International investment law a chinese perspective

International Investment Law:
A Chinese Perspective

Increasing and intensified cross-border economic exchange such as trade and
investment is an important feature of globalization. In the past, a distinction could
be made between capital importing and exporting countries, or host and home
countries for foreign direct investment (“FDI”). Due to globalization, FDI is presently made by and in both developed and developing countries. Differences in
political, economic, and legal systems and culture are no longer obstacles for FDI,
and to varying degrees the economic development of almost all countries is closely
linked with the inflow of FDI.
This book conducts critical assessments of aspects of current international law
on FDI, focusing on cases decided by the tribunals of the International Centre for
Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) and other tribunals, as well as decisions of annulment and ad hoc Committees of the ICSID. In examining such cases,
Guiguo Wang takes into account the Chinese culture and China’s practice in the
related areas. The book explores topics including: the development and trend of
international investment law; unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral mechanisms
for encouraging and protecting FDI; determination of qualified investors and
investments and consent as conditions for protection; relative and absolute standards of treatment; determination of expropriation in practice; assessment of compensation for expropriation; difficulties in enforcing investment arbitral awards;
and alternatives for improving the existing system.
The book will be of great use and interest to scholars, practitioners, and students of international investment law and international economic law, Asian law,
and Chinese studies.
Guiguo Wang is Chair Professor of Chinese and Comparative Law and Director
of the Centre for Judicial Education and Research at the City University of Hong
Kong.


Routledge Research in International Economic Law

Recognition and Regulation of
Safeguard Measures Under GATT/

WTO
Sheela Rai

Foreign Direct Investment and
Human Development
The Law and Economics of International
Investment Agreements
Olivier De Schutter, Johan Swinnen and Jan
Wouters

The Interaction between WTO Law
and External International Law
The Constrained Openness of WTO
Law
Ronnie R.F. Yearwood

Microtrade
A New System of International Trade
with Volunteerism Towards Poverty
Elimination
Yong-Shik Lee

Human Rights, Natural Resource
and Investment Law in a
Globalised World
Shades of Grey in the Shadow of the
Law
Lorenzo Cotula

Science and Technology in

International Economic Law
Balancing Competing Interests
Bryan Mercurio and Kuei-Jung Ni

Available:

The Domestic Politics of Negotiating
International Trade
Intellectual Property Rights in
US-Colombia and US-Peru Free Trade
Agreements
Johanna von Braun
Foreign Investment and Dispute
Resolution Law and Practice in Asia
Vivienne Bath and Luke Nottage (eds.)
Improving International Investment
Agreements
Armand De Mestral and Céline Lévesque (eds.)
Public Health in International
Investment Law and Arbritration
Valentina Vadi
The WTO and the Environment
Development of Competence beyond
Trade
James Watson

The WTO and Infant Industry
Promotion in Developing Countries
Perspectives on the Chinese Large Civil
Aircraft

Juan He
Trade Remedies
A Development Perspective
Asif Qureshi
International Investment Law: A
Chinese Perspective
Guiguo Wang
Forthcoming:
Culture and International Economic
Law
Valentina Vadi and Bruno de Witte
Equity and Equitable Principles in
the World Trade Organization
Addressing Conflicts and Overlaps
between the WTO and Other Regimes
Anastasios Gourgourinis


International Investment
Law: A Chinese Perspective

Guiguo Wang


First published 2015
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2015 Guiguo Wang
The right of Guiguo Wang to be identified as author of this work has
been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Wang, Guiguo, author.
A Chinese perspective on international law / Guiguo Wang.
pages cm. -- (Routledge research in international economic law)
Includes index.
ISBN 978-0-203-73868-9 (hbk) -- ISBN 978-0-415-50003-6 (ebk)
1. Investments, Foreign--Law and legislation--China. I. Title.
KNQ3202.W359 2014
346.51’092--dc23
2014007760
ISBN: 978-0-415-50003-6 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-203-73868-9 (ebk)
Typeset in 10/12 Baskerville MT by
Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire

Contents

Foreword
Preface
Table of Cases

ix
xi
xiii

1 International investment and law
I.
A brief history of international investment
II.
Impacts of national laws on investment
III. International legal regimes
IV. Features of contemporary international investment law
A. Cross-application of treaty and national law
B. Precedential effect of previous decisions
C. Emphasis on preambles
D. Formation of case law

1
1
6
15
19
19
22
23

28

2 The control system pertinent to direct foreign
investment
I.
The insurance system for foreign investment
A. The national insurance system
B. The multilateral insurance system
II.
The bilateral protection system
III. The ICSID dispute settlement system
A. ICSID arbitration mechanisms
B. Annulment procedure under the ICSID mechanism

32
32
33
37
49
61
62
64

3 Determination of foreign investors
I.
Qualified investors as a jurisdictional issue
II.
Piercing the corporate veil of foreign investors
III. Jus standi: indirect investors and minority shareholders
IV. Denial of benefits

V.
China’s practice relating to investors
VI. Conclusions

88
89
99
112
126
135
139


vi International Investment Law: A Chinese Perspective
4 Determination of foreign investments
I.
Searching for a definition of investment
II.
The double-barreled test and contribution to economic
development for qualified investment in ICSID arbitration
III. Additional criteria for qualified investments
A. Investments made in compliance with law and in good faith
(“bona fide”)
B. Investments made “in the territory” of the host state
IV. Commercial arbitration awards and investments
V.
China’s treaty practice on determination of foreign investment
VI. Conclusions

142

144

5 Consent as a condition of jurisdiction
I.
Determination of consent
II.
Effective time of consent
III. The fork in the road
IV. Exhaustion of local remedies
V.
China’s treaty practice

212
213
231
235
251
258

6 The absolute standards of treatment
I.
Fair and equitable treatment
A. The concept of FET
B. Contents of FET
II.
Full protection and security
III. The umbrella clause
IV. China’s practice on absolute standards of treatment

263

264
264
278
308
315
329

7 The relative standards of treatment
I.
The history of the MFN clause and the applicable interpretation
principles
A. The history of MFN treatment
B. Principles of interpretation
II.
MFN jurisprudence relating to investment
A. Cases supporting extension of the MFN clause to dispute
resolution procedures
B. Cases opposing extension of the MFN clause to dispute
resolution procedures
III. National treatment in investment
A. Status of NT in investment treaties
B. Competition as a necessary condition for like circumstances
C. Liberal interpretation of like circumstances
D. The principle of judicial/arbitral economy
E. Determination of less favourable treatment
IV. China’s practice regarding MFN and national treatment
V.
Synthesis and conclusions

