Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Characterization of the Obligation to Provide ‘Full Protection and Security’

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Full Protection and Security in International Investment Law

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EYIELMONO,volume 8))

  • 647 Accesses

Abstract

The FPS standard has been consistently defined as a due diligence obligation. Still, FPS is not an obligation of means or a pure obligation of diligence in the traditional sense of the terms. In addition to a want of diligence, a breach of FPS requires the occurrence of a harmful event. These requirements admit no exception. The due diligence aspect of the standard implies, first, that approaches arguing that FPS encompasses obligations which impose strict liability (e.g. an obligation to create a judicial and administrative system, as opposed to the obligation to set in motion such system in response to a threat) are ill founded. A second implication is that a breach of FPS always refers to a failure to do something, that is to say, an omission.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Section 6.2 assesses the concept of ‘standard’ as a legal category and explains the terminology used in the main text.

  2. 2.

    For some examples of awards making express reference to the notion of ‘due diligence’ in connection with the FPS standard see: Ampal-American Israel Corp., Egi-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, Egi-Series Investments LLC and BSS-EMG Investors LLC v Egypt, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11 (21 February 2017) [241] (noting that ‘the State is obliged to exert due diligence in order to protect a claimant’s investment’); Asian Agricultural Products v Sri Lanka, Final Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3 (17 June 1990) [53] (linking the FPS standard to the notion of due diligence); Bernhard Friedrich Arnd Rüdiger von Pezold et al. v Zimbabwe, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/15 (28 July 2015) [596] (agreeing with the parties’ statement that FPS is a standard of ‘due diligence’); Biwater Gauff Ltd. v Tanzania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22 (24 July 2008) [725] (stating that ‘in international law, the duty of protection implies a duty of due diligence’); CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd., Devas Employees Mauritius Private Ltd. and Telcom Devas Mauritius Ltd. v India (UNCITRAL), Award on Jurisdiction and Merits, PCA Case No. 2013-09 (25 July 2016) [498] (describing FPS ‘as an obligation of vigilance and due diligence’); Convial Callao S.A. and CCI – Compañía de Concesiones de Infraestructura S.A. v Peru, Laudo Final, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/2 (21 May 2013) [643] (describing FPS as a diligence obligation and underscoring the non-absolute character or the standard); Deutsche Bank AG v Sri Lanka, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/02 (31 October 2012) [537] (indicating that ‘the full protection and security standard only involves a best efforts obligation, a duty of due diligence’); Electrabel S.A. v Hungary, Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19 (30 November 2012) [7.83] (quoting arbitral decisions which define the content of FPS in terms of due diligence); El Paso Energy International Co. v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15 (31 October 2011) [522] (noting that ‘[t]he case law and commentators generally agree that this standard imposes an obligation of vigilance and due diligence upon the government’ and further elaborating on the notion of ‘due diligence’ at para 523); Frontier Petroleum Ltd. v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (12 November 2010) [270] (concluding that ‘the standard is one of due diligence’); Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13 (6 November 2008) [269] (expressing that ‘this concept [FPS] refers to the exercise of due diligence by the State’); Joseph Charles Lemire v Ukraine, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18 (14 January 2010) [496] (stressing that ‘[n]ot every lack of diligence by a supervisory authority opens the door to a claim under the BIT’); Joseph Houben v Burundi, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7 (12 January 2016) [161] (explicitly defining the content of FPS in terms of ‘diligence raisonnable’); Koch Minerals SÁRL and Koch Nitrogen International SÁRL v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/19 (30 October 2017) [8.46] (linking FPS to the notion of ‘reasonable diligence’); LESI S.p.A. and ASTALDI S.p.A. v Algeria, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3 (12 November 2008) [153] (characterizing the obligation as an ‘obligation de moyens’); Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe S.A. v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/24 (30 March 2015) [821] (taking cognizance of the widespread consensus that FPS ‘obliges States to use due diligence to prevent harassment and injuries to investors’); MNSS B.V. and Recupero Credito Acciaio N.V. v Montenegro, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/8 (4 May 2016) [351] (stating that FPS entails ‘an obligation of vigilance and due diligence’); Mobil Exploration and Development Argentina Inc. Suc. Argentina and Mobil Argentina S.A. v Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/16 (10 April 2013) [999] (stating that ‘this standard imposes an obligation of vigilance and due diligence upon the government’); Noble Ventures v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11 (12 October 2005) [164] (holding that ‘[FPS] is not a strict standard, but one requiring due diligence to be exercised by the State’); Oxus Gold v Uzbekistan (UNCITRAL), Final Award (17 December 2015) [353 and 834] (stating that FPS comprises ‘an obligation of vigilance and due diligence’); Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [76-81] (providing a detailed analysis of the meaning of due diligence in the context of FPS); Plama Consortium Ltd. v Bulgaria, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24 (27 August 2008) [222] (rejecting the FPS claims on the ground that the Claimant could not identify – nor the arbitrators establish – a ‘lack of due diligence’ attributable to the Respondent); Ronald Lauder v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (3 September 2001) [308] (concluding that the applicable FPS clause ‘obliges the Parties to exercise such due diligence in the protection of foreign investment as reasonable under the circumstances’); Rumeli Telekom A.S. and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v Kazakhstan, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16 (29 July 2008) [668] (relying on arbitral decisions which indicate that ‘in international law, the full protection and security obligation is one of due diligence and no more’); Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v Venezuela, Decision on Liability and the Principles of Quantum, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/13 (30 December 2016) [553] (acknowledging that ‘there is common ground between the Parties that Article 3(2) of the Treaty [FPS] imposes a duty of due diligence on Respondent’); Sergei Paushok et al. v Mongolia (UNCITRAL), Award on Jurisdiction and Liability (28 April 2011) [323-5] (noting that ‘[t]he case law and commentators generally agree that this standard imposes an obligation of vigilance and due diligence upon the government’ and further holding the due diligence standard applicable in respect of both the prevention obligation and the duty of redress); Suez Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v Argentina, Decision on Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19 (30 July 2010) [162] (explaining that ‘[t]raditionally, courts and tribunals have interpreted the content of this standard of treatment as imposing a positive obligation upon the host state to exercise due diligence to protect the investor and his property’, see also paras 164 and 179); Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [322] (quoting arbitral decisions to the effect that ‘the full protection and security obligation is one of due diligence and no more’); Toto Construzioni Generali S.p.A. v Lebanon, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12 (7 June 2012) [227] (noting that ‘the obligation of full protection and security is not a strict liability standard, but requires due diligence’); Ulysseas Inc. v Ecuador (UNCITRAL), Final Award (12 June 2012) [272] (holding that the FPS standard ‘imposes an obligation of vigilance and care’ and comprises ‘a duty of due diligence’); Waguih George Siag and Clorinda Vecchi v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15 (1 June 2009) [447] (noting that the FPS standard ‘is not absolute’ and that ‘a host state must exercise due diligence in preventing harm to an investment’).

