Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:40:31.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID):Azurix Corporation V. the Argentine Republic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

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

Extract

On 25 June 2001, Milorad Kmojelac, a Bosnian Serb, was indicted by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) on twelve counts of crimes against humanity and violations of the laws and customs of war. He had served as the commander of the Foca Kazneno-Popravni Dom (“KP Dom”) concentration camp in Bosnia-Herzegovina from April 1992 to August 1993. The charges against Kmojelac were based upon his acting in “common purpose” (as defined by Articles 7(1) and 7(3) of the ICTY Statute) with the KP Dom guards in persecuting Muslim and other non-Serb civilian detainees through torture, beatings, and murder. The Trial Chamber convicted Kmojelac of several of the charged offenses and sentenced him to a total of 7 Vi years imprisonment. He was acquitted of counts of torture, murder, imprisonment, and other inhumane acts. Both the defense and the prosecution appealed on various grounds. The Appeals Chamber dismissed all defense appeals and found for the prosecution on several grounds, increasing Krnolejac's sentence to 15 years.

Type
Judicial and Similar Proceedings
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , March 2004 , pp. 262 - 285
Copyright
Copyright ©American Society of International Law 2004

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

* This document was reproduced and reformatted from the text provided by the law firm, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in New York.

1 At the time the Canon was paid the Argentine Peso was fixed in a one to one ratio with the United States dollar. The Argentine Peso was pegged to the US dollar until December 31, 2001, when “pesification” was implemented by Argentina in response to its economic crisis.

2 Argentina's Memorial on Jurisdiction, para. 34. (Emphasis in the original).

3 Ibid., para. 35. (Emphasis in the original).

4 Ibid., para. 38. (Emphasis in the original).

5 Ibid., paras. 39-45. (Emphasis in the original).

6 Ibid., paras. 46-48.

7 Compañía de Aguas delAconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal v.Argentine Republic, (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3) 16ICSID Rev.-FILJ 641 (2001),Salini Construttori S.p.A. et ltalstrade S.p.A v. Kingdom of Morocco, (ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4), Decision on Jurisdiction, 23 July 2001, 129 Journal de Droit International (2002), andLanco International Inc. v. Argentine Republic, Preliminary Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 December 1998, 5 ICSID Rep. 367 (hereinafterVivendi I, Salini andLanco, respectively), paras. 53 and ff of Argentina's Memorial on Jurisdiction.

8 Argentina's Memorial on Jurisdiction, paras. 58-59. Article 26 of the ICSID Convention provides that “Consent of the parties to arbitration under this Convention shall, unless otherwise stated, be deemed consent to such arbitration to the exclusion of any otherremedy. A Contracting State may require the exhaustion of local administrative or judicial remedies as a condition of its consent to arbitration under this Convention”.

9 Ibid., pain. 60.

10 Ibid., para. 61.

11 Woodruff v.Venezuela, Riaa, volume IX, Hague ICJ Register, p. 213.

12 North American Dredging Company of Texas v. United Mexican States, Riaa, volume IV, Hague ICJ Register, p. 26.

13 Argentina's Memorial on Jurisdiction, paras. 62-73.

14 Ibid., paras. 55-57.

15 Claimant's Counter-Memorial on Jurisdiction, paras. 34-38.

16 Ibid., paras. 40-41.

17 Ibid., paras. 45-50.

18 Ibid., paras. 22-26.

19 Ibid., paras. 54-80.

20 Ibid., paras. 82-89, and 91-92.

21 Ibid., paras. 93-101.

22 Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal v. Argentine Republic, Decision of thead hoc Committee of July 3, 2002, 41ILM 1135 (2002).

23 Wena Hotels Ltd v. Egypt, Decision of thead hoc Committee of February 5, 2002, 41ILM 933 (2002).

24 Claimant's Counter-Memorial on Jurisdiction, paras. 102-148.

25 Argentina's Memorial on Jurisdiction, paras. 78-79 and footnote 69 in Claimant's Rejoinder on Jurisdiction.

26 Ibid., paras. 80-85.

27 Claimant's Counter-Memorial on Jurisdiction, paras. 154, 159 and ff.

28 Ibid., para. 158.

29 Ibid., paras. 167-175.

30 Ibid., paras. 180-182.See also footnote 69 in Claimant's Rejoinder on Jurisdiction for a list of cases before the Supreme Court of the Province.

