1 See Letter from Maria Espinosa Garcés, Ecuador's Foreign Misnistry, to Ana Palacio, ICSID's Secretary-General (November 23, 2007) available at <http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/ FrontServlet (Author's translation. Original in Spanish) [hereinafter the Notice].

2 Ecuador deposited this letter at ICSID on December 4, 2007. Notably, on October 29, 2007, a letter signed by Ecuador's Foreign Minister and addressed to ICSID's Secretary-General, was circulated in the Ecuadorian legal community (on file with authors). However, it was not until November 23, 2007, that Ecuador formally notified the ICSID. The wording in the October letter is different than the one contained in the November letter, i.e. the official letter. Compare the October letter [”…la República de Ecuador en adelante no aceptará someter a la jurisdictión del Centro las diferencias relativas al manejo de sus recursos naturales no renovables, entendiéndose por tales (pero no limitados a), los recursos mineros o hidro-carburiferos“] [Our translation: “ from now on it will not submit to the jurisdiction of the Centre disputes related to the management of its non-renewable natural resources, including (but not limited to) its mining and hydrocarbon resources“] with the November letter (attached to this introductory note).

3 ICSID Convention, Art. 25(4)

4 See e.g., China, Guatemala, Jamaica, Saudi Arabia, Jamaica, Turkey, Papua New Guinea. The notifications are published in Document ICSID/8-D.

5 To be discussed below, it is unclear whether the hostility is towards arbitration in general, or investment arbitration and ICSID, in particular.

6 In April 2007, as members of the ‘'Alternativa Bolivariana para la América Latina y El Caribe” (ALBA), Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua threatened to withdraw from ICSID. To date, however, only Bolivia has done so. See <http://www.alternativabolivariana.org>. For an overview of the investment climate in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela see Marco E. Schnabl & Julie Bédard, The Wrong Kind of ‘Interesting,’ The National Law Journal, July 30, 2007.

7 See Bolivia's Denunciation of ICSID Convention, May 2, 2007, available at <http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/In-dex.jsp>.

8 Ecuador made this announcement during the BIT's ten year anniversary. The BIT which was signed in 1993, and which entered into force on May 11, 1997, provides that either party may terminate the Treaty at the end of the initial ten year period or at any time thereafter, by giving one year's written notice to the other Party.See Ecuador-US BIT Art. XII.

9 See Ecuador announces that it wants out of US investment treaty, Investment Treaty News, (May 9, 2007) available at <http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/itn_may9_2007.pdf>

10 See e.g., developments in the telecommunications and the customs inspection, industry discussed below.

11 See Decreto Ejecutivo No. 662 (the Decree) available at <http://www.edicioneslegales.com/novedades/Decreto-Ejec-utivo-No-662.htm>

12 The affected companies include corporations from France, Spain, USA and China. To de discussed infra, Ecuador has BITs with all these countries. See <http://www.eluniverso.com/2008/02/18/0001/9/7345A497294D4DCC98364E8F70- E9E7C8.aspx>.

13 See<http://www.eluniverso.eom/2008/01/30/0001/8/30C44 07F3CEE4BF8A18693A2CAAlE02E.aspx>.

14 The affected companies include mostly Canadian corporations.See<http://www.eluniverso.eom/2008/01/28/0001/8/2BEABE55E76F4055A94ACBF9C7CDBD0B.aspx>.

15 See<http://www2.elcomercio.com/noticiaEC.asp?id_noticia=169565&id_seccion=6>.

16 See<http://www2.elcomercio.com/noticiaEC.asp?id_noticia=161414&id_seccion=6>.

17 The Secretariá Nacional de Telecomunicaciones is currently negotiating mobile telephony service contracts with foreign operators Spanish Telefónica and Mexican América Móvil. While the government has proposed to submit all disputes to domestic courts, operators are demanding international arbitration.See<http://www.eluniverso.eom/2008/03/ll/0001/9/ B8470A06F7D246E8B9DD768C2AB79B48.aspx>.