334

164
176
176
186
190
202
209

335
335
339
344
345
353
360
360
363
367
369
372
376
380


Contents

vii

8 Expropriation

I.
Expropriation and pertinent conditions
II.
Indirect expropriation
III. Defense of indirect expropriation and conditions
IV. The Chinese practice
Annexes

388
390
404
419
430
437

9 Compensation for violation of obligations
I.
The basic issues regarding compensation for expropriation
II.
Normative provisions of international instruments
III. International judicial and arbitral practice
IV. The power of tribunals in cases of non-expropriatory breaches
V.
Fair market value as the standard of compensation for nonexpropriatory breaches
VI. Actual losses suffered and benefits denied as benchmark
VII. Compensation for moral damages
VIII. Conclusions and alternatives
A. FMV as the standard for expropriatory measures
B. Varied standards adopted for non-expropriatory breaches
C. Alternatives for improvement

449
449
452
458
467
472
482
494
498
498
499
501

10 State responsibility and enforcement of obligations
I.
Attribution of state responsibility
II.
Efforts to codify the principle of sovereign immunity
III. Evolution of national laws regarding sovereign immunity
A. Absolute sovereign immunity
B. Restricted sovereign immunity
C. Laws on sovereign immunity
IV. National practices relating to execution of investment awards
A. The US practice
B. The UK practice
C. The French practice
V.
The Chinese perspective

508
510
521
530
530
534
536
543
546
550
552
555

11 Conclusions and alternatives

560

Index

575


This page intentionally left bank


Foreword

Every legal arrangement is always under pressure for change. The content of
each arrangement reflects the shared interests of those who have shaped it. As
soon as an arrangement is installed, it begins to be tested and challenged—not

only by those who never benefited from it, but even by actors within the entities
and communities which established and participated in the arrangement if they
come to believe that their own interests are insufficiently served or have changed
and especially if those actors have since acquired more power. Thus law, for all
its pretensions to being stable and unchanging, is actually a continuously dynamic
dialectical process of agreement, challenge, adjustment, accommodation, new
agreement, new challenges—ad infinitum.
This dialectic is particularly dramatic in contemporary international economic
law. Thanks to the globalization of the world economy and the imperative compelling all governments to secure the economic development and enhancement
of life opportunities for their constituents, we witness the creation of specialized
international institutions, rapid developments in bilateral, regional, and multilateral conventional international law and the proliferation of publicly accessible
third-party decisions.
Nowhere is this dynamic more pronounced than in international investment
law. All states now vie for foreign investment and the reasons are hardly recondite. China, pre-1978, demonstrated, by example, the virtual impossibility of
autochthonous economic development; China, post-1978, demonstrated, again
by example, the contribution which direct foreign investment can make to rapid
national economic development. But it is not only governments that are impelling the dynamism in this area of law: profit-maximizing entities worldwide are
driven by their own economic imperatives to seek venues for foreign investment,
whether for natural resources, more efficient venues for production or markets
for their products. We are not speaking of a few actors. There are approximately
80,000 multinational enterprises, which are, by definition, foreign direct investors.
In turn, these entities have some 100,000 affiliates. Add to that the almost 3000
bilateral and multilateral investment treaties and the hundreds of investment arbitrations each year and one can begin to appreciate the inter-stimulating factors
propelling the velocity of change in this area of international law.
Inevitably, this has had consequences for the sociology of legal knowledge. In


x International Investment Law: A Chinese Perspective
this new milieu, it is no longer useful for scholars to confine themselves to synthesizing and restating “the rules” in black-letter formulations. Treatises which are
comprised of “snapshots” of the law at a particular moment are more and more

time-bound and, for that reason, less and less reliable guides for behavior and
decision. Such treatises must be replaced by more searching analyses of decision
trends, their conditioning factors and projections of possible future decisions. In
a context of relentless change, the task of the contemporary scholar must also
include identifying and appraising the policies at play, their purported justifications, the conflicting claims with respect to them and, above all, proposing, de lege
ferenda, arrangements that may better contribute to the common interests of the
world community.
Dr Wang Guiguo’s comprehensive treatise is an outstanding example of this
form of scholarship. Long recognized as a world expert on international trade law,
Dean Wang has here produced a comprehensive treatise on international investment law that will serve as the indispensable vade mecum for practitioners, scholars,
and students in this area.
Notwithstanding its sub-title, this book is not so much a Chinese perspective on
international investment law as a systematic examination and appraisal of trends
in decisions in international investment law. In the short period since 1978, China
has emerged as a major participant in the world economy and, in particular, in
the importation and exportation of direct foreign investment. It has also become a
full participant in the international law-making process to the point that referring
to a “Chinese perspective” on international investment law is as anachronistic
as viewing the author of this extraordinary book as a “Chinese” scholar, rather
than as the world class international legal authority that he has, again and again,
proved himself to be.
W. Michael Reisman
Yale Law School
New Haven, Connecticut
April 10, 2014


Preface

Seven years ago, Professor W. Michael Reisman of Yale Law School—my

mentor—visited the School of Law, City University of Hong Kong. Out of his
love for students and to support the School of Law, Professor Reisman agreed
to co-teach with me a course on Selected Problems of International Investment
Law. What an honor for me and what an opportunity for the students! Professor
Reisman adopted the syllabus that he used in the Yale Law School as well as the
teaching method he employed there—examination of arbitral awards by students.
As Professor Reisman was unable to teach in person on a weekly basis in Hong
Kong, part of the course was taught via video link facilities, which was a novel
experience for all of us. This co-taught course was offered for six years in a row
and was a complete success every time.
Students say that “Professor Reisman’s class is like a feast for the mind.” This
is true for a number of reasons. In the first place, Professor Reisman always links
the most up-to-date materials, including cases, with the history and evolution
of the subject. Apart from acquiring contemporary knowledge, students have
opportunities to review the development of any given issue. Second, students are
always provided with plenty of opportunities to express themselves. Even if they
say something incorrect, Professor Reisman still encourages them by patiently
explaining the issues involved. Third, it is absolutely an enjoyable experience
listening to Professor Reisman’s scrutinization of cases and related issues. The
approach that he takes, his penetrating, detailed, and comprehensive analysis and
his foresightedness are not only forcefully convincing but also enlightening. This
is, of course, nothing new for those who know Professor Reisman well. Last, but
certainly not least, is Professor Reisman’s humility. Before meeting him, students
were naturally nervous, for they knew what a great jurist he is. Yet, in less than
30 minutes into his first class, students started actively to participate. This came
about because Professor Reisman always treats students as his equals and listens to
their views carefully, sometimes even taking out his small notebook to write down
what students say. In such an environment, I learned a great deal myself—about
investment law as well as the way that Professor Reisman conducts his class.
To have a great jurist as teacher is very fortunate. To have the opportunity to

