Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
that the claim does or does not exist.
278
In a Separate Opinion, Judge Higgins
emphasized the need to examine whether a dispute exists based on the claimant
s
'
allegation in order to find out if ICJ jurisdiction is plausible.
279
ICSID tribunals have a chance to check its jurisdiction as the tribunal has the
possibility at the
280
However, the claimant must provide some evidence for ICSID jurisdiction.
281
This
evidence must usually prove that the alleged claim is within the ICSID
'
very beginning to look behind the claimant
'
s factual claims.
'
s jurisdic-
tion.
282
If an investor bases its claim merely on the breach of the investment
contract and not the BIT, the dispute settlement provisions of the BIT will not
apply.
283
The investor must base its claim on the breach of BIT regulations to gain
BIT dispute settlement options.
284
Some authors highlight that the investor should
always try to formulate contract claims as treaty claims.
285
Art. 11(1) and (2) of the
G/M-BIT stipulates that a disagreement concerning the investment is sufficient for
dispute settlement.
286
Furthermore, Art. 11(2) of the G/M-BIT stipulates that ICSID
jurisdiction is applicable for any investment dispute.
'
2.3.2.3 Waivers and Different Dispute Settlement Agreements
There are two common problems related to the issue of ICSID jurisdiction. The first
one deals with the issue of explicit waivers. The investor might explicitly waive its
right to ICSID jurisdiction, e.g. in a concession contract.
287
This can lead to denial
of ICSID jurisdiction.
288
It is within the interest of many governments that the
278
ICJ [1996] Oil Platforms, Preliminary Objection—Judgment [1996], 803 (809-810) para 16; cf
ICJ [1999] Legality of Use of Force, Provisional Measures (Order of 2 June 1999) [1999] ICJ
Reports, 481 (490) para 25.
279
ICJ [1996] Oil Platforms, Separate Opinion of Judge Higgins [1996], 847 (856) para 32.
280
ICSID [2003] ARB/01/13, 307 (351-352) para 145.
281
ICSID [2007] ARB/05/07, 24 para 83; ICSID [2006] ARB/04/13, 22-23 paras 69-71; ICSID
[2005] ARB/03/29, 52 para 195; ICSID [2003] ARB/01/13, 307 (351-352) para 145; ICSID
[1999] ARB/98/4 (2002), 881 (891).
282
ICSID [2007] ARB/05/07, 24-25 paras 85-86; ICSID [2006] ARB/03/15, 15 paras 42-44; cf
ICSID [2004] ARB/02/8—Decision, 73-74 para 180.
283
Loncle (
2005
), 3 (9).
284
Loncle (
2005
), 3 (9).
285
Rosenberg (
2010
), 8 (11).
286
Article 11(1) G/M-BIT: Meinungsverschiedenheiten in Bezug auf Kapitalanlagen zwischen
einem der Vertragsstaaten und einem Investor des anderen Vertragsstaates sollen, soweit moglich,
zwischen den Streitparteien g¨ tlich beigelegt werden.
Article 11(2) G/M-BIT: Kann die Meinungsverschiedenheit (
) nicht beigelegt werden, so
wird sie auf Verlangen des Investors des anderen Vertragsstaats einem Schiedsverfahren
unterworfen.
287
ICSID [2008] ARB/06/13—Award, 45 paras 69-70.
288
ICSID [2008] ARB/06/13—Award, 54 paras 96-97.
...
