Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:43:03.153Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes: Cemex Caracas Invs. B.V. & Cemex II Invs. B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Ben Love
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , August 2010 , pp. 1195 - 1209
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2010

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.)

References

End notes

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the Arbitration Database website (visited June 1, 2010) http://arbitration.fr/resources/ICSID-ARB-08-15-Provisional-Measures-English.pdf.

1 CEMEX Caracas Invs. B.V. and CEMEX Caracas II Invs. B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/15, Decision on the Claimants’ Request for Provisional Measures (Mar. 3, 2010), available at http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/Cemex_001.pdf [hereinafter CEMEX ].

2 Id. ¶ 20.

3 Id. ¶ 23.

4 See Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States art. 47, opened for signature Mar. 18, 1965, 17 U.S.T. 1270, 575 U.N.T.S. 159, available at http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=ICSIDDocRH&actionVal=RulesMain[hereinafter ICSID Convention].See also Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings, R. 39, available at http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=ICSIDDocRH&actionVal=RulesMain[hereinafter ICSID Arbitration rules]

5 CEMEX, ¶ 26.

6 Id. ¶ 34.

7 ICSID Convention art. 47.

8 CEMEX, ¶ 39 (citing Víctor Pey Casado&President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/ 2, Decision on Provisional Measures, ¶ 2 (Sept. 25, 2001); Christoph H. Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, 759 (2d ed. 2009) [hereinafter Schreuer]). See also Statute of the International Court of Justice art. 41, Oct. 24, 1945, available at http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0 ( “ 1. The Court shall have the power to indicate, if it considers that circumstances so require, any provisional measures which ought to be taken to preserve the respective rights of either party. 2. Pending the final decision, notice of the measures suggested shall forthwith be given to the parties and to the Security Council. “).

9 CEMEX, ¶¶ 45-46, 53-54 (citing Burlington Resources Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador&Petroecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Procedural Order No. 1 on Burlington Oriente’s Request for Provisional Measures, ¶¶ 82-83 (June 29, 2009); Perenco Ecuador Ltd. v. Ecuador and Petroecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6, Decision on Provisional Measures, ¶¶ 43, 53, 60 (May 8, 2009) [hereinafter Perenco]).

10 Id. ¶ 46.

11 Id. ¶ 49.

12 Id. ¶ 55.

13 Id. ¶ 58

14 Id. ¶ 60 (citing Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Arg. v. Uru.), Indication of Provisional Measures Order, 2007 I.C.J. 16, ¶ 49 (Jan. 23).

15 ICSID Convention art. 26.

16 CEMEX, ¶ 69.

17 Id. ¶ 70.

18 City Oriente Ltd. v. Republic of Ecuador and Petroecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/21, Decision on Provisional Measures, ¶¶ 55, 70 (Nov. 19, 2007) (emphasis added).

19 Perenco, ¶ 43 (finding provisional measures permissible “to preserve the effectiveness and integrity of proceedings and avoid severe aggravation of the dispute “).

20 Schreuer, supra note 8, at 759.

21 See id. at 778-80, 793-95; see also Paul Friedland, Provisional Measures and ICSID Arbitration, 2 Arb. Int’l 335 (1986) ( “The principle that parties to a judicial proceeding must await, and ultimately abide by, the ruling of the tribunal without recourse to self-help or other acts that might aggravate the dispute or undermine the eventual award is fundamental to the very rule of law. “).

22 See Chevron Corp. v. Republic of Ecuador, PCA Case No. 2009-23, Order on Interim Measures, ¶ 1(i) (May 14, 2010) (ordering the parties to, inter alia, “maintain, as far as possible the status quo and not to exacerbate the procedural and substantive disputes before this Tribunal . . . “).