  3. 3.

    AES Summit Generation Ltd. and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft. v Hungary, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22 (23 September 2010) [13.3.2]; Ampal-American Israel Corp., Egi-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, Egi-Series Investments LLC and BSS-EMG Investors LLC v Egypt, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11 (21 February 2017) [241 and 243-4]; Asian Agricultural Products v Sri Lanka, Final Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3 (17 June 1990) [48 and 53]; Bernhard Friedrich Arnd Rüdiger von Pezold et al. v Zimbabwe, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/15 (28 July 2015) [596]; Frontier Petroleum Ltd. v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (12 November 2010) [269-70]; Gemplus S.A., SLP S.A. and Gemplus Industrial S.A. de C.V. v Mexico, Award, ICSID Cases No. ARB(AF)/04/3 & ARB(AF)/04/4 (16 June 2010) [9.10]; LESI S.p.A. and ASTALDI S.p.A. v Algeria, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3 (12 November 2008) [153]; Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe S.A. v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/24 (30 March 2015) [821]; MNSS B.V. and Recupero Credito Acciaio N.V. v Montenegro, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/8 (4 May 2016) [351]; Mohammad Ammar Al-Bahloul v Tajikistan, Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, SCC Case No. V 064/2008 (9 September 2009) [246]; Noble Ventures v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11 (12 October 2005) [164]; Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Lithuania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8 (11 September 2007) [357]; Plama Consortium Ltd. v Bulgaria, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24 (27 August 2008) [181]; Ronald Lauder v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (3 September 2001) [308]; Saluka Investments v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (17 March 2006) [484]; Suez Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v Argentina, Decision on Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19 (30 July 2010) [164]; Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [322]; Tecnicas Medioambientales TECMED S.A. v Mexico, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2 (29 May 2003) [177]; Toto Construzioni Generali S.p.A. v Lebanon, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12 (7 June 2012) [227]; Tulip Real Estate Investment and Development Netherlands B.V. v Turkey, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/28 (10 March 2014) [430]; Wena Hotels Ltd. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 (8 December 2000) [84].

  4. 4.

    Case Concerning Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v Italy) [1989] ICJ Rep 15, 65 [108].

  5. 5.

    See for example: Ampal-American Israel Corp., Egi-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, Egi-Series Investments LLC and BSS-EMG Investors LLC v Egypt, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11 (21 February 2017) [242]; Suez Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v Argentina, Decision on Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19 (30 July 2010) [162]; Toto Costruzioni Generali S.p.A. v Lebanon, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12 (7 June 2012) [228]. Cf. also: Convial Callao S.A. and CCI – Compañía de Concesiones de Infraestructura S.A. v Peru, Laudo Final, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/2 (21 May 2013) [643] (using a similar formulation and citing the Parties’ memorials) and [646] (making an indirect reference to the ELSI case); SAUR International S.A. v Argentina, Décision sur la compétence et sur la responsabilité, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4 (6 June 2012) [483] (using a similar language without quoting the ELSI decision).

  6. 6.

    See Sect. 11.2.3.

  7. 7.

    For some indicative examples see: Eric De Brabandere, ‘Host States’ Due Diligence Obligations in International Investment Law’ (2014-5) 42 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 319, 323-4; Finnur Magnússon, Full Protection and Security in International Law (University of Vienna, Vienna 2012) 171-4; Giuditta Cordero Moss, ‘Full Protection and Security’ in August Reinisch (ed), Standards of Investment Protection (Oxford University Press, New York 2008) 131, 139; Joanna Kulesza, Due Diligence in International Law (Brill, Leiden 2016) 135 et seq.; Jörn Griebel, Internationales Investitionsrecht (C.H. Beck, Munich 2008) 75; Levon Golendukhin, ‘Reference to Intellectual Property Treaty Norms in Full Protection and Security and Fair and Equitable Treatment Claims’ in Ian Laird, Borzu Sabahi, Frédéric Sourgens and Todd Weiler (eds), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (Juris Net, Huntington NY 2018) 89, 95-6; Lucas Bastin, Violation of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Regulatory Omissions [M.Phil. Thesis] (Oxford University, Oxford 2011) 68; Maria Fanou and Vassilis Tzevelekos, ‘The Shared Territory of the ECHR and International Investment Law’ in Yannick Radi (ed), Research Handbook on Human Rights and Investment (Edward Elgar Publishers, Northampton MA 2018) 93, 126; Riccardo Pisillo-Mazzeschi, ‘The Due Diligence Rule and the Nature of the International Responsibility of States’ in René Provost (ed), State Responsibility in International Law (Ashgate Publishing Co., Burlington VT 2002) 97, 135-7; Timo Koivurova, ‘Due Diligence’ in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Volume 3: Oxford University Press, New York 2012) 236, 236. See also: ILA Study Group on Due Diligence in International Law, ‘Second Report by Mr. Tim Stephens (Rapporteur) and Mr. Duncan French (Chair)’ (20 July 2016) 1-2, 7, 19-20 and 22-3. Some arbitral awards also provide evidence of the linkage between the notion of due diligence, and the concepts of obligations of conduct/result. For a representative example see: LESI S.p.A. and ASTALDI S.p.A. v Algeria, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3 (12 November 2008) [153]. International adjudicatory bodies have made similar statements in respect of other areas of international law: Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area (Advisory Opinion) [2011] 50 ILM 458 [111]; Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) [2010] ICJ Rep 14, 77 [187] and 83 [204].

  8. 8.

    See: Roberto Ago, ‘Sixth Report on State Responsibility – The Internationally Wrongful Act of the State, Source of International Responsibility (A/CN.4/302 and Add.1-3)’ (1977) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1977 4-43 [1-113]. On the civil law origin of the distinction and its use in international law see: ILC, ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Fifty-First Session – State Responsibility’ (1999) 2(2) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1999 48, 57 [132-3]; James Crawford, ‘Second Report on State Responsibility (A/CN.4/490 and Add. 1-7)’ (1999) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1999 3, 21 [57]; James Crawford, State Responsibility. The General Part (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013) 221; Pierre Marie Dupuy, ‘Reviewing the Difficulties of Codification: On Ago’s Classification of Obligations of Means and Obligations of Result in Relation to State Responsibility’ (1999) 10(2) EJIL 371, 374-8. See also: Finnur Magnússon, Full Protection and Security in International Law (University of Vienna, Vienna 2012) 171-2 (considering the issue in particular connection with the FPS standard).

