Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
the liberal approach.
383
One tribunal even used the liberal approach (therewith the
Salini test) in a case which was according to UNCITRAL arbitration rules and not
the ICSID Convention.
384
The tribunal highlighted that there is no difference in the
term investment under UNCITRAL or ICSID rules, and that a BIT cannot turn
everything into an investment.
385
One ICSID tribunal dealt with issue in depth and mentioned that this discussion
is purely academic, because it often leads to the same result.
386
Different cases may
require a different emphasis on the Salini criteria.
387
All the Salini criteria are
interrelated and depend on each other, and it does not depend on the quantity, but
rather on the quality of each criteria.
388
In another case, the tribunal highlighted the
importance of the agreements of the parties within the BIT and mentions that the
Salini test should only be performed in cases where the parties did not include an
investment definition.
389
In 2013 one tribunal checked all Salini criteria and
mentioned that it needs no further discussion if they are a
jurisdictional require-
'
as long as the criteria are met in the respective case.
390
In 2009, one ICSID tribunal decision dealt intensively with the liberal approach.
Besides the normal Salini criteria, it moved on and established an even wider test.
ICSID case law does not provide any proof for a definition, which completely
depends on party
ment
'
s intentions, as there are always same basic criteria concerning the
presence of an investment.
391
The most frequently referred definition of investment
is the Salini test, if an ICSID tribunal decides to define the term.
392
The tribunal
highlights that the main purpose of the ICSID Convention is to encourage and
'
383
ICSID [2010] ARB/07/20—Award, 35-36 paras 110-111; ICSID [2010] ARB/08/20, 28-29
paras 79-80; ICSID [2010] ARB/08/8, 58-59 paras 128-129 and 61 para 133; cf ICSID [2009]
ARB/07/21—Award, 8-9 para 36 and 10 para 39; ICSID [2009] ARB/05/6—Award, 28 para 95;
ICSID [2009] ARB/06/5—Award, 29 para 74; ICSID [2009] ARB/07/12, 19-21 paras 61-65 and
25-28 paras 77-87; ICSID [2008] ARB/05/22—Award, 86-87 paras 312-316; ICSID [2008]
ARB/05/12, 39 para 128; ICSID [2007] ARB/03/6—Award, 38 para 165; cf ICSID [2007]
ARB/01/8—Annulment, 17-18 paras 71-72; cf ICSID [2006] ARB/03/9, 29 para 81; Seems to
be subjective approach, but assess all requirements of Salini, in: ICSID [2005] ARB/02/17, 29 para
88; cf ICSID [2004] ARB/02/18, 205 (213) para 19 and (220) para 39; Article 25(1) ICSID
Convention includes objective criteria, in: ICSID [2002] ARB/00/2—Award, 142 (157) para 52;
ICSID [2001] ARB/00/6, 28-31 paras 58-66; ICSID [2001] ARB/00/4, 609 (622) para 54;
Applied in the
RSM Production Corporation v Grenada
case (ICSID [2009], ARB/05/14—
Award, para 241), in: Peterson (
2009a
).
384
Peterson (
2009b
).
385
Peterson (
2009b
).
386
ICSID [2007] ARB/05/10—Award, 33 para 105.
387
ICSID [2007] ARB/05/10—Award, 21-22 para 71 and 33 para 105.
388
ICSID [2007] ARB/05/10—Award, 33-35 para 106.
389
ICSID [2010] ARB/08/8, 58-59 paras 128-129.
390
ICSID [2013] ARB/10/11 and ARB/10/18—Decision on Jurisdiction, 98 para 352.
391
ICSID [2009] ARB/06/5—Award, 32 para 82.
392
ICSID [2009] ARB/06/5—Award, 33 para 83.
