State responsibility — Necessity — Whether part of customary international law — Effect of a declaration of necessity on private contracts — Economic necessity based on a State’s inability to pay — Temporary suspension of payments on sovereign bonds — Effect in relations between a State and a private individual under private law — International Law Commission Articles on State Responsibility, Article 25 — Whether declaratory of customary international law

Economics, trade and finance — Sovereign debt — Foreign currency bonds — State suspending payments in foreign currency due to economic crisis — Whether justified by defence of necessity — The law of the Federal Republic of Germany

Arbitration — Bilateral investment treaty — Jurisdiction and admissibility — “Fork in the road” provision — Distinction between treaty-based claim and claim under domestic law — Exclusion from jurisdiction of taxation dispute — Indirect taxation — Interpretation — Admissibility of expropriation claim

Economics, trade and finance — Investment treaty — Protection of foreign investor — Protection against expropriation — Unfair and inequitable treatment — Discrimination — Arbitrary behaviour — Change in national practice regarding refunds of indirect taxation to exporter — Whether unfair and inequitable — Whether discriminatory or arbitrary — Whether amounting to expropriation

Expropriation — Indirect expropriation — Limits to concept of indirect expropriation — Whether denial of refund of taxation capable of constituting expropriation

Treaties — Interpretation and application — Ecuador — USA Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1993 — National treatment — VAT refunds for exporters — Whether comparison should be made between sectors of activity or exporters generally — Whether most-favoured-nation treatment obligations also breached

Damages — Unfair and inequitable treatment — Arbitrary and discriminatory treatment — Compensation — Entitlement to compensation for claim not made on grounds of futility — Interest

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Justiciability of international disputes before municipal courts — Award of arbitration tribunal with seat in London in case brought by United States investor against Ecuador alleging breach of bilateral investment treaty — Whether arbitration tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction or misconducted itself — Challenge to award under Arbitration Act, Sections 67 and 68 — Whether requiring English court to enforce treaty not part of English law — Whether raising non-justiciable issues — Limits of doctrine of non-justiciability

Economics, trade and finance — Bilateral investment treaty — Whether conferring rights upon investor separate from those of State — Arbitration provision — Whether constituting offer by State to arbitrate — Initiation of arbitration proceedings by investor — Acceptance of offer to arbitrate — Nature of arbitration proceedings — Law governing arbitration agreement — Whether international law — Law governing conduct of arbitration — Whether courts of the seat of arbitration entitled to hear challenge to jurisdiction of tribunal

Arbitration — Investment arbitration — Bilateral investment treaty — Proceedings brought by investor — Arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules in London — Challenge to jurisdiction of arbitration tribunal before English courts — The law of England

Economics, trade and finance — Bilateral investment treaty — Interpretation — Object and purpose of treaty to afford protection to investors — Uncertainties in interpretation to be resolved in favour of investor — Relationship with double taxation treaties

Arbitration — Investment arbitration — Bilateral investment treaty — Proceedings brought by investor — Arbitration under UNCITRAL Rules in London — Challenge to jurisdiction of arbitration tribunal before English courts — Procedural irregularity — The law of England

Arbitration — Bilateral investment treaty — Jurisdiction and admissibility — “Fork in the road” provision — Distinction between treaty-based claim and claim under domestic law — Exclusion from jurisdiction of taxation dispute — Indirect taxation — Interpretation — Nationality of claims — Claimant corporation and subsidiaries — Consent to arbitration — Notice of arbitration — Whether consent in notice of arbitration sufficient — Waiver of claims in domestic courts — Whether waiver in notice of arbitration sufficient — Whether defect in waiver affecting jurisdiction

Arbitration — Provisional measures — Interim measures of protection — Apparent basis of jurisdiction — Irreparable damage — Freezing of accounts and attachment of sums — Whether interim measures urgent — Where State action open to challenge before domestic courts — Whether interim measures necessary

Arbitration — Costs — Discretion to order costs — Order for costs in favour of unsuccessful claimant — Whether just and equitable

Economics, trade and finance — Investment treaty — Protection of foreign investor — Protection against expropriation — Change in national practice regarding refunds of indirect taxation to exporter — Whether unfair and inequitable — Whether discriminatory or arbitrary — Whether amounting to expropriation

Expropriation — Indirect expropriation — Limits to concept of indirect expropriation — Whether denial of refund of taxation capable of constituting expropriation — Whether taxation law “extraordinary, punitive in amount or arbitrary in its incidence”

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — International human rights instruments requiring incorporation into Zimbabwean law in accordance with Section 111B(1) of Constitution — Zimbabwe Legislature having power to make laws for peace, order and good government of Zimbabwe — Whether sovereign State having power to acquire private property compulsorily within its territory for public purposes — Land reform programme in Zimbabwe — Expropriation — Colonial history — Constitution of Zimbabwe — Controlled Constitution — Provisions — Interpretation — Amendment 17 inserting Section 16B into Constitution — Respondents compulsorily acquiring agricultural land belonging to applicants under Section 16B of Constitution — Whether enactment of Amendment 17 violating Constitution — Whether acquisition of applicants’ agricultural land violating Declaration of Rights contained in Constitution — Constitution of Zimbabwe, Sections 11, 16(1), 18(1), 18(9) and 23(1) — Nature of rights in Constitution — Entitlement to rights subject to Section 52(1) of Constitution — Whether Legislature properly exercising its powers — Whether Constitution barring Legislature from removing right to property in agricultural land and right to remedies for protection of that right

