Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
3.6.3.4 The Liberal Approach
The main idea of the liberal approach is that the tribunal needs to clarify if the
investment is according to the BIT and afterwards if the investment fulfills all
requirements of the ICSID convention. 377 By taking the BIT as well as the Art.
25 ICSID Convention into account, this approach is in between the objective and
subjective approach, as it checks both sources. Within the liberal approach, there
are two different streams of how to handle criteria of the Salini test.
First of all, there is the
, which claims that all Salini
criteria must be present cumulatively. 378 On the other hand, there is the
'
Jurisdictional Approach
'
'
Typical
Characteristics Approach
, which points out that it depends on the Salini test
criteria in its entity and not on every criterion being present cumulatively. 379
After reviewing the ICSID cases using the liberal approach, it is clear that the
'
'
dominates. Most tribunals refuse to apply the
Salini too strictly because of the missing definition within the ICSID Conven-
tion. 380 The Salini test can only introduce subjective elements of judgment, but
not objective requirements. 381 They are proposing that the Salini test must be a
flexible test, whereby the Salini test is only one feature to identify an investment. 382
As a review of the ICSID case law reveals, the distinction between the liberal and
objective approach can be quite difficult. The prime example of the liberal approach
is the Salini decision mentioned above and the
Typical Characteristic Approach
'
This tribunal
highlighted that the elements of the Salini test are characteristics of an investment
which must be assessed in total, arguing against a strict definition according to
Salini, but rather a guideline. A not fully represented element can be outbalanced by
another very strong existing Salini element. There are several tribunals supporting
double-barrelled test.
'
'
377 ICSID [2002] ARB/00/2—Award, 142 (158) para 56; Andreeva ( 2008 ), 161 (165).
378 On the verge of supporting the objective approach, in: ICSID [2013] ARB/08/9—Dissenting
Opinion of Santiago Torres Bern´rdez 65-68 paras 199-209; ICSID [2007] ARB/05/10—Award,
21-22 para 71; ICSID [2004] ARB/03/11—Award, 12 para 53; cf ICSID [2006] ARB/99/7—
Annulment, 12 para 27.
379 ICSID [2013] ARB/08/9—Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 142-174 paras 435-
520; Discussing Salini and mentioning that the investment is within the scope of Article 25 ICSID
Convention and the BIT, in: ICSID [2013] ARB/10/7—Decision, 63-68 paras 193-210; Using the
Salini criteria but not in a too strict way, in: ICSID [2012] ARB/09/2—Award, 59-63 paras 293-
312; ICSID [2011] ARB/07/5 Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 387 para 149; ICSID
[2007] ARB/05/10—Award, 21-22 para 71; ICSID [2006] ARB/05/3, 16-17 para 72; ICSID
[2005] ARB/03/08—Award, 426 (450) para 13; ICSID [2001] ARB/00/4, 609 (622) para 54;
ICSID [1999] ARB/97/4—Decision, 251 (275) para 72.
380
ICSID [2012] ARB/09/4—Award, 66-74 paras 253-283; Criterions might be of some use, but
not in the respective case, in: ICSID [2010] ARB/07/16—Award, 110 para 313; ICSID [2009]
ARB/05/10—Annulment, 33-35 paras 77 and 79; ICSID [2009] ARB/07/12, 26 para 81; ICSID
[2008] ARB/05/22—Award, 86 para 312; ICSID [2007] ARB/03/6—Award, 38 para 165.
381 ICSID [2009] ARB/07/21—Award, 10 para 43.
382 ICSID [2009] ARB/05/10—Annulment, 33-35 para 79; ICSID [2008] ARB/05/22—Award,
87 paras 314-316; ICSID [2007] ARB/03/6—Award, 38 para 165.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search