18 As a result of the October 2007 reforms to the ‘ ‘Ley Orgánica de Aduanas,”the foreign customs inspection and certification of origin companies, that had concluded contracts with the Corporatión Aduanera Ecuatoriana (CAE), are being forced to end their contracts well in advance of its termination date. See <http://www2.elcomercio.com/noticiaEC. asp?id_noticia= 139482&id_seccion=6> <http://www.eluniverso.com/2008/02/29/0001/9/EE777CD7667D46EBAAC89EC18CBE4-B21.aspx>

19 For an overview of the legal and investment climate in Latin America see International Arbitration In Latin America (Nigel Blackaby, David Lindsey, Alessandro Spinillo, eds., 2003); Horacio A. Grigera Naón, Arbitration in Latin America: Overcoming Traditional Hostility, 5 Arb. Int'l 137 (1989).

20 Ecuador has concluded BITs with at least 25 countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Canada, China, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Finland, France, Germany, Honduras, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Romania,Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Most of these BIT's were signed between 1985-2001, with the exception of the Ecuador-Switzerland BIT (signed on 1968). See <http://icsid.world bank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet>. The text of some BITs is publicly available at: <http://www.sice.oas.org/ctyindex/ECU/ECUBITs_e.asp> or at ICSID's multivolume collection of Investment Treaties.

21 See Ley de Protectión y Garantia de Inversiones, published in the Official Gazette No. 219 on December 19, 1997.

22 Ecuador has had an Investment Guarantee Agreement with OPIC since 1986.

23 Ecuador signed the New York Convention on December 17,1958 and ratified it on January 3, 1962. The Convention entered into force for Ecuador on April 3, 1962.

24 Ecuador ratified the Panama Convention on October 23,1991.

25 See List of Contracting States and other Signatories of the Convention, available at <http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet>.

26 Ecuador (via its foreign investors) has never been on the Claimant's side.

27 See M.C.I. Power Group, L.C. and New Turbine, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/6); Repsol YPF Ecuador S. A. v. Empresa Estatal de Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador) (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/10); IBM World Trade Corp. v. Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/ 02/10), available at <http://icsidworldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet>.

28 See Técnicas Reunidas, S.A. and Eurocontrol, S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador (Case No. ARB/06/17); City Oriente Limited v. Republic of Ecuador and Empresa Estatal de Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador) (Case No. ARB/06/21); Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador (Case No. ARB/ 06/11); Noble Energy Inc. and Machala Power Cia. Ltd. v. Republic of Ecuador and Consejo National de Electricidad (Case No. ARB/05/12); Empresa Eléctrica del Ecuador, Inc. (EMELEC) v. Republic of Ecuador (Case No. ARB/05/9); Duke Energy Electroquil Partners and Electroquil S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador (Case No. ARB/04/19), available at <http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet#x003E;.

29 Reportedly, these companies include the Spanish Repsol YPF, the U.S. corporation Burlington Resources, and the French Perenco. These companies are challenging the oil decree and its regulations discussed above. See <http://www.eluniverso.com/2007/11/27/0001/9/C6AA11320A5C4760AF3971E1C7A06094.aspx#x003E;.

30 M.C.I. Power Group, L.C. and New Turbine, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/6), available at <http:// icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet>. However, ICSID's website recently reported that Annulment Proceeding were registered on December 06, 2007. See <http://icsid.world bank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet#x003E; (last time visited: March 24, 2008).

31 Repsol YPF Ecuador S.A. v. Empresa Estatal de Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador) (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/10). While the award was rendered on February 20, 2004, Ecuador instituted annulment proceedings. The Decision on the Application for Annulment, issued on January 8, 2007, is available at http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet.

32 IBM World Trade Corp. v. Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/10), available at <http://icsid.worldbank.org/IC-SID/FrontServlet> (The award embodying the parties’ settle ment was rendered on July 22, 2004).

33 These arbitrations concerned value-added taxes (VAT) paid by multinational oil companies, and for which the companies claimed that they were entitled to refunds.