Human rights — Right to property — Fundamental right of property in agricultural land — Sections 11 and 16(1) of Constitution of Zimbabwe — Whether Zimbabwe having power to acquire private property compulsorily within its territory for public purposes — Respondents compulsorily acquiring agricultural land belonging to applicants under Section 16B of Constitution introduced by Amendment 17 — Whether fundamental rights immutable — Protection of right to property — Section 52(1) of Constitution — Section 18(1) and (9) of Constitution of Zimbabwe — Whether acquisition of applicants’ private agricultural land lawful

Human rights — Right to remedies — Right to protection of law — Right to fair hearing and determination of civil rights or obligations by court of law — Section 18(1) and (9) of Constitution of Zimbabwe — Section 16B(3) of Constitution introduced by Amendment 17 amending Section 18(1) and (9) of Constitution — Section 16B(3) of Constitution ousting jurisdiction of courts — Whether Section 16B(3) complying with Section 52(1) of Constitution — Whether question of protection of individual’s right to private property under Constitution judicial in character — Whether failure by respondents to pay fair compensation within reasonable time invalidating acquisition made within terms of Section 16B(2)(a) of Constitution — The law of Zimbabwe

Expropriation — Agricultural land — Taking of property — Land reform programme in Zimbabwe — Zimbabwe compulsorily acquiring applicants’ agricultural lands — Whether lawful — Whether Zimbabwe breaching obligations under Southern African Development Community Treaty, 1992 — Whether compensation payable

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Southern African Development Community Treaty, 1992 — Zimbabwe party to Treaty — International human rights treaties — Land reform programme in Zimbabwe — Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment 17) — Amendment 17 authorizing compulsory acquisition of agricultural lands by Zimbabwe — Amendment 17 ousting jurisdiction of courts to entertain challenge to compulsory acquisition of lands — Whether Zimbabwe breaching obligations under Treaty by enacting Constitution (Amendment 17) — Whether Southern African Development Community Tribunal having jurisdiction — Decision of Supreme Court of Zimbabwe — Relevance — Whether Zimbabwe acting in breach of Articles 4(c) and 6(2) of Treaty — Whether Zimbabwe could rely on national law to avoid legal obligations under Treaty — Whether fair compensation payable — Whether Zimbabwe could rely on national law to avoid international law obligation

Human rights — Property rights — Agricultural lands compulsorily acquired by Zimbabwe — Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment 17) containing Section 16B — Applicants challenging compulsory acquisition of lands by Zimbabwe — Whether acquisition of applicants’ lands illegal — Whether Zimbabwe breaching obligations under Southern African Development Community Treaty, 1992 — Whether compensation payable

Human rights — Right of access to courts — Right to fair hearing — Fundamental rights — International human rights treaties — Whether applicants denied rights by Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment 17) — Whether Zimbabwe breaching Article 4(c) of Southern African Development Community Treaty

Human rights — Discrimination — Racial discrimination — Land reform programme targeting white Zimbabwean farmers only — Whether based on racial discrimination — Definition of racial discrimination — Indirect discrimination — International human rights instruments — Zimbabwe acceding to International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination — International legal obligations of Zimbabwe — Legal obligations under Southern African Development Community Treaty — Whether Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment 17) discriminatory on ground of race — Whether Zimbabwe violating Article 6(2) of Treaty

Damages — Compensation — International law — Right to fair compensation for expropriated land — Duty to compensate — Whether Zimbabwe could rely on Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment 17) to avoid international law obligation — Whether fair compensation payable

Expropriation — Agricultural land — Taking of property — Invasion of land by squatters — Responsibility of State — Failure to evict — Protection of squatters by law — Programmes of expropriation of agricultural land — Necessity — Netherlands- Zimbabwe Bilateral Investment Treaty

Damages — Expropriation — Measure of damages — Agricultural land — Genuine value — Requirement to take market value of whole farm at time of expropriation — Damages for disturbance — Moral damage — Interest — Compound interest — Costs

State responsibility — Acts of private individuals — Failure of State to evict squatters occupying agricultural land — Whether deprivation of land attributable to the State — Necessity — Whether applicable — ICSID arbitration

Human rights — Due process — Admissibility of author’s communication to Human Rights Committee — Consideration of merits — Right to humane treatment — Right to fair trial — Whether procedural irregularities resulting in unfair trial — Reliability of confession — Burden of proof — Whether delay in reviewing trial decision — Whether Sri Lanka violating Article 14 read together with Articles 2(3) and 7 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Effective and appropriate remedy — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Article 2(3)(a)

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Optional Protocol — Declaration — Sri Lankan Constitution — Sri Lanka acceding to Covenant — Sri Lanka acceding to Optional Protocol and making Declaration — Legal effect — Dualist theory of international law — Constitution of Sri Lanka — Sovereignty — Legislative, executive and judicial powers deriving from Constitution — Constitution limiting powers — Whether acts of President of Sri Lanka consistent with Constitution — Whether binding Republic qua State — Whether having legal effect within Republic — Whether findings of United Nations Human Rights Committee to be given effect by Supreme Court — The law of Sri Lanka

Human rights — Equality — Constitution of the Russian Federation, Articles 2 and 17(1) — International law — Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 15(4) — Compatibility of Article 1(3) of Law of St Petersburg with Article 3(1) of Charter of St Petersburg — Importance of international human rights law in interpreting domestic human rights instruments

Human rights — Right to adequate standard of living — Right to continuous improvement of living conditions — Article 11 of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 — Constitution of the Russian Federation — Article 3 of the Charter of St Petersburg — Compatibility of Article 1(3) of Law of St Petersburg with Article 3(1) of Charter of St Petersburg

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 — Constitution of the Russian Federation — Compatibility of Article 1(3) of Law of St Petersburg with Article 3(1) of Charter of St Petersburg — The law of the Russian Federation