31 Ibid., para. 183.

32 Ibid., paras. 183-186.

33 Ibid., para. 198.

34 Ibid., paras. 187-188.

35 Argentina's Rejoinder on Jurisdiction, paras. 93-108.

36 Ibid., paras. 128-131.

37 Ibid., paras. 3-4, 16.

38 Ibid., paras. 9 and 14.

39 Claimant's Rejoinder on Jurisdiction, paras. 14-20.

40 Argentina's Memorial on Jurisdiction, para. 77.

41 Argentina's Reply on Jurisdiction, paras. 30-34.

42 Ibid., para. 35.

43 Ibid., paras. 38-39.

44 Ibid., paras. 144-145.

45 Hearing on Jurisdiction, September 9-10, 2003, Transcripts of September 10, 2003, p. 11.

46 Claimant's Memorial, pp. 149-156.

47 Argentina's Memorial on Jurisdiction, paras. 13-15.

48 See also CMS v. Argentina, paras. 88-89.

49 Exhibit 178 to the Arbitration Request.

50 Ibid. Exhibits 179 and 180.

51 Ibid. Exhibit 182.

52 Ibid. Exhibit 181.

53 Azurix's Rejoinder on Jurisdiction, para. 6(ii).

54 Argentina's Memorial on Jurisdiction, para. 11.

55 Ibid., para. 12.

56 Argentina's Reply on Jurisdiction, heading II.b). (Emphasis in the original).

57 Ibid., para. 9. (Emphasis in the original).

58 Ibid., para. 11. (Emphasis in the original).

59 Ibid., para.12. (Emphasis in the original).

60 Ibid., paras. 13 and 14. (Emphasis in the original).

61 Article I.l.(a)(v).

62 Clause 12.1.1 of the Concession Agreement. (Emphasis added).

63 Ibid., Clause 7.8. (Emphasis added).

64 Argentina's Reply on jurisdiction, para. 12. (Emphasis in the original).

65 The purpose of the definition as explained by the drafter is,inter alia, not to distinguish “between investment owned or controlled directly and that owned or controlled through corporate tiers” and to ensure that “local subsidiariesper se are covered investment. Further, the company need not be wholly owned by the investor. Any ownership or other interest in a company would be considered investment.” Kenneth J. Vandevelde,United States Investment Treaties. Policy and Practice (1992) pp. 45-46.

66 Azurix's Memorial at 1.

67 CMS Gas Transmission Company v.Argentine Republic, (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8). Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction of July 17, 2003, 42ILM 800.

68 Ibid, para. 51. (Emphasis added).

69 Argentina's Reply on Jurisdiction, paras. 3 and 146.

70 Arbitration Rule 41(2) provides: “The Tribunal may on its own initiative consider, at any stage of the proceeding, whether the dispute or any ancillary claim before it is within the jurisdiction of the Centre and within its own competence.“

71 Azurix's Rejoinder on Jurisdiction, para. 21.

72 Argentina's Reply on Jurisdiction, para. 146.

73 Ibid., para. 148.

74 Ibid., para. 149.

75 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (New Application, 1962), Judgment 5 February 1970 (Reports 1970, p. 3).

76 Argentina's Reply on Jurisdiction, para. 153.

77 Ibid., para. 152.

78 Azurix's Rejoinder on Jurisdiction, paras. 24-27.

79 Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI), Judgment 20 July 1989(Reports 1989, p. 15).

80 Ibid., para. 65. (Emphasis added).

81 Hearing on Jurisdiction, September 9-10, 2003, Transcripts of September 9, 2003, p. 18 and ff.

82 Argentina's Reply on Jurisdiction, paras. 105 and 108, respectively.

83 Argentina's Memorial on Jurisdiction, paras. 62 and ff.

84 Ibid., quote from Judge Jessup in para. 64.

85 Ibid., para. 66.

86 Woodruff v. Venezuela, Riaa, volume IX, Hague ICJ Registry, p. 213.

87 North American Dredging Company of Texas v. United Mexican States, Riaa, volume IV, Hague ICJ Registry, p. 26.

88 Eagleton, C., The Responsibility of States in International Law, New York University Press, 1928, p. 175.Google Scholar

89 Argentina's Memorial on Jurisdiction, para. 80.

90 Ibid., paras. 82 and 85.

91 Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States, June 2, 2000, 5 ICSID Rep. 443.

92 Argentina's Memorial on Jurisdiction, para. 92.

93 Azurix's Rejoinder, paras. 103 and ff.

94 Ibid., para. 119.

95 Ibid., para. 132.

96 Ibid.

97 Benvenuti and Bonfant SRL v. the Government of the People's Republic of the Congo, 1 ICSID Rep. 340 at para.1.14.

98 CMS Gas Transmission Company v. the Republic of Argentina (Case No. ARB/01/8), Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Juisdiction of July 17, 2003, 42ILM 800, para. 80.

99 Law 11.820, Annex II, Chapter XII, Article 51.

100 Argentina's Reply on Jurisdiction, para. 23 and ff.

101 101Ibid., para. 16.

102 102Ibid., Heading, para. 19 and ff.