34 EnCana Corporation v. Republic of Ecuador (LCIA Case No. UN3481)

35 Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Re public of Ecuador (LCIA Case No. UN3467).Ecuador later challenged the award in the United Kingdom. For an overview of these proceedings see “Ecuador vs. Occidental: La Corte Superior de Justicia de Inglaterra Rechaza la Acción de Nulidad Propuesta por Ecuador” available at <http://www.andra-develoz.com/inter.asp?id=e&s=4&a=5>. According to press reports, Occidental has moved to request the execution of the award before English courts. See <http://www2.elcomercio.com/noticiaEC.asp?id_noticia=178571&id_seccion=>.

36 See the Notice, supra note at 1 (emphasis added).

37 See Definiciones in Ley de Gestión Ambiental, published in the Official Gazette No. 418 of September 10, 2004 (“Recursos Naturales.- Son elementos de la naturaleza susceptible de ser utilizados por el hombre para la satisfactión de sus necesidades o intereses económicos, sociales y espirituales. Los recursos renovables se pueden renovar a un nivel constante. Los recursos no renovables son aquellos que forzosamente perecen en su uso“).

38 Id.

39 See IBM World Trade Corp. v. Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/10), available at <http://icsid.worldbank.-org/ICSID/FrontServlet> (concerning computer service contracts).

40 See e.g., concerning the electricity industry: M.C.I. Power Group, L.C. and New Turbine, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/6); Noble Energy Inc. and Machala Power Cia. Ltd. v. Republic of Ecuador and Consejo National de Electricidad (Case No. ARB/05/12); Empresa Eléctrica del Ecuador, Inc. (EMELEC) v. Republic of Ecuador (Case No. ARB/05/9); Duke Energy Electroquil Partners and Electroquil S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador (Case No. ARB/04/19); See e.g., concerning the oil industry: Repsol YPF Ecuador S.A. v. Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador) (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/10); Técnicas Reunidas, S.A. and Eurocon-trol, S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador (Case No. ARB/06/17); City Oriente Limited v. Republic of Ecuador and Empresa Estatal de Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador) (Case No. ARB/06/ 21); Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador (Case No. ARB/06/11).

41 Compare October 29,2007 letter cited supra at note 1 (excluding from ICSID's jurisdiction only disputes related to non- renewable natural resources) with November 23, 2007 letter(excluding disputes related to the exploitation of natural resources in general, both renewable and non-renewable).

42 See Report by the Ministerio de Agriculture, Ganaderia, Acuacultura y Pesca del Ecuador, available at <http://www.sica.go-v.ec/agro/docs/invxagrop.htm>; See also <http://www.ecuad-orinvest.org/ecuador-invest_new/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=71&Itemid=131&lang=en>.

43 See the Notice supra note at 1 (emphasis added).

44 The Notice attempts to combines consent with the Art. 25(4) notice. While the Notice's first part (referring to the class of disputes, i.e. the scope of the notice) mirrors Article 25(4), the second part (referring to consent withdrawal) borrows language from Article 25(1). These provisions are reproduced below.

45 Ecuador's notice distinguishes between perfected vs. unperfected consent. See The Notice, supra note at 1 (”…prior consent… that has not been perfected by the express and explicit consent of the other Party…“)(emphasis added). While the notice appears to recognize the irrevocability of ‘perfected consent’ under Art. 25( 1), it purports to withdraw any “unperfected consent” prior to December 4, 2007. However, to be discussed below, even when the consent is unperfected, Ecuador may not be able to withdraw its consent via the Notice.

46 ICSID Convention, Article 25. Article 25 (1) provides that:The jurisdiction of the Centre shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment, between a Contracting State (or any constituent subdivision or agency of a Contracting State designated to the Centre by that State) and a national of another Contracting State, which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to submit to the Centre. When the parties have given their consent, no party may withdraw its consent unilaterally. Article 25 (4) provides that: Any Contracting State may, at the time of ratification, acceptance or approval of this Convention or at any time there after, notify the Centre of the class or classes of disputes which it would or would not consider submitting to the jurisdiction of the Centre. The Secretary-General shall forthwith transmit such notification to all Contracting States. Such notification shall not constitute the consent required by paragraph (1).