  9. 9.

    René Demogue, Traité des obligations en général (Volume 5: Rousseau: Paris 1925) 538 et seq. For an overview of the distinction’s current use in French private law see: Simon Whittaker, ‘The Law of Obligations’ in John Bell, Sophie Boyron and Simon Whittaker (eds), Principles of French Law (Oxford University Press, New York 2008) 294, 342-3. See also: James Gordley and Arthur von Mehren, An Introduction to the Comparative Study of Private Law (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2006) 499-500.

  10. 10.

    René Demogue, Traité des obligations en général (Volume 5: Rousseau: Paris 1925) 538-9.

  11. 11.

    René Demogue, Traité des obligations en général (Volume 5: Rousseau: Paris 1925) 538-9.

  12. 12.

    On the burden of proof see generally: René Demogue, Traité des obligations en général (Volume 5: Rousseau: Paris 1925) 538-9.

  13. 13.

    The distinction was envisaged in Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Draft Articles. See: ILC, ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Twenty-Ninth Session – State Responsibility’ (1977) 2(2) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1977 5, 11 arts. 20-2. On the inconsistency between Ago’s use of the distinction and its original civil law meaning see: Pierre Marie Dupuy, ‘Reviewing the Difficulties of Codification: On Ago’s Classification of Obligations of Means and Obligations of Result in Relation to State Responsibility’ (1999) 10(2) EJIL 371, 374-8.

  14. 14.

    Roberto Ago, ‘Sixth Report on State Responsibility – The Internationally Wrongful Act of the State, Source of International Responsibility (A/CN.4/302 and Add.1-3)’ (1977) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1977 3, 5 [4].

  15. 15.

    Roberto Ago, ‘Sixth Report on State Responsibility – The Internationally Wrongful Act of the State, Source of International Responsibility (A/CN.4/302 and Add.1-3)’ (1977) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1977 3, 4-8 [4-13].

  16. 16.

    Roberto Ago, ‘Sixth Report on State Responsibility – The Internationally Wrongful Act of the State, Source of International Responsibility (A/CN.4/302 and Add.1-3)’ (1977) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1977 3, 4 [3-4] and 20-1 [47-8].

  17. 17.

    Roberto Ago, ‘Sixth Report on State Responsibility – The Internationally Wrongful Act of the State, Source of International Responsibility (A/CN.4/302 and Add.1-3)’ (1977) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1977 3, 12 [23] and 21 [49].

  18. 18.

    Roberto Ago, ‘Sixth Report on State Responsibility – The Internationally Wrongful Act of the State, Source of International Responsibility (A/CN.4/302 and Add.1-3)’ (1977) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1977 3, 12 [23] and 21 [49]. For a critical perspective on Ago’s understanding of obligations of conduct and result see: Pierre Marie Dupuy, ‘Reviewing the Difficulties of Codification: On Ago’s Classification of Obligations of Means and Obligations of Result in Relation to State Responsibility’ (1999) 10(2) EJIL 371, 376. For an overview of the link between this classification of international obligations and the local remedies rule see: Alfred Verdross and Bruno Simma, Universelles Völkerrecht (Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1984) 884-5.

  19. 19.

    ILC, ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Fifty-First Session – State Responsibility’ (1999) 2(2) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1999 48, 57 [132-3] and 68 [180]. See also: Pierre Marie Dupuy, ‘Reviewing the Difficulties of Codification: On Ago’s Classification of Obligations of Means and Obligations of Result in Relation to State Responsibility’ (1999) 10(2) EJIL 371, 374-8 (with further references to state practice and scholarly writings); James Crawford, ‘Second Report on State Responsibility (A/CN.4/490 and Add. 1-7)’ (1999) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1999 3, 21 [56] (summarizing Governments’ comments on the distinction). For an overview see: James Crawford, ‘Revisiting the Draft Articles on State Responsibility’ (1999) 10(2) EJIL 435, 441-2.

  20. 20.

    James Crawford, ‘Revisiting the Draft Articles on State Responsibility’ (1999) 10(2) EJIL 435, 441. See also: James Crawford, ‘Second Report on State Responsibility (A/CN.4/490 and Add. 1-7)’ (1999) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1999 3, 21-2 [58].

  21. 21.

    Riccardo Pisillo-Mazzeschi, ‘The Due Diligence Rule and the Nature of the International Responsibility of States’ in René Provost (ed), State Responsibility in International Law (Ashgate Publishing Co., Burlington VT 2002) 97, 135-6. For another example see: ILA Study Group on Due Diligence in International Law, ‘Second Report by Mr. Tim Stephens (Rapporteur) and Mr. Duncan French (Chair)’ (20 July 2016) 22.

  22. 22.

    It should be however noted that, in this particular instance, Brownlie was referring to the notions of ‘obligations of conduct’ and ‘obligations of result’, as used in the ILC Annual Report of 1977 (which was un turn largely based on Ago’s work). See: Ian Brownlie, System of the Law of Nations. State Responsibility (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1983) 241.

  23. 23.

    See, generally: James Crawford, State Responsibility. The General Part (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013) 223-4. See also: Göran Lysén, State Responsibility and International Liability of States for Lawful Acts (Iustus Förlag, Uppsala 1997) 62. Some scholars have sought to further develop this widespread classification of international obligations and, underscoring its insufficiency, have proposed some additional categories. See: Rüdiger Wolfrum, ‘Obligations of Result Versus Obligations of Conduct: Some Thoughts About the Implementation of International Obligations’ in Mahnoush Arsanjani, Jacob Katz Cogan, Robert Sloane and Siegfried Wiessner (eds), Looking into the Future. Essays on International Law in Honor of W. Michael Reisman (Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston 2011) 363, 369-83 (these additional categories include ‘goal-oriented obligations’, ‘international obligations addressing natural or juridical persons’ and ‘obligations of conduct as well as of result’). For an additional example see: Georg Dahm, Jost Delbück and Rüdiger Wolfrum, Völkerrecht (Volume 3: De Gruyter, Berlin 2002) 876.

  24. 24.

    James Crawford, State Responsibility. The General Part (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013) 223. See also: James Crawford, ‘Second Report on State Responsibility (A/CN.4/490 and Add. 1-7)’ (1999) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1999 3, 24 [68]. For a similar remark in specific connection with the FPS standard see: Giuditta Cordero Moss, ‘Full Protection and Security’ in August Reinisch (ed), Standards of Investment Protection (Oxford University Press, New York 2008) 131, 139.

  25. 25.

