* This document was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the ICSID website (visited August 14, 2001) http://www.worldbank.org/icsid.

1 Agreement between Argentina and Spain of October 3, 1991. Hereinafter cited as the Argentine-Spain BIT.

2 Agreement between Chile and Spain of October 2, 1991. Hereinafter cited as the Chile-Spain BIT.

3 Under Article 38 of the ICSID Convention, if the Tribunal is not yet constituted within 90 days after the notice of registration of the request has been dispatched, the Chairman of ICSID's Administrative Council shall, at the request of either party, and after consulting both parties as far as possible, appoint the arbitrator or arbitrators not yet appointed and designate an arbitrator to be the President of the Tribunal.

4 Schreuer, C., “Commentary on the ICSID Convention. Article 25,” Foreign Investment Law Journal, ICSID Review, Vol. 12, 1997, 59, at 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 See International Law Commission, Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Art. 22 and related Commentary, 7977 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol.II, Part 2, 1978, at 30 et seq. For the 1996 Draft and its referral to the 1977 Draft on this point, see International Legal Materials, Vol. 37,1998,444. See also C. F. Amerasinghe Local remedies in international law, 1990, at 45-51.

6 Schreuer, loc. cit., supra note 4, at 199-202.

7 International Court of Justice, Reports, 1952, p. 93. See also Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice: The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, 1951-1954: Points of Substantive Law. Part II, p. 84.

8 International Court of Justice, Reports, 1952, p. 176.

9 International Court of Justice, Reports, 1953, p. 10. See also generally, International Law Reports, 1953, p. 547.

10 Award of the Commission of Arbitration established for the Ambatielos claim between Greece and the United Kingdom, dated March 6, 1956, United Nations: Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XII, 1963, p. 91.

11 International Court of Justice, Reports, 1952, at 109.

12 Ibid., at 109. For a discussion of this and other decisions relating to the most-favored-nation clause, the writings of authors and the work of the International Law Commission on the subject, see Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. II, 1970, p. 199; Vol. II, 1973, p. 97; Vol. II, Part One, 1978, p. 1; Vol. II, Part Two, 1978, p. 7.

13 It was on this basis that the International Court of Justice ruled against the extension of principles of international law envisaged in treaties between Iran and third parties to the United Kingdom, as these principles were unrelated to the basic treaty containing the clause, Judgment cit., supra note 11.

14 International Court of Justice, Reports, 1952, p. 191.

15 United Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, 1963, p. 107.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid., at 109,110.

18 Asian Agricultural Products Limited v. Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case Noarb/87/ 3, Award of June 27, 1990, ICSID Reports, Vol. 4, p. 246.

19 Ibid., at 272.

20 Agreement between the United Kingdom and Albania, March 30,1994. Twelve other agreements made by the United Kingdom, which the Tribunal has examined, contain the same model clause.

21 Agreement between Chile and the Belgian-Luxembourg Economic Union, July 15, 1992, Article 3(3).

22 See, for example, Magno Santovincenzo v. James F. Egan, United States Supreme Court, Decision of November 23, 1931, U.S. Reports, Vol. 284, p. 30, where it was held that”… the provisions of Article V of the Treaty were of special importance, as they provided for extraterritorial jurisdiction of the United States in relation to the adjudication of disputes. It would thwart the major purpose of the Treaty to exclude from the important protection of these provisions citizens of the United States who might be domiciled in Persia.” For this and other domestic decisions concerning the most-favored-nation clause see International Law Commission, Decisions of national courts relating to the most-favored-nation clause, Digest prepared by the Secretariat, Doc. A/CN.4/269, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. II, 1973, p. 117.

23 See generally ICSID: Analysis of Documents Concerning the Origin and the Formulation of the Convention, 1970.

24 Agreement of December 23, 1994.

25 Agreement of October 2, 1991.

26 Agreement of July 9, 1995.

27 Agreement of May 27, 1994.

28 Agreement of December 12, 1990.

29 Agreement of March 16, 1995.

30 Agreement of November 3, 1992.

31 Agreement of February 14, 1995.

32 Agreement of March 18, 1994.

33 Agreement of November 9, 1989.

34 Agreement of May 30, 1995.

35 Agreement of March 23,1994.

36 Agreement of January 17, 1994.

37 Agreement of July 6, 1994.

38 Agreement of April 4, 1995.

39 Agreement of March 16, 1994.

40 Agreement of September 15, 1994.

41 Agreement of November 17, 1994.

42 Agreement of October 19,1993.

43 Agreement of July 30, 1992.

44 Agreement of May 28, 1991.

45 Agreement of April 24, 1990.

46 Agreement of January 15, 1992.

47 Agreement of November 28, 1991.

48 Agreement of April 7, 1992.

49 See, for example, the Algeria-Spain Agreement of December 23, 1994, Article 4.

50 The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions ﹛Greece v. U.K.), Permanent Court of International Justice, 1924, Series A. No. 2, 12; Interhandel Case (Switzerland v. United States of America), International Court of Justice, Reports 1959, 27.

51 See, for example, the Chile-Spain BIT of October 2, 1991, Article 10(2).

52 ICSID Convention, Article 25(1).

53 Broches, Aron: “The Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes: Some Observations on Jurisdiction,” Columbia Journal of International Law, Vol. 5, 1966, 263, at 265.Google Scholar

54 ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) and 25(3). See Schreuer, C.: “Commentary on the ICSID Convention. Article 25,” Foreign Investment Law Journal — ICSID Review, Vol. 11, 1996, 318,CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 380-391; Schreuer, loc. cit., supra note 4, at 140-150.

55 Sodiga is not a party to this case and no designation has been made or consent has been given by Spain to this effect.

56 Argentine-Spain BIT, Article V.

57 Ian Brownlie: System of the Law of Nations. State Responsibility. Part I, 1983, 132 et seq.

58 See generally Brownlie, op. cit, supra note 57, at 135-137.

59 International Law Commission: “Draft Articles on State Responsibility,” 1996, International Legal Materials, Vol. 37, 1998, 444.

60 Brownlie, op. cit., supra note 57, at 136.

61 Aron Broches: “The Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States,” Recueil des Cours de l'Academie de Droit International, 1972, at 355.

62 Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, A. S. v. the Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/ 4, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, May 24, 1999, ICSID Review — Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vol. 14, 1999, at 250.

63 Ibid., par. 20.

64 Brownlie, op. cit., supra note 57, at 136. See also International Law Commission, Draft Articles cit., supra note 59, Article 4.

65 The Xunta is defined as the collegiate body of the Government of Galicia. See http://galicia97.vieiros.com

66 Decreto 2182/1972, Boletin Oficial del Estado, No. 197, August 17, 1972, p. 1536.

67 AGIP v. Congo, ICSID Case ARB/77/1, Award of November 30, 1979, ICSID Reports, Vol. 1, 306.

68 International Court of Justice: Case concerning East Timor, ICJ Reports 1995, 90, para. 22, with reference to earlier decisions of both the Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Court of Justice.

69 C. Schreuer, loc. cit., (1996), supra note 54, at 337.

70 Ibid., at 337, with particular reference to AALP v. Sri Lanka, ICSID Case NoARB/87/ 3, Award of June 27, 1990, ICSID Reports, Vol. 4, 251.