47 Christoph H. Schreuer, The Icsid Convention: a Commentary 342 (2001) [hereinafter Schreuer, Com mentary].

48 See Art. 25(4) of the Executive Director's Report, 1 ICSID Reports 29 (”… In order to avoid any risk of misunderstandings…The provision [Art. 25(4)] makes clear that a statement by a Contracting State that it would consider submitting a certain class of dispute to the Centre would serve for purposes of information only…“) (emphasis added) [hereinafter the Executive Report].

49 This “state practice’ is limited because only a few states have made notifications under Article 25(4). See supra note 2.

50 See e.g., Guyana and Israel notified the Centre of certain classes of disputes, but withdrew them later. ICSID Document 8-D.

51 See Schreuer, Commentary, supra note 47, at 343 (asserting that Art. 25(4) notifications “do not preclude consent” and providing examples of countries that have concluded BIT's giving consent in respect to a dispute that belongs to the class that was listed as one of those it would not consider submitting).

52 See History, Vol. II, at 59; 1 ICSID Reports 29 (The Executive Report on Article 25(4) provides in its last sentence that: “Of course, a statement excluding certain classes of disputes from consideration would not constitute a reservation to the Convention); Schreuer, Commentary, supra note 47, at 342 (distinguishing Art. 25(4) notices from reservations and noting that whereas the former permit notifications at any time after ratification, acceptance or approval of the Convention, the later are only permissible up to, and not after ratification, acceptance or approval).

53 See Schreuer, Commentary, supra note 47, at 343.

54 ICSID Convention, Art. 25(4).

55 See e.g., Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, (ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3), Decision on Jurisdiction and Dissenting Opinion (April 14, 1988) available at 16 Y.B. Com. Arb. 28 (1991) (excerpts); 3 ICSID Reports 131 (1995) (providing that consent remains an essential element to ICSID jurisdiction).

56 See Executive Report, supra note 48 (”…[the notice] would not constitute the consent required to give the Centre jurisdiction“); Schreuer, Commentary, supra note 47, at 343 (discussing a failed Italian proposal to combine consent with the Art. 25(4) notice).

57 E.g.,consent contained in a BIT, contract or domestic law.

58 See History, Vol. II, at 824; Schreuer, Commentary, supra note 47, at 344.

59 See Executive Report, supra note 48 (“[Art. 25(4) expressly permits Contracting States to make known to the Centre in advance…“] (emphasis added); Schreuer, Commentary, supra note 47, at 344.

60 Schreuer, Commentary, supra note 47, at 344 (“consent may be subjected to limitations…but the terms of consent are not restricted by the terms of a notification under Art. 25(4)“)

61 Id.

62 See Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica, Kaiser Bauxite v. Jamaica,Reynolds Jamaica Ltd and Reynolds Metals Company v. Jamaica. The cases are discussed in Schmidt, J., Arbitration under the Auspices of ICSID: Implications of the Decision on Jurisdiction in Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica Inc. v. Government of Jamaica, 17 Harvard J. Int. L. 90, 93–94 (1976)Google Scholar [hereinafter Schmidt, Alcoa Decision]; See also Moshe Hirsch,The Arbitration Mechanism Of The International Center For The Settlement Of Investment Disputes 58 (1993) [hereinafter, “Hirsch, The Arbitration Mechanism“]; Schreuer, Commentary, supra note 47, at 256.

63 Schmidt, Alcoa Decision, supra note 62.

64 Id.

65 Id.

66 Jamaica notified ICSID prior to the request for arbitration but after concluding the contract with the investor. The notice provided that’ ‘legal disputes arising directly out of an investment relating to minerals or other natural resources” would not be subject to ICSID jurisdiction.

67 Id.

68 Schmidt, Alcoa Decision, supra note 62, at 94 cited in Schreuer, Commentary, supra note 47, at 256.

69 Id.

70 See Schreuer, Commentary, supra note 47, at 192; Hirsch, The Arbitration Mechanism, supra note 62, at 48 (asserting that the consent need not be given in only one instrument).