1 Request for Provisional Measures § 6.

2 Request for Arbitration § 118.

3 Request for Provisional Measures §17.

4 Ibidem § 17.

5 Ibidem § 19.

6 Ibidem § 21.

7 Ibidem § 29

8 Ibidem page 13.

9 Ibidem page 13.

10 Ibidem page 14.

11 Ibidem § 45.

12 Ibidem § 50.

1 Request for Provisional Measures § 6.

2 Request for Arbitration § 118.

3 Request for Provisional Measures §17.

4 Ibidem § 17.

5 Ibidem § 19.

6 Ibidem § 21.

7 Ibidem § 29.

8 Ibidem page 13.

9 Ibidem page 13.

10 Ibidem page 14.

11 Ibidem § 45.

12 Ibidem § 50.

13 Venezuela's Memorial of 26 October 2009, § 44.

14 Ibidem § 56.

15 Ibidem § 58.

16 Ibidem § 59.

17 Ibidem § 61.

18 Ibidem § 62.

19 Ibidem § 68.

20 Ibidem § 71.

21 Ibidem § 72.

22 Ibidem §§ 72–73.

23 Ibidem § 80.

24 Ibidem § 81.

25 Ibidem § 86.

26 Transcript p.96.

27 Transcript p.103.

28 Víctor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile (ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2), Decision on Provisional Measures of 25 September 2001, § 2. See also Christoph H. Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (2nd ed. 2009), p. 759.

29 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentine v. Uruguay), Order of 23 January 2007, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 11, §§ 31– 32. See also Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark), Order of 29 July 1991, ICJ Reports 1991 p. 17, §23; Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France), Order of 17 June 2003, ICJ Reports 2003 p. 107, §22.

30 Emilio Agustín Maffezini v. Kingdom of Spain (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7), Order of 28 October 1999; Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/ 24), Order of 6 September 2005, §38; Phoenix Action Ltd v. Czech Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5), Order of 6 April 2007 §33; Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11), Order of 17 August 2007; See also Sergei Paushok v. Mongolia, 2 September 2008, § 39 for a case of arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules.

31 Among the decisions already quoted in the preceeding paragraph, see Plama v. Bulgaria, §39; Phoenix v. Czech Republic, §33; Occidental Petroleum v. Ecuador, § 59. See also Burlington Resources Inc. and others v. Republic of Ecuador and Petroecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5), Order of 29 June 2009, §51; City Oriente Limited v. Republic of Ecuador and Petroecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/21), §54; Perenco Ecuador Limited v. Ecuador and Petroecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6), Order of 8 May 2009, §43.

32 Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (2nd ed. 2009), p.776.

33 Plama v. Bulgaria, §38.

34 Phoenix v. Czech Republic, §33.

35 Occidental Petroleum v. Ecuador, §59.

36 Burlington v. Ecuador, §82.

37 Perenco v. Ecuador and Petroecuador, § 43.

38 The Permanent Court of International Justice adopted the same approach in the Sino-Belgian Treaty case, Order of 8 January 1927 ( PCIJ, Reports, series A, n° 8).

39 Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Order of 22 June 1973, ICJ Reports 1973 p. 105, §30.

40 United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Teheran, Order of 15 December 1979, ICJ Reports 1979, p. 20, §42.

41 Frontier dispute (Burkina-Faso v. Republic of Mali), Order of 10 January 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, p.10 §21; Application of the convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Order of 8 April 1993, ICJ Reports 1993, p.22 §45; Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Order of 15 March 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 22, §38.

42 La Grand (Germany v. United States of America), Order of 3 March 1999, ICJ Reports 1999, p.15, §24; Avena and others (Mexico v. United States of America), Order of 5 February 2003, ICJ Reports 2003, p.91, §55.

43 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), Order of 11 September 1976, ICJ Reports p. 11, §33.

44 Occidental Petroleum v. Ecuador §§ 86, 92.

45 Plama v. Bulgaria, § 46.

46 Burlington v. Ecuador, § 83.

47 Perenco v. Ecuador, §§ 43, 53, 60.

48 Request for Provisional Measures §45.

49 Letter of 10 September 2009 forwarding the request for provisional measures.

50 Request for Provisional Measures p.18.

51 Request for Provisional Measures §47.

52 Letter of 22 December 2009, p.1.

53 For the International Court of Justice, see the long list provided in Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Order of 23 January 2007, ICJ Reports, 2007, p. 16, §49. For ICSID Tribunals, see the case law listed in Burlington, §§ 63– 64; see also Perenco §§ 55–57.

54 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Order of 23 January 2007, ICJ Reports p. 16, § 49.

55 Question dealt with in paragraphs 59–61 above.

56 Claimants’ Letter of 22 December 2009, pp. 1- 4.

57 Ibidem, p. 5.

58 Mine v. Guinea, 6 January 1998, 4 ICSID Reports 77; CSOB v. Slovakia, Procedural Order no 4 of 11 January 1999 quoted in the Decision on Jurisdiction of 24 May 1999; Procedural Order no 5, 1st March 2000, Burlington v, Ecuador § 57.