continue to receive education from one’s teacher after school time has ended is
fortuitous. Being just such a lucky person, I must do justice to this heaven-sent


xii International Investment Law: A Chinese Perspective
opportunity. The result is the current book, which has received the direct benefit
of Professor Reisman’s teachings, even though it may not accurately reflect their
quality.
This book is designed as a brand new book, although I did an earlier book
on international investment law (in the Chinese language) several years ago.
Essentially based on the syllabus of the course on Selected Problems of International
Investment Law, this book is divided into 11 chapters, namely: 1. International
investment and law; 2. The control system pertinent to foreign direct investment;
3. Determination of foreign investors; 4. Determination of foreign investments; 5.
Consent as a condition of jurisdiction; 6. The absolute standards of treatment; 7.
The relative standards of treatment; 8. Expropriation; 9. Compensation for violation of obligations; 10. State responsibility and enforcement of obligations; and
11. Conclusions and alternatives. The first chapter serves as an introduction to the
history of foreign direct investment and international investment law, whilst the
second chapter outlines the mechanisms pertinent to foreign direct investment.
The rest of the chapters—with the last one as an exception—deal with the substantive issues of international investment law. At the end of each chapter, there
is a section particularly devoted to the Chinese practice in the subject area, which
is followed by conclusions and alternatives. The last chapter addresses the general
issues and offers some conclusions and alternatives for advancing the development
of international investment law.
In writing the book, my intellectual indebtedness to Professor Michael Reisman
is immeasurable. This author is also lucky to have the invaluable assistance of Mr
James Boyce, who has, as senior research assistant, contributed to the book at all
stages from the beginning to the completion of writing and in various forms. The
School of Law of City University of Hong Kong has supported me all along. I am
deeply grateful to all of them. I am of course solely and fully responsible for any

errors and mistakes contained in the book.
Last but not the least, I must thank my wife Priscilla and my sons Hongxi and
Chenxi for their unswerving support and generous tolerance, without which it
would not have been possible to complete this book.
Guiguo Wang
February 8, 2014


Table of cases

ICSID Arbitrations
Abaclat and Others v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Decision on
Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 4 August 2011, .............................123–126, 145–146,
154–155, 167, 188–189, 227–228, 256–257, 260
ADC Affiliate Limited and ADC & ADMC Management Limited v. The Republic of Hungary,
ICSID Case No. ARB/03/16, Award, 2 October 2006,.............................. 104–105,
280–281, 287, 398, 498–499
ADF Group Inc v. United States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/l, Award, 9 January
2003,........................................................................................................................ 370
AES Corporation v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/17, Decision on
Jurisdiction, 26 April 2005, ....................................................................................... 22
Aguas del Tunari, S.A. v. Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3, Decision on
Jurisdiction, 21 October 2005, .................................................................................. 98
Alasdair Ross Anderson, et al. v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/3,
Award, 19 May 2010,......................................................................................184–185
Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica, Inc. v. Government of Jamaica, ICSID Case No. ARB/74/2,
Decision on Jurisdiction and Competence of Arbitral Tribunal, 1975
Alex Genin, Eastern Credit Limited, Inc. and A.S. Baltoil v. The Republic of Estonia, ICSID
Case No. ARB/99/2, Award, 25 June 2001, ..................................238–239, 266–267
Alpha Projektholding GmbH v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/16, Award, 8

November 2010,.....................................................................................153–154, 416
Amco Asia Corporation, Pan American Development Limited, PT Amco Indonesia v. Republic
of Indonesia (Amco I), ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on Jurisdiction,
25 September 1983, 101, 182, 214 (also in f/n); Award on the Merits,
21 November 1984, 464–465, 516–517; Decision on Annulment, 16 May
1986,.......................................................................................................................... 66
Amco Asia Corp. and Others v. Republic of Indonesia (Amco II), ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1,
Resubmitted Case, Award, 5 June 1990, 465; Decision on Supplemental
Decisions  and  Rectification; 17 October 1990; Decision on Annulment, 3
December 1992, ........................................................................................ 66, 69, 74
American Manufacturing and Trading, Inc. v. Republic of Zaire, ICSID Case No. ARB/93/1,
Award, 21 February 1997, .................................................................... 311, 312, 314
Antoine Goetz and others v. Republic of Burundi, ICSID Case No. ARB/95/3, Award, 10
February 1999, ................................................................................................501–502
Archer Daniels Midland Company and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc. v. United Mexican


xiv International Investment Law: A Chinese Perspective
States, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/04/05, Award, 21 November 2007 (redacted
version), 427; Award, Concurring Opinion of Arthur W. Rovine: Issues of
Independent Investor Rights, Diplomatic Protection and Countermeasures, 21
November 2007,...................................................................................................... 511
Asian Agricultural Products Ltd. (AAPL) v. Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No.
ARB/87/3, Final Award, 27 June 1990, ........................................................309–310
ATA Construction, Industrial and Trading Company v. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan,
ICSID Case No. ARB/08/2, Award, 18 May 2010
Atlantic Triton Company Limited v. People’s Revolutionary Republic of Guinea, ICSID Case
No. ARB/84/1, Award, 21 April 1986
Autopista Concesionada de Venezuela, C.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case
No. ARB/00/5, Decision on Jurisdiction, 27 September 2001, ............................. 140

Azurix Corp. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Decision on
Jurisdiction, 8 December 2003; Award, 14 July 2006, 273, 312, 326, 327, 426,
475, 499–500 (also in f/n); Decision on the Application for Annulment, 1
September 2009, ................................................................. 70–71, 80 (also in f/n)
Banro American Resources, Inc. and Société Aurifère du Kivu et du Maniema S.A.R.L. v. Democratic
Republic of Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/7, Award, 1 September 2000, ... 139–140
Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case
No. ARB/03/29, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005, 351; Award,
27 August 2009, ...................................................................................................... 516
Bernardus Henricus Funnekotter and others v. Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No.
ARB/05/6, Award, 22 April 2009
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No.
ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008,........................................................152–153, 312
Bosh International, Inc and B&P Ltd Foreign Investment Enterprise v. Ukraine, ICSID Case
No ARB/08/11, Award, 25 October 2012, ........................ 279–280, 324–325, 326
Bureau Veritas, Inspection, Valuation, Assessment and Control, BIVAC B.V. v. Republic of
Paraguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/9, Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 May
2009,...................................................................................... 325, 326 (also in f/n)
Burlington Resources Inc. and others v. Republic of Ecuador and Empresa Estatal Petróleos del
Ecuador (PetroEcuador), ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Jurisdiction, 2
June 2010, .................................................................................... 322, 327, 328, 357
Cargill, Incorporated v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/05/2, Award,
18 September 2009, ........................................................................................510–511
CDC Group plc v. Republic of Seychelles, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/14, Decision on the
Application for Annulment, 29 June 2005, ............................................71–72, 85–86
Cemex Caracas Investments B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No.
ARB/08/15, Decision on Jurisdiction, 30 December 2010, .................................. 221
Champion Trading Company, Ameritrade International, Inc., James T. Wahba, John B.Wahba,
Timothy T. Wahba v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/9, Decision
on Jurisdiction, 21 October 2003, 90–91, 92, 109; Award, 27 October