71 See Clause 20.3 of the Contract between City Oriente and Ecuador, in City Oriente Limited v. Republic of Ecuador and Empresa Estatal Petróeos del Ecuador (Petroecuador) (IC SID Case No. ARB/06/21), Decision on Provisional Measures ¶8.

72 See supra note 20.

73 See e.g., Ecuador-Canada BIT Art. XIII. See also U.S.-Ecuador BIT Art. VI (“each Party hereby consents to the submission of any investment dispute for settlement by binding arbitration in accordance with the choice specified in the written consent of the national or company under paragraph 3 [refer ring to ICSID arbitration]). But see Ecuador-Switzerland BIT (no ICSID clause nor access to international arbitration).

74 See Ecuador-Canada BIT Art. XIII (emphasis added).

75 See the BITs with El Salvador, Cuba, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Paraguay, Uruguay and Romania.

76 See “Ecuador will denounce at least nine bilateral investment treaties,” Investment Treaty News (February 2008) available at <http://www.iisd.org/investment/itn/news.asp> <http:// www2.elcomercio.com/noticiaEC. asp?id_noticia=167204& id_seccion=3>.; See also <http://www2.elcomercio.com/ noticiaEC.asp?id_noticia=167204&id_seccion=3>.

77 See e.g., the BITs with the United States, Canada, Chile, France, Spain, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, Finland, Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela, Argentina and China.

78 None of which appear to be big capital-exporting countries.

79 The following BITs provide for ICSID Arbitration: Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and Romania. The BIT with Cuba does not provide for ICSID arbitration. It is unknown whether the BITs with Guatemala and Uruguay provide for ICSLD arbitration because they are not publicly available.

80 See Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador (IC SID Case No. ARB/06/11); Noble Energy Inc. and Machala Power Cia. Ltd. v. Republic of Ecuador and Consejo Nacional de Electricidad (Case No. ARB/05/12); Empresa Eléctrica del Ecuador, Inc. (EMELEC) v. Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/9); Duke Energy Electroquil Partners and Electroquil S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/04/19), IBM World Trade Corp. v. Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/10); M.C.I. Power Group, L.C. and New Turbine, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/6); City Oriente Limited v. Republic of Ecuador and Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador).

81 See Repsol YPF Ecuador S.A. v. Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador) (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/10); Técnicas Reunidas, S.A. and Eurocontrol, S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/17).

82 In making its decision, the Special Commission took into account the following criteria: (i) the FDI flowing into Ecuador from each treaty, (ii) the FDI maintained by Ecuador in the host countries, and (iii) the ability to generate new investments. See <http://www2.elcomercio.com/noticiaEC.asp?id_noticia= 167204&id_seccion=3>

83 See Emmanuel Gaillard, Establishing Jurisdiction Through a Most-Favored-Nation Clause, 233:105 New York Law Journal (June 2, 2005).

84 See e.g., Ecuador-Canada Bit Art XVIII (providing that “In respect of investments or commitments to invest made prior to the date when the termination of this Agreement becomes effective, the provisions of Articles I to XVII inclusive of this Agreement shall remain in force for a period of fifteen years); Ecuador- US BIT Art. XII (3) (”…the provisions of all of the other Articles of this Treaty shall thereafter continue to be effective for a further period of ten years from such date of termination.“)

85 See <http://www.eluniverso.eom/2008/02/18/0001/9/7345A497294D4DCC98364E8F70E9E7C8.aspx>;<http://www.el-universo.eom/2007/10/26/0001/9/4E12DE8ADC524C23A45 7661475289E13.aspx>

86 Id.

87 The argument would probably run that that the investor has to give its consent for the two unilateral consents to form the arbitration agreement. However, the investor would be explicitly saying that it will not do so via the waiver. Thus, even if the government's prior consent—which is not with drawn,—exists, the investor's consent would be missing. And if the investor subsequently consents, it will be inconsistent with a specific advance waiver of such consent (the authors would like to thank Stanimir Alexandrov for this comment). Moreover, at least two commentators have argued that the Art. 25(1) wording may open the possibility for both the parties to withdraw their consent. Art. 25(1) of the Convention provides that “when the parties have given their consent, no party may withdraw its consent unilaterally) (emphasis added). See e.g., Schreuer, Commentary, supra note 47, at 254; Hirsch, The Arbitration Mechanism, supra note 62 at 50.