    American Manufacturing & Trading Inc. v Zaire, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB 93/1 (21 February 1997) [6-08] (failure to prevent physical damage to a protected investment) [6.08].

  26. 26.

    This first effect is a direct consequence of the civil law understanding of ‘obligations of conduct’ and ‘obligations of result’. See Sect. 11.2.1.

  27. 27.

    On this effect see: ILC, ‘Summary Records of the 1478th Meeting’ (12 May 1978) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 13, 14 [5] (statement by Willem Riphagen). On the practical relevance of the tempus commissi delicti see: Göran Lysén, State Responsibility and International Liability of States for Lawful Acts (Iustus Förlag, Uppsala 1997) 71 et seq.

  28. 28.

    See Sect. 11.2.2.1.

  29. 29.

    Asian Agricultural Products v Sri Lanka, Final Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3 (17 June 1990) [45].

  30. 30.

    Asian Agricultural Products v Sri Lanka, Final Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3 (17 June 1990) [48 and 53].

  31. 31.

    Additional examples of awards recognizing the due diligence element are provided in Sect. 11.1.

  32. 32.

    For some representative examples see: August Reinisch, ‘Internationales Investitionsschutzrecht’ in Christian Tietje (ed), Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht (De Gruyter, Berlin 2015) 398, 417-8; Burkhard Schöbener, Jochen Herbst and Markus Perkams, Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht (C.F. Müller, Heidelberg 2010) 278; Christoph Schreuer, ‘Full Protection and Security’ (2010) 1(2) J. Int’l Disp. Settlement 353, 366-8; George Foster, ‘Recovering “Protection and Security”: The Treaty Standard’s Obscure Origins, Forgotten Meaning, and Key Current Significance’ (2012) 45(4) Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 1095, 1103-4; Giuditta Cordero Moss, ‘Full Protection and Security’ in August Reinisch (ed), Standards of Investment Protection (Oxford University Press, New York 2008) 131, 139-40; Gleider Hernández, ‘The Interaction Between Investment Law and the Law of Armed Conflict in the Interpretation of Full Protection and Security Clauses’ in Freya Baetens (ed), Investment Law within International Law (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013) 21, 39; Heather Bray, ‘SOI – Save Our Investments! International Investment Law and International Humanitarian Law’ (2013) 14 J. World Investment & Trade 578, 583 and 590 et seq.; Joshua Robins, ‘The Emergence of Positive Obligations in Bilateral Investment Treaties’ (2005-6) U. Miami Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 403, 427; Kenneth Vandevelde, Bilateral Investment Treaties: History, Policy, and Interpretation (Oxford University Press, New York 2010) 243-4; Krista Nadakavukaren Schefer, International Investment Law. Text, Cases and Materials (Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton MA 2013) 321; Lucas Bastin, State Responsibility for Omissions: Establishing a Breach of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Omissions (Oxford University, Oxford 2016) [D.Phil. Thesis] 50 et seq.; Lucas Bastin, Violation of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Regulatory Omissions [M.Phil. Thesis] (Oxford University, Oxford 2011) 65, 68, 76-81; Nartnirun Junngam, ‘The Full Protection and Security Standard in International Investment Law: What and Who is Investment Fully[?] Protected and Secured From?’ (2018) 7(1) AUBLR 1, 94-6; Maria Fanou and Vassilis Tzevelekos, ‘The Shared Territory of the ECHR and International Investment Law’ in Yannick Radi (ed), Research Handbook on Human Rights and Investment (Edward Elgar Publishers, Northampton MA 2018) 93, 126; Michael Gindler, Die local remedies rule im Investitionsschutzrecht (Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013) 120; Nnaemeka Nwokedi Anozie, The Full Security and Protection Due Diligence Obligation (University of Ottawa, Ottawa 2016) [LL.M. Thesis] 6 and 23 et seq.; Petr Stejskal, ‘War: Foreign Investments in Danger – Can International Humanitarian Law or Full Protection and Security Always Save It?’ (2017) 8 CYIL 529, 532, 535 and 548; Robert Reyes Landicho, ‘Enforcing a State’s International IP Obligations through Investment Law Standards of Protection – An Ill-Fated Romance’ in Ian Laird, Borzu Sabahi, Frédéric Sourgens and Todd Weiler (eds), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (Juris Net, Huntington NY 2018) 111, 126; Rudolf Dolzer and Margrete Stevens, Bilateral Investment Treaties (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague 1995) 61; Rudolf Dolzer and Christoph Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, New York 2012) 161; Stanimir Alexandrov, ‘The Evolution of the Full Protection and Security Standard’ in Meg Kinnear, Geraldine Fischer, Jara Mínguez Almeida, Luisa Torres and Mairée Uran Bidegain (eds), Building International Investment Law. The First 50 Years of ICSID (Wolters Kluwer/ICSID, Alphen aan den Rijn 2016) 319, 320 and 322-3; Todd Weiler, The Interpretation of International Investment Law: Equality, Discrimination, and Minimum Standards of Treatment in Historical Context (Brill, Leiden 2013) 61; Valériane König, Präzedenzwirkung internationaler Schiedssprüche. Domatisch-empirische Analysen zur Handels- und Investitionsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit (De Gruyter, Berlin 2013) 235 et seq.; Zachary Douglas, ‘Property, Investment, and the Scope of Investment Protection Obligations’ in Zachary Douglas, Joost Pauwelyn and Jorge Viñuales (eds), The Foundations of International Investment Law. Bringing Theory into Practice (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2014) 363, 379.

  33. 33.

    LESI S.p.A. and ASTALDI S.p.A. v Algeria, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3 (12 November 2008) [153].

  34. 34.

    Cf. Lucas Bastin, Violation of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Regulatory Omissions [M.Phil. Thesis] (Oxford University, Oxford 2011) 68 (“As the course of jurisprudence considering the full protection and security obligation has now resolved, it is an obligation of means, not of ends. A state can therefore take action in an effort to secure protection and security for the foreign investment, but if that action is not sufficient to satisfy the due diligence standard, the State will nevertheless have breached its obligation and international responsibility will attach. Conversely, if a State does act to secure protection and security for the investment, and that action is deemed by the arbiter of fact sufficient to satisfy the due diligence standard, then, irrespective of any material or moral harm suffered by the claimant, the State will have fulfilled its obligation and cannot be held internationally responsible” – emphasis added). In later works, Bastin, while classifying FPS as a ‘non-absolute positive obligation’, has suggested that damage could actually be required. See: Lucas Bastin, State Responsibility for Omissions: Establishing a Breach of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Omissions (Oxford University, Oxford 2016) [D.Phil. Thesis] 50-1 and 74-5 (characterizing FPS as an obligation under this category at pp. 50-1, and stating at p. 75 that ‘[w]hile not all omissions that cause damage are wrongful, all omissions that are wrongful must have caused some variety of damage’). Cf. also Bastin’s analysis of the concept of damage at pp. 37-9.

