Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
3.4.2
ICSID Tribunals and Stare Decisis
As indicated in Art. 38 of the ICJ Statute, earlier ICSID decisions are not a primary
source of rules.
126
According to Art. 53(1) of the ICSID Convention, the award is
only binding on the parties. Recently an ICSID tribunal mentioned that there is no
obligation for any ICSID tribunal to establish stare decisis.
127
There can be no stare
decisis within ICSID jurisdiction because each arbitration case depends on the
respective BIT, which differs depending on the parties involved in the dispute.
128
However, one tribunal said that there is a
that ICSID
tribunals take decisions of former tribunals into account.
129
A majority of an
ICSID tribunal arbitrators added that tribunals have the duty
reasonable assumption
'
'
'
to contribute to a
harmonious development of investment law
and hence must take earlier and
related cases into account.
130
Nevertheless, there is no doctrine of stare decisis in
ICSID jurisprudence, which means precedents are not binding.
131
Decisions only
apply inter partes. Despite the fact that ICSID tribunals do not have stare decisis,
tribunals take earlier cases into account.
132
ICSID tribunals point out that they try to
achieve a harmonious development of investment law by considering and some-
times using precedents.
133
'
126
Commission (
2007
), 129 (130); Andreeva (
2008
), 161 (170); cf Griebel and Kim (
2007
),
186 (188).
127
ICSID [2006] ARB/04/13, 22 para 64; ICSID [2006] ARB/03/15, 14 para 39; ICSID [2005]
ARB/02/17, 9 para 23(d); ICSID [2004] ARB/01/3—Decision on Jurisdiction (Ancillary Claim)
8 para 25; ICSID [2004] ARB/02/6, 37 para 97.
128
ICSID [2005] ARB/02/17, 9 para 23(d).
129
ICSID [2006] ARB/03/15, 14 para 39; Neither the wording of Article 53(1) ICSID Convention,
nor the
travaux pr ´paratoires
exclude any application of stare decisis, in: Kaufmann-Kohler
(
2007
), 357 (368).
130
ICSID [2010] ARB/08/5, 22-23 para 100.
131
ICSID [2010] ARB/07/20—Award, 31-32 para 96; ICSID [2010] ARB/01/3—Annulment, 37-
38 paras 93-94; ICSID [2008] ARB/05/12, 18 paras 49-50; ICSID [2007] ARB/05/07, 20 para 67;
ICSID [2006] ARB/03/15, 14 para 39; ICSID [2005] ARB/02/17, 9 para 23d); ICSID [2004]
ARB/01/3—Decision on Jurisdiction (Ancillary Claim) 8 para 25; Bhala (
1999
), 845 (863);
Brower et al. (
2009
), 843 (845) and (851); Kaufmann-Kohler (
2007
), 357 (357); Abraham
(
2009
), 206 (209).
132
ICSID [2013] ARB/09/8—Award, 40-41 paras 154-159; ICSID [2007] ARB/05/07, 20 para
67; Considering another ICSID tribunal decision, in: ICSID [2006] ARB/03/17, 36-37 para 63;
“Carefully” considering precedents, in: ICSID [2006] ARB/04/13, 22 para 64; On the contrary,
tribunals highlight that precedents are not necessarily relevant to decide a case, in: ICSID [2005]
ARB/02/17, 10 para 26; Comparison of other ICSID tribunal
s decisions is useful, in: ICSID
[2005] ARB/03/10, 23 para 36; Considering different ICSID cases, in: ICSID [2003] ARB/01/8,
788 (799) para 72; ICSID [2002] ARB/00/2—Award (2002) ICSID Review, 142 (158) para 58;
Commission (
2007
), 129 (131); Prawoko (
2005
), 143 (147).
133
ICSID [2010] ARB/07/20—Award, 31-32 para 96; cf ICSID [2008] ARB/05/12, 18 para 50;
ICSID [2007] ARB/05/07, 20 para 67.
'