2006, ................................................................................................................. 371–372
CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8,
Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 17 July 2003, 112–115,
239 (also in f/n); Award, 12 May 2005, 267–258, 285, 297, 305, 473–
475, 476, 499, 511; Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for
Annulment, 25 September 2007, ................ 77, 122, 123, 280, 302, 327, 511–512
(also in f/n)


Table of cases

xv

Compañia de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (formerly Compagnie Générale
des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic (Vivendi I), ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Award, 21
November 2000, 235–236, 513; Decision on Annulment, 3 July 2002, ...66, 72–73,
73–74, 80, 85, 116, 236–237, 244, 246
Compañia de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (formerly Compagnie Générale
des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Resubmitted Case
(Vivendi II), Award, 20 August 2007, 400, 499; Decision on Annulment, 10
August 2010, ..................................................................69–70, 71, 87 (also in f/n)
Compañia del Desarrollo de Santa Elena v. the Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No.
ARB/96/1, Final Award, 17 February 2000, ......................................................... 417
Consortium Groupement L.E.S.I.-Dipenta v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID
Case No. ARB/03/8, Award, 10 January 2005, ................... 157, 169 (also in f/n)
Consortium R.F.C.C. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6, Award, 22
December 2003 (French original),.................................................................. 415, 418
Continental Casualty Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Award,
5 September 2008, 297–298, 328 (also in f/n); Decision on the Application
for Partial Annulment (by both Parties), 16 September 2011, ........................... 79, 80

Československa Obchodni Banka, A.S. (ČSOB) v. The Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No.
ARB/97/4, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 24 May 1999, 96–98,
151–152, 164–165, 168–169, 217–219 (also in three f/ns); Second
Decision on Jurisdiction, 1 December 2000; Award, 29 December 2004
Daimler Financial Services AG v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/1, Award,
22 August 2012, ......................................................................358–359 (also in f/n)
Desert Line Projects LLC v. Republic of Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/17, Award, 6
February 2008, .............................................................................. 183–184, 495–497
Deutsche Bank AG v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No.
ARB/09/2, Award, 31 October 2012, ...........................................................277–278
Duke Energy Electroquil Partners & Electroquil S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No.
ARB/04/19, Award, 18 August 2008, .......................................................... 322, 485
Duke Energy International Peru Investments No. 1 Ltd. v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No.
ARB/03/28, Decision on Annulment, 1 March 2011, ............................................ 75
EDF (Services) Limited v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Award, 8 October
2009,........................................................................................................................ 299
El Paso Energy International Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No.
ARB/03/15, Award, 31 October 2011, 122, 297–298, 299, 302, 305, 310,
429–430
Electrabel S.A. v. The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on
Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability, 30 November 2012, ................... 568, 570
Emilio Agustin Maffezini v. The Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Decision
on Jurisdiction, 25 January 2000, 231–232, 256 (also in f/n); Award, 13
November 2000,.........................................................345–348, 350, 352–353, 354,
355, 357, 358, 359, 381, 382–384, 517–518
Empresas Lucchetti, S.A. and Lucchetti Peru, S.A. v. The Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No.
ARB/03/4 (also known as: Industria Nacional de Alimentos, A.S. and Indalsa Perú
S.A. v. The Republic of Peru), Decision on Annulment, 5 September 2007,................72,
179 (also in 2 f/ns)
Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets LP v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3,

Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 January 2004, 21, 120, 357, 503 (also in two
f/ns); Decision on Jurisdiction (Ancillary Claim), 2 August 2004; Award, 22


xvi International Investment Law: A Chinese Perspective
May 2007, 123, 305, 310, 312, 476–477 (also in two f/ns); Decision on
Annulment, 30 July 2010, .............................69, 77–78, 82–83 (also in two f/ns)
Fedax N. V. v. Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3, Decision of the
Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 11 July 1997, 146–149, 150, 152,
164, 168, 186–187 (also in three f/ns); Award, 9 March 1998,..................... 316
Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No
ARB(AF)/02/01, Award, 17 July 2006, .................................................................. 427
Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case
No. ARB/03/25, Award, 16 August 2007, 20–21, 177–179, 208; Decision on
the Application for Annulment, 23 December 2010, ....................................... 68, 79,
80–81, 87 (also in f/n)
F-W Oil Interests, Inc. v. Republic of Trinidad & Tobago, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/14,
Award, 3 March 2006
Garanti Kosa LLP v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/20, Decision on the
Objection to Jurisdiction for Lack of Consent, 3 July, 2013, ......................... 230, 385
GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/16, Award, 31
March 2011, .................................................................................. 197–199, 201–202
Generation Ukraine, Inc. v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/9, Arbitral Award, 16
September 2003, .................................................................. 134–135, 222–223, 306
Global Trading Resource Corp. and Globex International, Inc. v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No.
ARB/09/11, Award, 1 December 2010, ................................................................ 159
Gustav F.W. Hamester GmbH & Co. KG v. Republic of Ghana, ICSID Case No ARB/07/24,
Award, 18 June 2010, ...................................................................... 328 (also in f/n)
H&H Enterprises Investments, Inc. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/15,
Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 5 June 2012,.............................................. 248