  35. 35.

    Cf. n. 34 above.

  36. 36.

    Cf. n. 34 above.

  37. 37.

    See Sect. 11.2.2.2.

  38. 38.

    Roberto Ago, ‘Seventh Report on State Responsibility – The Internationally Wrongful Act of the State, Source of International Responsibility (A/CN.4/307 and Add.1 and 2)’ (1978) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 31, 37.

  39. 39.

    Roberto Ago, ‘Second Report on State Responsibility – The Origin of International Responsibility (A/CN.4/233)’ (10 April 1970) 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1970 177, 194 [51-2].

  40. 40.

    Roberto Ago, ‘Third Report on State Responsibility – The Origin of International Responsibility (A/CN.4/246 and Add. 1-3)’ (1971) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1971 199, 222 [71].

  41. 41.

    See: Roberto Ago, ‘Sixth Report on State Responsibility – The Internationally Wrongful Act of the State, Source of International Responsibility (A/CN.4/302 and Add.1-3)’ (1977) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1977 3, 20 [45]. See also: ILC, ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Twenty-Ninth Session – State Responsibility’ (1977) 2(2) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1977 5, 29 [33].

  42. 42.

    Roberto Ago, ‘Seventh Report on State Responsibility – The Internationally Wrongful Act of the State, Source of International Responsibility (A/CN.4/307 and Add.1 and 2)’ (1978) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 31, 32 [2], 33-4 [5, 7-9, 11] and 36 [16].

  43. 43.

    Roberto Ago, ‘Seventh Report on State Responsibility – The Internationally Wrongful Act of the State, Source of International Responsibility (A/CN.4/307 and Add.1 and 2)’ (1978) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 31, 36 [16].

  44. 44.

    ILC, ‘Summary Records of the 1477th Meeting’ (11 May 1978) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 9, 11 [11] (statement of Roberto Ago).

  45. 45.

    A Drafting Committee chaired by Stephen Schwebel prepared this version of Draft Article 23; the text was submitted and discussed at the 1513th meeting of the ILC. See: ILC, ‘Summary Records of the 1513th Meeting’ (6 July 1978) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 206, 206 [1].

  46. 46.

    ILC, ‘Summary Records of the 1513th Meeting’ (6 July 1978) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 206, 208 [18].

  47. 47.

    See: James Crawford, ‘Second Report on State Responsibility (A/CN.4/490 and Add. 1-7)’ (1999) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1999 3, 28-9 [89-90]; ILC, ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Fifty-First Session – State Responsibility’ (1999) 2(2) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1999 48, 58 [142] and 62 [181].

  48. 48.

    Roberto Ago, ‘Seventh Report on State Responsibility – The Internationally Wrongful Act of the State, Source of International Responsibility (A/CN.4/307 and Add.1 and 2)’ (1978) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 31, 36 [16].

  49. 49.

    ILC, ‘Draft Articles on State Responsibility with Commentaries thereto adopted by the International Law Commission on First Reading (Doc. No. 97-02583)’ (January 1997) [http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_1996.pdf] 176 [13].

  50. 50.

    ILC, ‘Draft Articles on State Responsibility with Commentaries thereto adopted by the International Law Commission on First Reading (Doc. No. 97-02583)’ (January 1997) [http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_1996.pdf] 173 [4].

  51. 51.

    See: ILC, ‘Summary Records of the 1477th Meeting’ (11 May 1978) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 9, 10 [6].

  52. 52.

    Paul Reuter brought a similar example into the debate on Draft Article 23, noting that in such cases responsibility could arise even in the absence of damage. Ago responded by drawing the distinction between ‘event’ and ‘damage’. See: ILC, ‘Summary Records of the 1476th Meeting’ (10 May 1978) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 4, 7 [21-2] (Reuter’s remarks); ILC, ‘Summary Records of the 1477th Meeting’ (11 May 1978) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 9, 10 [6] (Ago’s response). See also: ILC, ‘Draft Articles on State Responsibility with Commentaries thereto adopted by the International Law Commission on First Reading (Doc. No. 97-02583)’ (January 1997) [http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_1996.pdf] 173 [5].

  53. 53.

    Cf. Robert Kolb, The International Law of State Responsibility. An Introduction (Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton MA 2017) 39-40 (referring to the notions of ‘due diligence’ and ‘obligations of prevention’). For the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that some members of the ILC expressed doubts as to this principle. For a prominent example see: ILC, ‘Summary Records of the 1476th Meeting’ (10 May 1978) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 4, 7 [21-3] (intervention of Paul Reuter suggesting that ‘when the risk could be precisely defined in advance, the State ought to take preventive measures in proportion to it’ and further stressing that ‘any default on that obligation would of itself constitute a breach’).

  54. 54.

    This section does not intend to draw a dogmatic distinction between ‘injury’ and ‘damage’. It should however be noted that terminology is not entirely uniform in legal literature, with some authorities ascribing each term a different meaning. For an overview of the terminological debate see: James Crawford, State Responsibility. The General Part (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013) 54-5.

  55. 55.

    James Crawford, State Responsibility. The General Part (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013) 59. See also: James Crawford, ‘Revisiting the Draft Articles on State Responsibility’ (1999) 10(2) EJIL 435, 438.

  56. 56.

    For an overview of the Commission’s approach see: ILC, ‘Summary Records of the 1513th Meeting’ (6 July 1978) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 206, 208 [4] (statement of Stephen Schwebel).

  57. 57.

    James Crawford, ‘Second Report on State Responsibility (A/CN.4/490 and Add. 1-7)’ (1999) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1999 3, 28 [85]. See also: James Crawford, State Responsibility. The General Part (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013) 228.

  58. 58.

    At the ILC, the classification of these obligations as obligations of result was somewhat controversial. The question was raised as to whether ‘obligations of event’ could be said to actually constitute a third, additional category of international obligations. See, for example: ILC, ‘Summary Records of the 1476th Meeting’ (10 May 1978) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 4, 7 [25] (intervention of Nikolai Ushakov).

  59. 59.

