Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:43:13.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Romak SA (Switzerland) v. Republic of Uzbekistan

Permanent Court of Arbitration.  26 November 2009 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2021

Get access

Abstract

Applicable — Customary international law — Interpretation — Whether the BIT contained an agreement as to applicable law — Whether the VCLT was applicable where the BIT entered into force before the State’s accession to the VCLT — Whether the VCLT codified customary international law

Interpretation — Customary international law — VCLT, Article 31 — VCLT, Article 32 — Whether the list of investments under the BIT determined the existence of a protected investment — Whether the interpretation of the BIT should be guided by arbitral awards of other investment tribunals

Jurisdiction — Investment — Interpretation — Salini test — Territoriality — Whether there was an objective meaning of investment — Whether the concept of investment differed depending on whether the investor resorted to ICSID or UNCITRAL arbitration — Whether the four elements of the Salini test were mandatory legal requirements — Whether the BIT contained further limits on the scope of protected investments regarding territoriality

Jurisdiction — Investment — Contract — Sale of goods — Duration — Risk — Whether one-off transactions relating to the sale of goods satisfied the criteria of contribution, duration and risk — Whether short-term projects were deprived of their status as investments solely by virtue of their limited duration — Whether there was a difference between pure commercial risk and investment risk

Jurisdiction — Investment — Arbitral award — Whether the embodiment or crystallisation of contractual rights in the form of an arbitral award transformed the underlying transaction into an investment

Costs — Costs follow the event — Whether costs should reflect the relative success and failure in the arbitration — Whether there was a justification to shift the arbitral costs against the losing party

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)