Helnan International Hotels A/S v. The Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB
05/19, Decision on Objection to Jurisdiction, 17 October 2006,..........233–234, 260
Hochtief AG v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/31, Decision on
Jurisdiction, 24 October 2011, ...............................................................348–349, 352
Holiday Inns S.A. and others v. Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/72/1, ...........93–96, 216–217,
223
Hussein Nuaman Soufraki v. United Arab Emirates, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/7, Award,
7 July 2004, 91–92, 179; Decision on the Application for Annulment, 5 June
2007, ............................................................................................................ 73, 74–75
Iberdrola Energia S.A. v The Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/5, Award,
17 August 2012, ..................................................................... 292, 294 (also in f/n)
Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17, Award, 21 June
2011, 120–121, 254–256, 348, 349–351, 414; Award, Consenting and
Dissenting Opinion of Judge Charles N. Brower, 21 June 2011, 350, 414–415;
Award, Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Professor Brigitte Stern, 21
June 2011, 350, 381; Decision on Annulment, 24 January 2014, ............ 23, 68, 69,
87 (also in two f/ns)
Impregilo S.p.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/3, Award on
Objections to Jurisdiction, 22 April 2005,..............................................................195,
Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award
[on Jurisdiction], 2 August 2006, ...........................................21, 179, 215–216, 261
Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, S.C. European Food S.A., S.. Starmill S.R.L. and S.C. Multipack
S.R.L. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Decision on Jurisdiction and
Admissibility, 24 September 2008, ............................................................................ 90


Table of cases

xvii

Ioannis Kardassopoulos v. Georgia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/18, Decision on
Jurisdiction, 6 July 2007; Award, 3 March 2010, ...................................400–402, 499
Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case
No. ARB/04/13, Decision on Jurisdiction, 16 June 2006, 156–157, 232–233;
Award, 6 November 2008, .............................................................. 294 (also in f/n)
Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/06/18, Decision on Jurisdiction
and Liability, 14 January 2010, ..................279–280, 307–308, 488–490, 493, 497
Joy Mining Machinery Limited v. The Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11,
Award on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2004, ......................................... 155–156, 323–324
Kılıç İnşaat İthalat İhracat Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No.
ARB/10/1, Decision on Article VII.2 of the Turkey-Turkmenistan BIT, 7 May
2012, 567–568; Award, 2 July 2013
Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH v. Republic of Cameroon (Klöckner I), ICSID Case No.
ARB/81/2, Decision on Annulment, 3 May 1985,........................ 65–66, 82, 84–85
Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH v. Republic of Cameroon, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/2,
Resubmitted Case(Klöckner II); Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Parties’
Applications for Annulment, 17 May 1990, ............................................................. 66
Lanco International, Inc. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/6,
Preliminary Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 December 1998
L.E.S.I. S.p.A. and ASTALDI S.p.A. v. Republique Algerienne Democratique et Populaire,
ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 12 July 2006
LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp. and LG&E International Inc. v. Argentine Republic,
ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 30 April
2004; Decision on Liability, 3 October 2006, 286, 297, 305, 332–333, 418–
419, 426, 482–483, 511; Award, 25 July 2007, .........................483–484, 493, 500
The Loewen Group, Inc. and Raymond L. Loewen v. United States of America, ICSID
Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3, Decision on Hearing of Respondent’s Objection
to Competence and Jurisdiction, 5 January 2001, 434; Award, 26 June
2003,..................................................................................... 290–291, 293–294, 489
Malaysian Historical Salvors, Sdn Bhd v. Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10,

Award, 17 May 2007, 25–26, 171–172 (also in two f/ns); Decision on the
Application for Annulment, 16 April 2009, 26–27, 75–76, 153, 172–174
(also in f/n); Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabudeen, 16 April 2009, ...............27,
173, 175
Malicorp Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/18, Award, 7
February 2011, 165–167; Decision on the Application for Annulment, 3 July
2013,......................................................................................... 69, 73–74, 81–82, 86
Marion Unglaube and Reinhard Unglaube v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Consolidated
Cases Nos. ARB/08/1 and ARB/09/20, Award, 16 May 2012,...................402–404
Maritime International Nominees Establishment (MINE) v. Republic of Guinea, ICSID Case
No. ARB/84/4, Interim Order No. 1 on Guinea’s Application for Stay of
Enforcement of the Award, 12 August 1988, 544; Decision on Annulment, 22
December 1989, ....................................................................................................... 66
Marvin Roy Feldman Karpa v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1,
Award, 16 December 2002, 288, 296, 374–375, 386–387, 470, 475, 490–
491, 494, 500 (also in 2 f/ns); Dissenting Opinion of Jorge Covarrubias
Bravo, 3 December 2002, ...............................................................................375–376
MCI Power Group, LC and New Turbine, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No.
ARB/03/6, Award, 31 July 2007


xviii International Investment Law: A Chinese Perspective
Metalclad Corporation v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AB)/97/1,
Award, 30 August 2000, .......................................................415, 418, 424, 466–467
(also in f/n)
Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co. S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case
No. ARB/99/6, Award, 12 April 2002, ......................................... 239 (also in f/n)
Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case
No. ARB/00/2, Award, 15 March 2002, .......................................................214–215
Millicom International Operations B.V. and Sentel Gsmsa v. The Republic of Senegal, ICSID

Case No. ARB/08/20, Decision on Jurisdiction, 16 July 2010, .....................228–230
Mobil Corporation and others v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No.
ARB/07/27, Decision on Jurisdiction, 10 June 2010
Mondev International Ltd. v. United States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2, Award, 11
October 2002, ............................................................. 202, 275–277, 291–292, 436
MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case
No.  ARB/01/7, Award, 25 May 2004, 274 (also in f/n); Annulment
Decision, 21 May 2007, ..........................................................274–275 (also in f/n)
Noble Ventures, Inc. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11, Award, 12 October
2005, ................................................................... 24, 515–516 (also in three f/ns)
Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v.
Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Award, 5 October 2012,
466–467, 477–482; Award, Dissenting Opinion of Professor Brigitte Stern,
20 September 2012, ....................................................................... 480 (also in f/n)
Olguin v. Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/5, Decision on Jurisdiction,
8 August 2000, ................................................................................ 235 (also in f/n)
Pac Rim Cayman LLC v. The Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12,
Decision on the Respondent’s Jurisdictional Objections, 1 June 2012,......... 127–129,
131–132, 134, 135, 219–221
Pan American LLC and BP America Production Company v. Argentine Republic, joined ICSID
Case Nos. ARB/03/13 and ARB/04/8, Decision on Preliminary Objections,
27 July 2006
Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers (Greece) v. The Republic of Albania, ICSID Case
No. ARB/07/21, Award, 30 July 2009, ....... 242–246, 247, 250–251 (also in f/n)
Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8, Award, 11
September 2007, .......................................... 286–287, 292, 304–305 (also in f/n)
Patrick Mitchell v. Democratic Republic of Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/7, Award, 4
February 2004, 169–170 (also in f/n); Decision on Annulment, 1 November
2006,........................................................................................170–171 (also in f/n)
Phoenix Action Ltd. v.Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April