    For an overview of the debates on Draft Article 23 in particular connection with the notion of fault see: Karl Zemanek, ‘Schuld- und Erfolgshaftung im Entwurf der Völkerrechtskommission über Staatenverantwortlichkeit. Zugleich Bemerkungen zum Prozess der Kodifikation im Rahmen der Vereinten Nationen’ in Emanuel Diez, Jean Monnier, Jörg Müller, Heinrich Reimann and Luzius Wildhaber (eds), Festschrift für Rudolf Bindschedler zum 65. Geburtstag am 8. Juli 1980 (Verlag Stämpfli & cie., Bern 1980) 315, 322-31.

  60. 60.

    Emphasis added. ILC, ‘Summary Records of the 1477th Meeting’ (11 May 1978) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 9, 9-10 [4]. See also: ILC, ‘Summary Records of the 1513th Meeting’ (6 July 1978) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 206, 207-8 [3-4] (statement of Stephen Schwebel). For an overview see: Alfred Verdross and Bruno Simma, Universelles Völkerrecht (Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1984) 852-3.

  61. 61.

    ILC, ‘Draft Articles on State Responsibility with Commentaries thereto adopted by the International Law Commission on First Reading (Doc. No. 97-02583)’ (January 1997) [http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_1996.pdf] 173 [6].

  62. 62.

    ILC, ‘Summary Records of the 1476th Meeting’ (10 May 1978) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 4, 5 [9]. See also: ILC, ‘Draft Articles on State Responsibility with Commentaries thereto adopted by the International Law Commission on First Reading (Doc. No. 97-02583)’ (January 1997) [http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_1996.pdf] 173-4 [6-8].

  63. 63.

    Emphasis added. James Crawford, State Responsibility. The General Part (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013) 227. A prominent example would be the obligation to prevent genocide. After a careful analysis of the ICJ’s decision in the Bosnian Genocide case, Crawford notes that ‘[t]he obligation to prevent genocide requires both a failure to take steps and the occurrence of genocide before responsibility is triggered’ (at p. 232).

  64. 64.

    Section 11.2.3 provides a critical analysis of novel theories considering that the FPS standard imposes strict liability in some factual scenarios.

  65. 65.

    For an early example see: Adolf Jess, Politische Handlungen Privater gegen das Ausland und das Völkerrecht (Verlag von M. & H. Marcus, Breslau 1923) 140. Further examples will be provided below.

  66. 66.

    Quoted in: Roberto Ago, ‘Seventh Report on State Responsibility – The Internationally Wrongful Act of the State, Source of International Responsibility (A/CN.4/307 and Add.1 and 2)’ (1978) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 31, 34 [8] (also providing other examples of relevant state practice).

  67. 67.

    Roberto Ago, ‘Seventh Report on State Responsibility – The Internationally Wrongful Act of the State, Source of International Responsibility (A/CN.4/307 and Add.1 and 2)’ (1978) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 31, 34 [9-10].

  68. 68.

    See: ILC, ‘Summary Records of the 1478th Meeting’ (12 May 1978) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 13, 14 [5] (statement by Willem Riphagen). See also p. 17 [25] (statement of Robert Q. Quentin-Baxter) and p. 18 [24] (response of Roberto Ago).

  69. 69.

    ILC, ‘Summary Records of the 1478th Meeting’ (12 May 1978) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 13, 16 [17].

  70. 70.

    ILC, ‘Summary Records of the 1478th Meeting’ (12 May 1978) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 13, 15 [11].

  71. 71.

    ILC, ‘Summary Records of the 1478th Meeting’ (12 May 1978) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 13, 15 [11].

  72. 72.

    For some indicative examples see: ‘The American Ambassador to the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs’ (13 May 1911) Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States with the Annual Message of the President (Government Printing Office, Washington 1911) 492, 492; ‘The [Mexican] Minister of Foreign Affairs to the American Ambassador’ (16 May 1911) Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States with the Annual Message of the President (Government Printing Office, Washington 1911) 493, 493. Section 10.2 discusses this exchange of diplomatic notes.

  73. 73.

    ILC, ‘Summary Records of the 1478th Meeting’ (12 May 1978) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 13, 16 [19].

  74. 74.

    Burlington Resources Inc. v Ecuador, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5 (2 June 2010) [216, 250 et seq.].

  75. 75.

    Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of Ecuador concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment (adopted 17 August 1993, entered into force 11 May 1997) art. 6(3)(a).

  76. 76.

    Burlington Resources Inc. v Ecuador, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5 (2 June 2010) [250 et seq.] (particularly at para 316).

  77. 77.

    Burlington Resources Inc. v Ecuador, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5 (2 June 2010) [298] (further declaring at para 317 that the FPS claim was inadmissible and upholding Ecuador’s jurisdictional objection pertaining to this claim at para 318).

  78. 78.

    ILC, ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Twenty-Seventh Session – State Responsibility’ (1975) 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1975 51, 72 [8] n. 100. This statement is quoted in length in Ago’s Seventh Report. See: Roberto Ago, ‘Seventh Report on State Responsibility – The Internationally Wrongful Act of the State, Source of International Responsibility (A/CN.4/307 and Add.1 and 2)’ (1978) 2(1) Yearbook of the International Law Commission – 1978 31, 33 [5].

  79. 79.

    Noble Ventures v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11 (12 October 2005) [166].

  80. 80.

    Ronald Lauder v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (3 September 2001) [313].

  81. 81.

    Emphasis added. Ampal-American Israel Corp., Egi-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, Egi-Series Investments LLC and BSS-EMG Investors LLC v Egypt, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11 (21 February 2017) [241].

  82. 82.

    See, for example: Helge Elisabeth Zeitler, ‘The Guarantee of Full Protection and Security in Investment Treaties regarding Harm Caused by Private Parties’ (2005) 3 SIAR 1, 8 (observing that ‘[n]on-action may only give rise to state responsibility if private persons cause a certain damage’ and mentioning Draft Article 23 in this connection).

  83. 83.

    For an example cf. Karkey Karadeniz Elektrik Uretim A.S. v Pakistan, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/1 (22 August 2017) [407].

  84. 84.

    See Sect. 10.3.

  85. 85.

    Emphasis added. El Paso Energy International Co. v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15 (31 October 2011) [523]. For similar statements cf. Joseph Houben v Burundi, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7 (12 January 2016) [161]; Oxus Gold v Uzbekistan (UNCITRAL), Final Award (17 December 2015) [355]; Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Co., CJSC Vostoknefte v Mongolia (UNCITRAL), Award on Jurisdiction and Liability (28 April 2011) [324-5]. Section 11.2.3 discusses some dissident views on this particular issue.

  86. 86.

    National Grid P.L.C. v Argentina (UNCITRAL), Award (3 November 2008) [189].

  87. 87.

    National Grid P.L.C. v Argentina (UNCITRAL), Award (3 November 2008) [188].

