matter is comparatively simple. The
spinnerets are separated and rubbed against one of the points
selected, and the spider walks away, trailing behind it a thread which
it keeps free from neighbouring objects by the action of one of its
hind legs. On reaching another desirable point of attachment the line
is made taut and fixed by again rubbing the spinnerets against it. By
a repetition of this proceeding a framework is presently constructed,
within which the wheel or orb will ultimately be formed.
The process of fixing and drawing out a line can be conveniently
watched in the case of a Spider imprisoned in a glass vessel, and it
will be seen, by the aid of a lens, that a large number of very fine lines
starting from the point of attachment seem to merge into a single
line as the Spider moves away. This has given rise to the prevalent
and very natural idea that the ordinary spider’s line is formed or
“woven” of many strands. This, however, is not the case,[272] for the
fine attachment-lines are not continued into the main thread, but
only serve to anchor it to the starting-point.
As has been said, the spider can throw into play a varying number
of spinning tubes at will, and in point of fact those used in laying
down these foundation-lines are either two or four in number. The
spider, however, often finds it necessary to strengthen such a line by
going over it afresh.
Every one must have noticed that orb-webs frequently bridge over
gulfs that are clearly quite impassable to the spider in the ordinary
way. They often span streams—and Epeirid spiders cannot swim—or
they are stretched between objects unattainable from each other on
foot except by a very long and roundabout journey. When this is the
case, the animal has had recourse to the aid of the wind. A spider of
this family placed on a stick standing upright in a vessel of water is
helpless to escape if the experiment be tried in a room free from
draughts. With air-currents to aid it, silken streamers will at length
find their way across the water and become accidentally entangled in
some neighbouring object. When this has happened, the spider hauls
the new line taut, and tests its strength by gently pulling at it, and if
the result is satisfactory, it proceeds to walk across, hand-over-hand,
in an inverted position, carrying with it a second line to strengthen
the first. This is exactly what happens in nature when a snare is
constructed across chasms otherwise impassable, and it may be
imagined that the spider regards as very valuable landed property
the foundation lines of such a web, for, if destroyed, the direction or
absence of the wind might prevent their renewal for days. They are
accordingly made strong by repeated journeys, and are used as the
framework of successive snares, till accident at length destroys them.
A single line which finds anchorage in this way is sufficient for the
purposes of the spider. It has only to cross over to the new object,
attach a thread to some other point of it, and carry it back across the

Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements A Guide To The Key Issues 2Nd Edition Katia Yannaca Small Editor Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements A Guide To The Key Issues 2Nd Edition Katia Yannaca Small Editor Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arbitration Under International

Investment Agreements: A Guide to the

Table of Cases xxvii

PART I INVESTMENT TREATIES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF

2. The Energy Charter Treaty

3. International Investment Dispute Settlement Mechanisms

C. International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of

4. The Role of Precedent in Investment Treaty Arbitration

PART II GUIDE TO KEY PRELIMINARY AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES

E. Selection of the Arbitrators 5.24

6. Aspects of Procedure for Institution of Proceedings and Establishment of

7. The Fate of Frivolous and Unmeritorious Claims

8. Challenges of Arbitrators in Investment Arbitration: Still Work in Progress?

B. Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) 8.22

PART III GUIDE TO KEY JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES

C. Jurisprudence under the ICSID Convention 10.11

11. The Meaning of ‘Investment’ in Investment Treaty Arbitration

12. Bifurcation of Investment Disputes

13. Burden and Standard of Proof at the Jurisdictional Stage

C. The Respondent Bears the Burden of Proof 13.25

14. Attribution: State Organs and Entities Exercising Elements

15. Breach of Treaty Claims and Breach of Contract Claims:

III. Treaty-​based Tribunals’ Jurisdiction over ‘Purely’ Contractual Claims 15.20

16. The Umbrella Clause: Is the Umbrella Closing?

17. Counterclaims in Investment Treaty Arbitration

18. The State’s Corruption Defence, Prosecutorial Efforts, and Anti-​corruption

PART IV GUIDE TO KEY SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

21. The National Treatment Obligation

23. The MFN Clause and Its Evolving Boundaries

A. MFN Clauses and Dispute Settlement 23.48

PART V REMEDIES AND COSTS

25. Compensation and Damages in Investment Treaty Arbitration

26. Third-​party Funding in Investment Treaty Arbitration

PART VI THE POST-​AWARD PHASE

28. Review of non-​ICSID Awards by National Courts

29. Enforcement of Investment Treaty Awards

30. A Practical Guide: Research Tools in International Investment Law

Aanes v FILA, CAS 2000/​A/​317 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.86

Franck Charles Arif v Republic of Moldova, ICSID Case No ARB/​11/​23,

Bayview Irrigation District et al. v Mexico, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/​05/​1,

BP America Production Co. & Others v Argentine Republic, ICSID

Československá Obchondní Banka AS v Slovak Republic, ICSID

CME Czech Republic BV v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL,, Final Award

ConocoPhillips Company et al. v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID

Guinea-​Bissau v Senegal, ICJ Arbitral Award of July 31, 1989. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.20n14

Alimentary System.—The alimentary canal of the Spider is

EARLY LIFE OF SPIDERS.

Ecdysis or Moulting.—Spiders undergo no metamorphosis—

You might also like

III. Treaty-based Tribunals’ Jurisdiction over ‘Purely’ Contractual Claims 15.20

18. The State’s Corruption Defence, Prosecutorial Efforts, and Anti-corruption

26. Third-party Funding in Investment Treaty Arbitration

PART VI THE POST-AWARD PHASE

28. Review of non-ICSID Awards by National Courts

Aanes v FILA, CAS 2000/A/317 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.86

Franck Charles Arif v Republic of Moldova, ICSID Case No ARB/11/23,

Bayview Irrigation District et al. v Mexico, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/05/1,

Guinea-Bissau v Senegal, ICJ Arbitral Award of July 31, 1989. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.20n14