Arbitrating Investment Disputes Involving States with Competing Governments (on the Example of Venezuela)
Abstract
The present article analyses whether investment tribunals are competent to determine which representatives are entitled to act on behalf of respondent states with competing governments. The examination of existing case law and theoretical background suggests that investment tribunals have incidental jurisdiction to decide on the representation issue. In this case, the representation issue is resolved for the sole purpose of proceeding to consideration of claims, which are properly within the tribunals’ jurisdiction ratione materiae and the decision on this issue is not included in the dispositif of the awards and lacks res judicata effect. The most plausible approach to decide the representation issue is to conduct a substantive analysis of the government’s entitlement to act on behalf of the state. The alternative avoidance techniques to resolve the representation issue are questionable from the perspectives of their logical coherence, practical convenience and safeguarding the parties’ procedural rights. This analysis should be conducted in accordance with the criteria of customary international law. The legitimacy of a government’s origin is just one of these criteria and has a limited role in the overall test for identifying the government which is entitled to act on behalf of the state. Finally, this analysis should also take into account the considerations of procedural fairness, which depends on the factual circumstances of each specific case.
Downloads
References
Akhavan P., Bjorge E. (2022) Between Consent and Coherence: Incidental Questions in an Imperfect World. AJIL Unbound, vol. 116, pp. 164–169. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.26
Alexandrov S. (2018) Breach of Treaty Claims and Breach of Contract Claims: When Can an International Tribunal Exercise Jurisdiction? in Yannaca-Small K. (ed.) Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements: A Guide to the Key Issues, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2nd. ed, pp. 370–394.
Baptista K. (2021) New Actors in Investment Arbitration: The Legitimate Government in Gourgourinis A. (ed.) Transnational Actors in International Investment Law, Cham: Springer, pp. 73–103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60679-4_4
Bjorklund A. Brosseau J. (2018) Sources of Inherent Powers in International Adjudication. European International Arbitration Review, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1–49. DOI: http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3037529
Born G. (2023) International Commercial Arbitration, The Hague: Kluwer International.
Brown C. (2014) Inherent Powers in International Adjudication. In: Romano C., Alter K., Shany Y. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 828–847. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780199660681.003.0038
Cassese A. (2007) The Nicaragua and Tadić Tests Revisited in Light of the ICJ Judgment on Genocide in Bosnia. European Journal of International Law, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 649–668. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chm034
Cheng B. (2006) [1953] General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 447–473. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004386242_019
Crawford J. (2012) Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 9th. ed. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198737445.001.0001
d’Aspremont J. (2006) Legitimacy of Governments in the Age of Democracy. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, vol. 38, pp. 877–917.
Demirkol B. (2017) Non-treaty Claims in Investment Treaty Arbitration. Leiden Journal of International Law, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 59–91. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1017/S092215651700053X
Devaney J. (2022) Introduction to the Symposium on Incidental Jurisdiction. AJIL Unbound, vol. 116, pp. 160–163. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.25
Douglas Z. (2013) The Enforcement of Environmental Norms in Investment Treaty Arbitration. In Dupuy P.-M., Viñuales J. E. (eds.) Harnessing Foreign Investment to Promote Environmental Incentives and Safeguards, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 415–444. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139344289.019
Douglas Z. (2009) The International Law of Investment Claims, New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511581137
Franck T. (1992) The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance. American Journal of International Law, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 46–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2203138
Gaillard E. (2005) Treaty-Based Jurisdiction: Broad Dispute Resolution Clauses. New York Law Journal, vol. 234, no. 68, pp. 1–3.
García-Revillo M. G. (2005) The Contentious and Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Leiden: Brill | Nijhoff. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1163/9789004200999
Harris C. (2021) Incidental Determinations in Proceedings Under Compromissory Clauses. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 417–447. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589321000075
Horvath G. (2001) The Duty of the Tribunal to Render an Enforceable Award. Journal of International Arbitration, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 135–158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/317806
Magiera S. (2007) Governments. Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law. Available at: https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1048?prd=EPIL (accessed: 02.01.2024). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/e1048
Manciaux S. (2011) The Representation of States before ICSID Tribunals. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 87–96. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idq021
Marks S. (2011) What has Become of the Emerging Right to Democratic Governance?. European Journal of International Law, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 507–524. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chr023
Marotti L. (2019) Between Consent and Effectiveness: Incidental Determinations and the Expansion of the Jurisdiction of UNCLOS Tribunals in del Vecchio A., Virzo R. (eds.) Interpretations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by International Courts and Tribunals, Cham: Springer, pp. 383–406. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10773-4_19
Murphy S. (1999) Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 545–581. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020589300063430
Orakhelashvili A. (2003) The Concept of International Judicial Jurisdiction. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 501–550. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/157180303772037646
Papadaki M. (2022) Incidental Questions as a Gatekeeping Doctrine. AJIL Unbound, vol. 116, pp. 170–175. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.27
Paparinskis M. (2012) Inherent Powers of ICSID Tribunals: Broad and Rightly So in Laird I., Weiler T. (eds.) Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law. Juris Publishing, pp. 1–31.
Papp R. (2021) Representation of States in Investment Arbitrations Involving Governments Competing for International Recognition. In Ackermann T., Wuschka S. (eds.) Investments in Conflict Zones: The Role of International Investment Law in Armed Conflicts, Disputed Territories, and ‘Frozen’ Conflicts, Leiden: Brill|Nijhoff, pp. 246–279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004442832_010
Pauwelyn J. (2003) Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to Other Rules of International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3216723
Radović R. (2022) Incidental Jurisdiction in Investment Treaty Arbitration and the Question of Party Consent. AJIL Unbound, vol. 116, pp. 181–185. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.29
Schreuer C. (2014) Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Investment Treaty Arbitration. McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–25.
Schreuer C., Malintoppi L., Reinisch A., Sinclair A. (2010) The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596896
Shaw M. (2017) International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316979815
Shelton D. (2009) Form, Function, and the Powers of International Courts. Chicago Journal of International Law, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 537–571.
Talmon S. (2011) Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile, Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248391.001.0001
Talmon S. (1999) Who is a legitimate government in exile? Towards normative criteria for governmental legitimacy in international law. In: Goodwin-Gill G., Talmon S. (eds.) The Reality of International Law. Essays in Honour of Ian Brownlie, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 499–538. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198268376.003.0023
Tzeng P. (2018) The Implicated Issue Problem: Indispensable Issues and Incidental Jurisdiction. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 447–507.
Viñuales J. E. (2009) Foreign Investment and the Environment in International Law: An Ambiguous Relationship. British Yearbook of International Law, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 244–332. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1093/bybil/80.1.244
Weiss F. (2009) Inherent Powers of National and International Courts: The Practice of the Iran-US Claims Tribunal. In: Binder C., Kriebaum U., Reinisch A., Wittich S. (eds.) International Investment Law for the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 185–199. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571345.003.0012
This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