  88. 88.

    National Grid P.L.C. v Argentina (UNCITRAL), Award (3 November 2008) [188].

  89. 89.

    National Grid P.L.C. v Argentina (UNCITRAL), Award (3 November 2008) [187-90].

  90. 90.

    For the sake of accuracy, the tribunal heavily relied on the wording of the applicable FPS clause, which was considered to be autonomous from the customary protection obligation. See: National Grid P.L.C. v Argentina (UNCITRAL), Award (3 November 2008) [187-9].

  91. 91.

    See Sect. 11.2.3.1.

  92. 92.

    See Sect. 11.2.3.2.

  93. 93.

    Section 8.3 provides a detailed assessment of this issue.

  94. 94.

    Helge Elisabeth Zeitler, ‘Full Protection and Security’ in Stephan Schill (ed), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, New York 2010) 183, 191.

  95. 95.

    See: Eric De Brabandere, ‘Host States’ Due Diligence Obligations in International Investment Law’ (2014-5) 42 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 319, 334-5; Ralph Alexander Lorz, ‘Protection and Security (Including the NAFTA Approach)’ in Marc Bungenberg, Jörn Griebel, Stephan Hobe and August Reinisch (eds), International Investment Law (Nomos, Baden-Baden 2015) 764, 776-7.

  96. 96.

    Eric De Brabandere, ‘Host States’ Due Diligence Obligations in International Investment Law’ (2014-5) 42 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 319, 333-4.

  97. 97.

    Ralph Alexander Lorz, ‘Protection and Security (Including the NAFTA Approach)’ in Marc Bungenberg, Jörn Griebel, Stephan Hobe and August Reinisch (eds), International Investment Law (Nomos, Baden-Baden 2015) 764, 776.

  98. 98.

    Ralph Alexander Lorz, ‘Protection and Security (Including the NAFTA Approach)’ in Marc Bungenberg, Jörn Griebel, Stephan Hobe and August Reinisch (eds), International Investment Law (Nomos, Baden-Baden 2015) 764, 777.

  99. 99.

    Ralph Alexander Lorz, ‘Protection and Security (Including the NAFTA Approach)’ in Marc Bungenberg, Jörn Griebel, Stephan Hobe and August Reinisch (eds), International Investment Law (Nomos, Baden-Baden 2015) 764, 778.

  100. 100.

    Ralph Alexander Lorz, ‘Protection and Security (Including the NAFTA Approach)’ in Marc Bungenberg, Jörn Griebel, Stephan Hobe and August Reinisch (eds), International Investment Law (Nomos, Baden-Baden 2015) 764, 776.

  101. 101.

    Eric De Brabandere, ‘Host States’ Due Diligence Obligations in International Investment Law’ (2014-5) 42 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 319, 334.

  102. 102.

    Robert Louis Stevenson, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (Longmans, Green and Co., London 1901) [first edition: 1886].

  103. 103.

    On the issue of collateral damages see Sect. 8.3.3.1.

  104. 104.

    Asian Agricultural Products v Sri Lanka, Final Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3 (17 June 1990) [48 and 53]; Wena Hotels Ltd. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 (8 December 2000) [84].

  105. 105.

    Ronald Lauder v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (3 September 2001) [308].

  106. 106.

    Tecnicas Medioambientales TECMED S.A. v Mexico, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2 (29 May 2003) [177].

  107. 107.

    Noble Ventures v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11 (12 October 2005) [164].

  108. 108.

    Saluka Investments v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (17 March 2006) [484]; Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Lithuania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8 (11 September 2007) [357]; LESI S.p.A. and ASTALDI S.p.A. v Algeria, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3 (12 November 2008) [153].

  109. 109.

    Suez Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v Argentina, Decision on Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19 (30 July 2010) [164].

  110. 110.

    AES Summit Generation Ltd. and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft. v Hungary, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22 (23 September 2010) [13.3.2].

  111. 111.

    Frontier Petroleum Ltd. v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (12 November 2010) [269-70].

  112. 112.

    Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [322].

  113. 113.

    Toto Construzioni Generali S.p.A. v Lebanon, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12 (7 June 2012) [227].

  114. 114.

    Chapter 10 discusses the FPS standard’s functional dimensions in detail.

  115. 115.

    Riccardo Pisillo-Mazzeschi, ‘The Due Diligence Rule and the Nature of the International Responsibility of States’ in René Provost (ed), State Responsibility in International Law (Ashgate Publishing Co., Burlington VT 2002) 97, 114. See also p. 116.

  116. 116.

    Riccardo Pisillo-Mazzeschi, ‘The Due Diligence Rule and the Nature of the International Responsibility of States’ in René Provost (ed), State Responsibility in International Law (Ashgate Publishing Co., Burlington VT 2002) 97, 114. See also p. 116.

  117. 117.

    Riccardo Pisillo-Mazzeschi, ‘The Due Diligence Rule and the Nature of the International Responsibility of States’ in René Provost (ed), State Responsibility in International Law (Ashgate Publishing Co., Burlington VT 2002) 97, 115.

  118. 118.

    Riccardo Pisillo-Mazzeschi, ‘The Due Diligence Rule and the Nature of the International Responsibility of States’ in René Provost (ed), State Responsibility in International Law (Ashgate Publishing Co., Burlington VT 2002) 97, 116-8. For a more detailed presentation of the argument see: Riccardo Pisillo Mazzeschi, “Due diligence” e responsabilità internazionale degli stati (Giuffrè Editore, Milan 1989) 231-5. Cf. also: Helge Elisabeth Zeitler, ‘The Guarantee of Full Protection and Security in Investment Treaties Regarding Harm Caused by Private Actors’ (2005) 3 SIAR 1, 12 (quoting Pisillo-Mazzeschi in this connection).

  119. 119.

    On De Brabandere’s distinction between public and private injuries see Sect. 11.2.3.1.

  120. 120.

    Eric De Brabandere, ‘Host States’ Due Diligence Obligations in International Investment Law’ (2014-5) 42 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 319, 324-5.

  121. 121.

    Eric De Brabandere, ‘Host States’ Due Diligence Obligations in International Investment Law’ (2014-5) 42 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 319, 325. See also pp. 341-5.

  122. 122.

    Finnur Magnússon, Full Protection and Security in International Law (University of Vienna, Vienna 2012) 174.

  123. 123.

    Finnur Magnússon, Full Protection and Security in International Law (University of Vienna, Vienna 2012) 174.

  124. 124.

    Finnur Magnússon, Full Protection and Security in International Law (University of Vienna, Vienna 2012) 174.

  125. 125.