88 If the waiver applies only to the latter, the former may still be able to resort to ICSID arbitration despite the waiver of its subsidiary.

89 The Special Bidding Committee is the entity responsible for the adjudication of the oil fields.

90 See Centro de Arbitraje y Mediación de la Cámara de Comercio de Quito, available at <http://www.ccq.org.ee/>

91 See Centro de Arbitraje y Mediación de la Cámara de Comercio de Quito, available at <http://www.ccq.org.ee/>. See also <http://www.eluniverso.eom/2007/10/26/0001/9/4E12DE8ADC524C23A457661475289E13.aspx>

92 In fact, foreign companies having permanent business or contracts with Ecuador are obliged to be domiciled in Ecuador.

93 In particular, it is still unclear whether (i) both parties to the contract, or only the government, will be able to choose between local courts or domestic arbitration; (ii) the government would be amenable to arbitrate under rules other than ICSID's, i.e. ICC, Uncitral, LCIA; and (iii) the place of arbitration may be outside Ecuador and the applicable law may be different than Ecuadorian law.

94 However, event, if the ICSID door may be closed to investors, Ecuador's BITs contain agreements to arbitrate under other arbitration rules, such as the Uncitral Rules. See e.g., Ecuador-Canada BIT Art XIII; Ecuador-US BIT Art. VI; Ecuador-Argentina BIT Art. IX. Foreign investors have arbitrated against Ecuador under the Uncitral ArbitrationRules. See e.g., Encana, Occidental, supra notes 34 and 35.

95 Ecuador's President was recently quoted as saying that: “Vamos a entrar en conversaciones con paises altamente demandados ante el CIADI, como Argentina y Bolivia, para tomar acciones en comun.” See <http://www.eluniverso.com/2007/11/29/0001/9/0E36619E86E14B0995108B0983956C7C.aspx>.

96 In fact, Ecuador first questioned international arbitration when it was condemned to pay $75 Million resulting from a taxrelated arbitration conducted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. See Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador (LCIA Case No. UN3467).

97 See <http://www.eluniverso.eom/2007/ll/29/0001/9/0E36619E86E14B0995108B0983956C7C.aspx> (“Ya basta de que estemos sometidos a instancias no sólo extra nacionales sino extra regionales“).

98 The largest foreign investors in Ecuador are petroleum companies engaged in exploration and production in the Amazon Basin, including City Oriente (U.S.), Repsol YPF (Spain), Petrobras (Brazil), Andes Petroleum (China), and Perenco (France). For a complete list of existing contracts see <http:// www.menergia.gov.ec/secciones/hidrocarburos/HidroContra- tos.html>.

99 See data from Ecuador's Banco Central, available at <http:// www.bce.fin.ec/frame.php?CNT=ARB0000984> See also Ecuador Invest, <http://www.ecuadorinvest.org>

100 Reportedly, while at least four corporations (i.e. Andes Petroleum, Petrobras, Perenco and Repsol YPF) have agreed to waive ICSID arbitration, others such as City Oriente (which has recently commenced an ICSID arbitration against Ecuador), have decided instead to terminate their contract. See “Las petroleras desisten de los arbitrajes en el Banco Mundial” available at<http://www2.elcomercio.com/noticiaEC.asp?id_noticia=173756&id_seccion=6> See also “Correa dice que la renegotiatión con las petroleras está por terminar,” available at<http://www2.elcomercio.com/noticiaEC.asp?id_noticia=173378&id_seccion=6>

101 For instance, FDI could go to neighboring countries such as Peru which recently signed a Trade Promotion Agreement with the U.S. providing for investment arbitration. See <http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Section_Index>.

101 This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the ICSID website (visited January 25, 2008)<http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=ICSIDPublicationsRH &actionVal=ViewAnnouncePDF&AnnouncementType=regular&AnnounceNo=9.pdf>