2009, ...........................................140, 165, 174–175, 176, 180–183 (also in f/n)
Plama Consortium Ltd v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Decision
on Jurisdiction, 8 February 2005, 25, 129–132, 133, 134, 135, 355–356,
358–359 (also in two f/ns); Award, 27 August 2008, .............................. 180, 208
PSEG Global Inc. and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Üretim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Republic of
Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, Decision on Jurisdiction, 4 June 2004,
155; Award, 19 January 2007, ...............................................................300–301, 310
Rachel S. Grynberg, Stephen M. Grynberg, Miriam Z. Grynberg, and RSM Production Corporation
v. Grenada (RSM (II)), ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6, Award, 10 December
2010, ...............................................................................................................246–247
Railroad Development Corporation (RDC) v. Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/23,


Table of cases

xix

Second Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 18 May 2010; Award, 29 June
2012, ...............................................................................................................282–284
Repsol YPF Ecuador S.A. v. Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador), ICSID Case
No. ARB/01/10, Decision on Annulment, 8 January 2007,.................................... 73
Robert Azinian, Kenneth Davitian, & Ellen Baca v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case
No. ARB (AF)/97/2, Award, 1 November 1999, ..................................291, 294–295
The Rompetrol Group N.V. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/3, Decision on
Jurisdiction, 18 April 2008, ............................................103–104, 107 (also in f/n)
RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/14, Award, 13
March 2009, .................................................................................... 246 (also in f/n)
Rumeli Telekom a.s. and Telsim Mobil Telekomikasyon Hizmetleri a.s. v. Republic of Kazakhstan,
ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, Award, 29 July 2008, ............ 105, 310 (also in f/n)
Mr. Saba Fakes v. Repbulic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, Award, 14 July

2010, .............................................................................................................. 159, 179
Saipem S.p.A. v. The People’s Republic of Bangladesh, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/07, Decision
on Jurisdiction and Recommendation on Provisional Measures, 21 March 2007,
22–23, 60, 191–197, 199, 200, 201–202 (also in 2 f/ns); Award, 30 June
2009, ................................................................................191, 196–202 (also in f/n)
Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No.
ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction, 23 July 2001, ...................................26–27, 75,
149–151, 152–154, 168, 182, 191, 519–520 (also in f/n)
Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID
Case No. ARB/02/13, Decision on Jurisdiction, 9 November 2004, ...354–355, 359
Sempra Energy International v. the Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16,
Decision on Objection to Jurisdiction, 11 May 2005, 117–120; Award, 28
September 2007; Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Request for Annulment
of the Award, 29 June 2010, ....................................... 68, 76–77, 120 (also in f/n)
SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No.
ARB/01/13, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 6 August 2003, .........187, 188,
317–319, 320, 321, 351, 520 (also in two f/ns)
SGS Société Générale de Surveillance SA v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No.
ARB/02/6, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 29 January
2004, 23, 101, 187–188, 319–321, 324–325, 326 (also in three f/ns);
Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, Declaration (Dissenting Opinion of
Antonio Crivellaro), 29 January 2004, .................................................................... 320
SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. The Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case No.
ARB/07/29, Decision on Jurisdiction, 12 February 2010,....................188, 321–322
Siemens A.G. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Decision on
Jurisdiction, 3 August 2004, 21, 352–353, 369, 372 (also in two f/ns);
Award, 6 February 2007, ........286, 312–313, 326, 327, 399–400, 423, 427, 499
Société Ouest-Africaine des Bétons Industriels (SOABI) v. the Republic of Senegal, ICSID Case
No. ARB/82/1, Decision on Jurisdiction, 1 August 1984, 108; Award, 25
February 1988, ....................................................................................................... 192

Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No.
ARB/84/3, Second Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 April 1988, .......................470-472,
493, 541, 515, 559
Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1, Award, 7 December 2011 .. 416
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A., and InterAguas Servicios Integrales del Agua
S.A. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17, Award, 30 July 2010,........... 423, 424


xx International Investment Law: A Chinese Perspective
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A., and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. The Argentine
Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, 3 August
2006, 351–352 (also in f/n); Decision on Liability, 30 July 2010, ............ 307–308,
313–315, 427–429
Swisslion DOO Skopje v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, ICSID Case No.
ARB/09/16, Award, 6 July 2012,........................................................................... 326
Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S. A. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No.
ARB(AF)/002, Award, 29 May 2003,...................................................270-271, 274,
289, 356, 425–427, 489 (also in two f/ns)
TECO Guatemala Holdings LLC v. The Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No.
ARB/10/17, Award, 19 December 2013, .............................................284–285, 308
Telefonica S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/20, Decision of the
Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 25 May 2006, ........................................... 357
Telenor Mobile Communications A.S. v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/15,
Award, 13 September 2006, ................................................................................... 356
Tokios Tokelės v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction,
29 April 2004, 24, 99–103, 107, 109, 138, 181; Decision on Jurisdiction,
Dissenting Opinion of Prosper Weil, 29 April 2004, .............................102–103, 117
Toto Costruzioni Generali, S.p.A. v. The Republic of Lebanon, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12,
Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 September 2009, .......................................248–249, 292
Tradex Hellas S.A. v. Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/94/2, Decision on

Jurisdiction, 24 December 1996; Award, 29 April 1999, ........516–517 (also in f/n)
TSA Spectrum de Argentina S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/5,
Award, 19 December 2008, ................................................. 105–108, 252–254, 257
Tza Yap Shum v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/6, Decision on Jurisdiction,
19 June 2009, 223–226, 240-242, 258, 259–260; Procedural Order, 21 July
2009, ...................................................................................................................24–25
Vacuum Salt Products Ltd. v. Republic of Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/92/1, Award, 16
February 1994, ....................................................................... 98, 106–107, 107–108
Vannessa Ventures Ltd. v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No.
ARB(AF)/04/6, Award, 16 January 2013
Victor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No.
ARB/98/2, Award, 8 May 2008, ................................158–159 (also in four f/ns)
Waguih Elie George Siag and Clorinda Vecchi v. The Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No.
ARB/05/15, Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 April 2007; Decision on Jurisdiction,
Partial Dissent of Francisco Orrego Vicuña, 15 April 2007, 230–231; Award,
1 June 2009, ........................................................................................................... 310
Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/2,
Award, Dissenting Opinion of Keith Highet, 8 May 2000, ................................... 419
Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3,
Award, 30 April 2004,...................................................278, 289 (also in two f/ns)
Wena Hotels Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4, Award, 8
December 2000, 313, 518–519; Decision on Annulment, 5 February 2002, .......66,
67, 71, 79, 80, 84, 85
Wintershall Aktiengesellschaft v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/14, Award,
8 December 2008, ........................................................................ 256, 341, 357, 359
Zhinvali Development Ltd. v. Republic of Georgia, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/1, Award,
24 January 2003


