Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
In some cases, Art. 25(1) of the ICSID Convention was not even considered at all
because the BIT
s notion of investment was met.
370
The most popular example is
that a commercial contract cannot be an investment due to a BIT definition of
investment.
371
Another example is a decision by the PCA, which argued that an
investment which is undefined in a BIT cannot be interpreted
'
'
in the sense of
372
Hence, only the defi-
nition of the parties is relevant. There were cases where tribunals explicitly
annulled previous decisions which applied the Salini test
373
or the Salini test was
a vital part of the prior decision.
374
Hence, the term investment is deliberately
undefined.
375
The only requirement for an investment is the consent of the parties;
any further definition would be a gross error and lead to annulment.
376
making a substantial contribution to the local economy.
'
Award, 36 para 132; Only reviewing the BIT, in: ICSID [2012] ARB/10/12—Award, 53 paras
230-232; ICSID [2012] ARB/09/5—Award, 68-69 paras 280-286; ICSID [2012] ARB/09/12—
Decision on Jurisdiction, 5 paras 5.27-5.28; ICSID [2011] ARB/08/16—Award, 34 para 127 and
38 para 137; ICSID [2011] ARB/07/17—Award, 24 para 94;
Sergei Paushok
,
CJSC Golden East
Company and CJSC Vostokneftegaz Company v Mongolia
[2011] Award—Proceeding pursuant to
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, 32-34 paras 200-207; By rejecting Argentina
s annulment request
concerning the excess of power related to the definition of investment, the tribunal followed its
precedent tribunals and there assessment of the BIT, in: ICSID [2010] ARB/01/3—Annulment,
26 para 81, 37-38 paras 93-94, 40-41 paras 104-106 and 43 para 111; ICSID [2010] ARB/07/23,
53-55 paras 139-147; ICSID [2010] ARB/06/18, 17-18 paras 52-55; ICSID [2010] ARB/07/16—
Award, 89-109 paras 254-309 and summary on (111) paras 314-316, ICSID [2010] ARB/08/2—
Award, 58 para 111; ICSID [2010] ARB/07/27, 44-45 paras 162-166; ICSID [2009] ARB/01/
12—Annulment, 30 para 59; ICSID [2009] ARB/07/9, 34 para 96; Mentioning that the ICSID
Convention does not have a definition and relying on the BIT, in: ICSID [2007] ARB/05/8—
Award, 55 paras 249-250; Considering the BIT definition of investment, in: ICSID [2007]
ARB/03/25—Award, 160 paras 334-335; Considers “risk”, but not as part of an investment
requirement, in: ICSID [2006] ARB/03/16—Award, 59-60 para 317 and 61 para 325; ICSID
[2006] ARB/04/15, 28-30 paras 59-62; ICSID [2005] ARB/03/2, 16-17 paras 54-58; Only
considering the BIT definition, in: ICSID [2004] ARB/01/3—Decision, 9-10 para 29; ICSID
[2004] ARB/02/6, 40 para 103 and 43 para 112; ICSID [2004] ARB/02/5—Decision, 35 para 124;
ICSID [2003] ARB/01/13, 307 (350) para 140; Rejecting the claim to apply the objective
approach, in: ICSID [2003] ARB/02/10, 9 para 39 and 12 para 49; ICSID [2003] ARB/00/9—
Award, 33 para 8.2, 34 para 8.5 and 37 para 8.14; Only considering the BIT definition, in: ICSID
[2003] ARB/01/12—Decision, 33-34 para 62; ICSID [2002] ARB/99/6—Award, 33 n. 136;
Pointing out that ICSID does not define investment, in: ICSID [2000] ARB/99/3, 484 (492) para
13.6; ICSID [1998] ARB/97/6—Preliminary Decision, 457 (470) para 4; Permanent Court of
Arbitration [2009] PCA Case No. AA280, 54 para 208 and 62 paras 242-243.
370
'
ICSID [2002] ARB/99/6—Award, 20 para 86 and 33 para 136.
371
Permanent Court of Arbitration [2009] PCA Case No. AA280, 46 para 185.
372
Permanent Court of Arbitration [2006] Partial Award (under the UNICTRAL Arbitration Rules
1976), 43 para 211.
373
ICSID [2009] ARB/05/10—Annulment, 22-23 para 56.
374
ICSID [2014] ARB/09/4—Decision on Elsamex S.A.
s Preliminary Objections, 39-40 para
136; ICSID [2014] ARB/09/4—Decision on the Termination of the Stay of Enforcement of the
Award, 11 para 35.
375
ICSID [2009] ARB/05/10—Annulment, 26 paras 62 and 63.
376
ICSID [2009] ARB/05/10—Annulment, 30 para 71, 31 para 74 and 36 para 83.
'