Table of cases

xxi

UNCITRAL Arbitrations
AWG Group Ltd v. Argentina, UNCITRAL, Decision on Jurisdiction, 3 August 2006,
351–352; Decision on Liability, 30 July 2010,.............................307–308, 313–315,
427–429 (also in f/n)
BG Group Plc v. The Republic of Argentina, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 24 December
2007, .............................................................................................................. 310, 419
Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd v. Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of
Ghana, Ad hoc Tribunal under UNCITRAL Rules, Award on Damages and
Costs, 30 June 1990, ............................................................397, 415, 465–466, 467
Chemtura Corporation v. the Government of Canada, Ad Hoc NAFTA Arbitration under
UNCITRAL Rules, Award, 2 August 2010, ..........................................269, 423–424
Chevron Corporation (USA) and Texaco Petroleum Company (USA) v. The Republic of Ecuador,
UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 34877 (Chevron I), Partial Award on the Merits, 30
March 2010, ................................................................................................... 292, 295
Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company v. The Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL,
PCA Case No. 2009-23 (Chevron II), Memorial on Jurisdictional Objections of
The Republic of Ecuador, 26 July 2010, 247; 3rd Interim Award on Jurisdiction,
27 February 2012, ................................................240, 247, 484–487 (also in f/n)
CME Czech Republic B. V. v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award (Merits), 13
September 2001, 311–312, 397–398, 416, 465, 466, 467, 472, 561–563;
Dissenting opinion of the Arbitrator JUDr Jaroslav Hándl against the Partial
Arbitration Award, 13 September 2001, 311, 562 (also in f/n); Separate
Opinion on the Issues at the Quantum Phase of: CME v. Czech Republic
by Ian Brownlie, C.B.E, Q.C., 13 March, 2003; Final Award, 14 March
2003,.......................................................................................................454, 472–473
Ethyl Corp. v. Canada, UNCITRAL, Award, 24 June 1998, .............................................. 351
Frontier Petroleum Services Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL Arbitration, Final

Award, 12 November 2010, ............................................................ 202 (also in f/n)
GAMI Investments, Inc. v. the Government of the United Mexican States, NAFTA Chapter
11 Arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules, Final Award, 15 November
2004, .................................................115–117, 119, 370–371, 375, 387, 417–418
Glamis Gold v. United States of America, UNCITRAL Arbitration, Award, 8 June 2009 ... 269
Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd and others v. United States, ICSID–UNCITRAL,
Award, 12 January 2011 (redacted),........................................................................ 415
Guaracachi America, Inc. and Rurelec PLC v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, UNCITRAL,
Respondent Memorial on Jurisdiction, 17 September 2012 (in Spanish);
Claimant Counter-Memorial on Jurisdiction, 26 October 2012
Hicee Bv v Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 23 May 2011, ...................356–357
Himpurna California Energy Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, ad hoc arbitration under the
UNCITRAL Rules, Final Award, 4 May 1999, ..................................................... 514
International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v. Mexico, UNCITRAL (NAFTA),
Arbitration Award, 26 January 2006, ....................................................302–304, 372
Merrill & Ring Forestry L.P. v. The Government of Canada, NAFTA case under the
UNCITRAL Arbtration Rules administered by ICSID, Award, 31 March
2010,................................................................................................................268–269
Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, UNCITRAL, Final Award on
Jurisdiction and Merits, 3 August 2005, ............................................... 306, 371–373,
420–421, 507–509 (also in three f/ns)


xxii International Investment Law: A Chinese Perspective
Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The
Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL Arbitration, LCIA Case No. UN 3467, Final
Award, 1 July 2004, ............................................ 367–368, 372, 492–493, 494, 495
Pope and Talbot Inc v. Canada, UNCITRAL, Interim Award on Merits – Phase One,
26 June 2000, 271–272, 281–282, 364, 365–366, 417–418, 419, 424 (also
in f/n; also f/n on 288); Interim Award on Merits – Phase Two, 10 April 2001,

366–367, 370, 374–374; Award on Damages, 31 May 2002, ................... 272–273,
491–492, 494
Ronald S. Lauder v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, London, Award, 3 September
2001, .............................. 239–240, 311, 415–416, 561–563 (also in three f/ns)
Saluka Investments BV v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 17 March
2006, ................ 104, 110, 273–274, 299–300, 310, 421–423, 489 (also in f/n)
Sanum Investments Limited v. The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic,
UNCITRAL Arbitration, Award on Jurisdiction, 13 December 2013, ..........568–570
S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Canada, UNCITRAL, First Partial Award, 13 November 2000,
289, 363–365, 367, 372, 373, 386, 417, 468–469, 500 (also in two f/
ns); Second Partial Award, 21 October 2002, ...........469, 470, 487–488, 491, 493
Société Générale  In respect of DR Energy Holdings Limited and  Empresa Distribuidora de
Electricidad del Este, S.A. v. The Dominican Republic, UNCITRAL, LCIA Case No.
UN  7927, Award on Preliminary Objections to Jurisdiction, 19 September
2008,........................................................................................................................ 356
United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v. Canada, An Arbitration under Chapter 11 of the
North American Free Trade Agreement, Award on Jurisdiction, 22 November
2002; Award on the Merits, 24 May 2007, ............................................ 181,288, 371
White Industries Australia Limited v. The Republic of India, UNCITRAL Case, Final
Award, 30 November 2011, .................199–202, 293, 295, 486–487 (also in f/n)
Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 227,
Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 30 November 2009, ..........109–110
Iran–United States Claims Tribunal Arbitrations
American International Group, Inc. and American Life Insurance Company, v. Islamic Republic of
Iran and Central
Insurance of Iran (Bimeh Markazi Iran), Iran–United States Claims Tribunal, Award
No. 93-2-3, 19 December 1983, ............................................................................. 116
Amoco International Finance Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran–United States Claims
Tribunal, Award 310-56-3, 24 July 1987, ............................................................... 493
Amoco Iran Oil Co. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., Iran–United States Claims

Tribunal, Interlocutory Award No. ITL 12-55-2, 30 December 1982
Decision Concerning the Question of Jurisdiction over Claims of Persons with Dual Nationality,
Iran–United States Claims Tribunal, Case A/18, 6 April 1984, .............................. 91
Emanuel Too v. Greater Modesto Insurance Associates, Iran–United States Claims Tribunal,
Award, 29 December 1989, .................................................................................... 420
INA Corporation v. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran–United States
Claims Tribunal, Award No. 184-161-1, 13 August 1985, .............................459–460
Phillips Petroleum Co. Iran and Islamaic Republic of Iran et al., Iran–United States Claims
Tribunal, Award 425-39-2, 29 June 1989
Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran–United States Claims Tribunal,
Award 135-33-1, 22 June 1984


Table of cases

xxiii

Starrett Housing Corporation, Starrett Systems, Inc., Starrett Housing International, Inc., v. Iran,
Bank Oman, Bank Mellat, Bank Markazi, Iran–United States Claims Tribunal,
Interlocutory Award No. ITL 32-24-1, 19 December 1983, 414, 417 (also in
two f/ns); Final Award, 14 August 1987
Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthy, Stratton v. TAMS-AFFA Consulting Engineers of Iran, Iran–United
States Claims Tribunal, Award No. 141-7-2, 29 June 1984, ... 414 (also in two f/ns)
Stockholm Chamber of Commerce Arbitrations
Mr. Franz  Sedelmayer v. Russian Federation, ad hoc arbitration under the Stockholm
Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Rules, Award, 7 July 1998, ...................174–175
Limited Liability Company AMTO v. Ukraine, SCC Arbitration No. 080/2005, Final
Award, 26 March 2008, ...............................................132–133, 161–163, 221–222
Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding AB v Latvia, Stockholm Chamber of Commerce,
Award, 16 December 2003, .......................................................... 500–501, 503–504

Petrobart Limited v. The Kyrgyz Republic, Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm
Chamber of Commerce, Arbitration No. 126/2003, Award, 29 March
2005, ....................................................133–134, 209–211, 287–288 (also in f/n)
Renta4 SVSA et al. v. Russian Federation, SCC Case No 24/2007, Award on Preliminary
Objections, 20 March 2009, ...................................................226–227 (also in f/n)
Romak S.A. v. Uzbekistan, PCA Case No. AA280, Award, 26 November 2009,........160–161
RosInvestCo UK Ltd. v. The Russian Federation, SCC Case No. V079/2005, Award on
Jurisdiction, 5 October 2007, 353 (also in f/n); Final Award, 12 September
2010, ....................................................................................................................... 402
Vladimir Berschader and Moïse Berschader v. The Russian Federation, Stockholm Chamber
of Commerce (SCC) Case No. 080/2004, Award, 21 April 2006
Other Arbitrations
BP Exploration Company (Libya) Ltd v. Libyan Arab Republic, The BP/Libya Concession
Tribunal, Award (Merits), 10 October 1973
El Oro Mining Railway Company (Great Britain) v. Mexico, Great Britain-Mexico Claims
Commission, Decision No. 55 of 18 June 1931
Eureko B.V. v. Republic of Poland, ad hoc Arbitration, Partial Award, 19 August
2005, ......................................................................................................298–299, 321
The Government of the State of Kuwait v. The American Independent Oil Company, ad hoc
Award, 24 March 1982, ..................................................................................458–459
Hopkins case (US-Mexican Claims Commission), The USA on behalf of George W.
Hopkins v. The United Mexican States (Docket No. 39)
L.F.H. Neer and Pauline Neer (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States, United States–Mexico
General Claims Commission, Award, 15 October 1926, ....266–267, 268, 269, 277
Libyan American Oil Company (LIAMCO) v. Libyan Arab Republic, Arbitral Award, 12
April 1977, .................................................................................................... 116, 393
Norwegian Shipowners’ Claims, Norway v. United States of America, Permanent Court of
Arbitration, Award, 13 October 1922,............................................................410–411
Salini Costruttori S.p.A v. The Federal Republic of Ethiopia, ICC Case No. 10623/AER/
ACS, Award regarding the suspension of the proceedings and jurisdiction of 7

December 2001
Shufeldt Claim (U.S. v. Guatemala), 24 July 1930, R.I.A.A., Vol. II, 1079–1102, ................. 392


xxiv International Investment Law: A Chinese Perspective
Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Ltd. v. Egypt, ICC ad hoc Arbtration, Award No.
3493, 16 February 1983, .............................. 470–472, 493, 514–515 (also in f/n)
Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company/California Asiatic Oil Co. v. The Government of the Libyan
Arab Republic, Arbitral Award, 19 January 1977, ............................................ 397, 458
United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R,
WTO Appellate Body Report, 29 April 1996,........................................................ 181
United States v. Germany (Lusitania case), November 1923, VII RIAA 32,.......................... 497
Woodruff Decision, as found in Reports of International Arbitral Awards/Recueil Des
Sentences Arbitrales, Woodruff Case, 1903–1905, Volume IX, pp. 243–223, ............. 243
Permanent Court of International Justice/International Court of
Justice Cases
Acquisition of Polish Nationality, Permanent Court of International Justice, Advisory
Opinion, 1923, ........................................................................................................ 110
Ambatielos Case (Greece v. United Kingdom), International Court of Justice, Merits:
Obligation to Arbitrate, Judgment, 19 May 1953 (“Ambatielos I”), 342–343;
Dissenting Opinion by Sir Arnold McNair, President, and Judges Basdevant,
Klaestad and Read, 1953, ..............................................................................342–343
Ambatielos Case (Greece v. United Kingdom), International Court of Justice, Award, 6
March 1956 (“Ambatielos II”), .................................................................343–344, 354
Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Case (United Kingdom v. Iran), International Court of Justice,
Judgment, 22 July 1952, ................................................................................. 342, 381
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), International
Court of Justice, Judgment, 24 July 1964 and Judgement, 5 February
1970,................................................................................... 101, 105, 106, 113, 120
(also in f/n)

Case Concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Merits), Permanent Court
of International Justice, Judgment No. 7, 25 May 1926, .....396–397, 398, 411, 462
Case concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain,
International Court of Justice, 1995, ...................................................................... 341
Case Concerning Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v.
United States of America), International Court of Justice, Judgment, 27 August
1952,........................................................................................................................ 342
Case Concerning the Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), International Court
of Justice, Judgment, 3 February 1994, ................................................................... 341
Case concerning the Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea- Bissau v. Senegal), International
Court of Justice, Judgment, 12 November 1991, ....................340–341 (also in f/n)
Case Concerning the Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy),
International Court of Justice, Judgment, 20 July 1989,...................... 113, 116, 309,
365–366 (also in f/n)
Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów, Permanent Court of International Justice,
Judgment No. 17, 1928, .........................................................................462–463, 468
Competence of the General Assembly for the Admission of a State to the United Nations,
International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion, 1950
East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), International Court of Justice, Judgment, 30 June
1995, ...............................................................................................................384–385
Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), International Court of Justice, Jurisdiction of the
Court, Judgment, 4 December 1998, ............................................................. 221, 435