    Finnur Magnússon, Full Protection and Security in International Law (University of Vienna, Vienna 2012) 174.

  126. 126.

    Eric De Brabandere, ‘Host States’ Due Diligence Obligations in International Investment Law’ (2014-5) 42 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 319, 324-5 and 360; Riccardo Pisillo Mazzeschi, “Due diligence” e responsabilità internazionale degli stati (Giuffrè Editore, Milan 1989) 231-5; Riccardo Pisillo-Mazzeschi, ‘The Due Diligence Rule and the Nature of the International Responsibility of States’ in René Provost (ed), State Responsibility in International Law (Ashgate Publishing Co., Burlington VT 2002) 97, 114-6.

  127. 127.

    Eric De Brabandere, ‘Host States’ Due Diligence Obligations in International Investment Law’ (2014-5) 42 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 319, 342.

  128. 128.

    See, for example: Riccardo Pisillo Mazzeschi, “Due diligence” e responsabilità internazionale degli stati (Giuffrè Editore, Milan 1989) 231-4 (quoting the Harvard Draft at p. 234).

  129. 129.

    ‘Responsibility of States for Damage done in their Territory to the Person and Property of Foreigners’ (1929) 23 AJIL 131, 133 art. 4.

  130. 130.

    Edwin Borchard, ‘The Law of Responsibility of States for Damage Done in Their Territory to the Person or Property of Foreigners. Comments to the Draft Convention’ (April 1929) 23 AJIL 140, 146 art. 4.

  131. 131.

    Edwin Borchard, ‘The Law of Responsibility of States for Damage Done in Their Territory to the Person or Property of Foreigners. Comments to the Draft Convention’ (April 1929) 23 AJIL 140, 146 art. 4.

  132. 132.

    Edwin Borchard, ‘The Law of Responsibility of States for Damage Done in Their Territory to the Person or Property of Foreigners. Comments to the Draft Convention’ (April 1929) 23 AJIL 140, 146 art. 4.

  133. 133.

    Edwin Borchard, ‘The Law of Responsibility of States for Damage Done in Their Territory to the Person or Property of Foreigners. Comments to the Draft Convention’ (April 1929) 23 AJIL 140, 146 art. 4.

  134. 134.

    Bin Cheng, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (Cambridge University Press, New York 2006) 150 [first edition: 1953]. Cheng quotes in this connection the Montijo case (at p. 149), which is also referenced in Borchard’s commentary to Draft Article 4. See: Edwin Borchard, ‘The Law of Responsibility of States for Damage Done in Their Territory to the Person or Property of Foreigners. Comments to the Draft Convention’ (April 1929) 23 AJIL 140, 146-7 art. 4. Pisillo Mazzeschi also relies on this case. See: Riccardo Pisillo Mazzeschi, “Due diligence” e responsabilità internazionale degli stati (Giuffrè Editore, Milan 1989) 232. Section 13.3.3.3 discusses the Montijo award in detail.

  135. 135.

    Pierre Marie Dupuy, ‘La diligence due dans le droit international et la responsabilité’ in OECD, Aspects juridiques de la pollution transfrontière (OECD, Paris 1977) 396, 400-1.

  136. 136.

    Pierre Marie Dupuy, ‘La diligence due dans le droit international et la responsabilité’ in OECD, Aspects juridiques de la pollution transfrontière (OECD, Paris 1977) 396, 401.

  137. 137.

    Pierre Marie Dupuy, ‘La diligence due dans le droit international et la responsabilité’ in OECD, Aspects juridiques de la pollution transfrontière (OECD, Paris 1977) 396, 401 (“D’un point de vue matériel, il est obligé de se doter d’un appareil administratif minimum, nécessaire à la exécution de ses obligations”).

  138. 138.

    Pierre Marie Dupuy, ‘La diligence due dans le droit international et la responsabilité’ in OECD, Aspects juridiques de la pollution transfrontière (OECD, Paris 1977) 396, 402.

  139. 139.

    Pierre Marie Dupuy, ‘La diligence due dans le droit international et la responsabilité’ in OECD, Aspects juridiques de la pollution transfrontière (OECD, Paris 1977) 396, 401-2.

  140. 140.

    Author’s translation. The original German text reads: “Der Charakter des international unentbehrlichen Rechts wird vielleicht durch ein Bild ins Klare gestellt, das ich dem Rechtsverkehre der Privaten entnehme. Wer in einem Vertrage die Lieferung von Waaren übernimmt, der ist, wenn er diese nicht besitz, nicht etwa “verpflichtet”, sie anzuschaffen. Es ist genöthigt, das zu thun, wenn er seine Pflicht erfüllen will; aber diese Pflicht besteht in etwas anderem, nämlich in der Uebergabe der Waaren selbst. Kein Gericht der Welt würde einem Klageantrage entsprechen, der den Lieferungspflichtigen zur Anschaffung verurtheilt wissen wollte; dieser kann sich nur nicht zur Vertheidigung gegen die Leistungsanklage darauf berufen, dass er die Waare nicht besitze. Ahnlich verhält es sich im angenommenen Falle mit dem Staate. Er wird durch das Völkerrecht nicht verpflichtet, etwa Polizeigesetze zu erlassen, die es ihm zur Wahrung seiner Neutralität ermöglichen, Ausrüstung und Abfahrt von Kreuzern in seinen Häfen zu hindern; hat er aber einmal dieser seiner Pflicht zur Verhinderung nicht genügt, so kann er dem Auslande gegenüber nicht den Einwand erheben, es gebreche ihm an dem dazu erforderlichen Landesgesetze. Denn – wenn es einen unbestrittenen Satz des internationalen Rechtes giebt, so ist der, dass kein Staat die Erfüllung völkerrechtlicher Pflichten deshalb verweigern oder die Nichterfüllung damit entschuldigen könne, dass ihm seine Gesetzgebung die Vornahme der erforderlichen Akte nicht erlaube.” Heinrich Triepel, Völkerrecht und Landesrecht (Verlag von C. L. Hirschfeld, Leipzig 1899) 302-3.

  141. 141.

    James Fitzjames Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England (Volume 3: Macmillan & Co., London 1883) 261. Also discussed in: Heinrich Triepel, Völkerrecht und Landesrecht (Verlag von C. L. Hirschfeld, Leipzig 1899) 304.

  142. 142.

    Emphasis in the original. Dionisio Anzilotti, ‘La responsabilité internationale des états a raison des dommages soufferts par des étrangers’ (1906) 13 RGDIP 285, 294.

  143. 143.

    For a similar view see: Alf Ross, A Textbook of International Law. General Part (Longmans, Green and Co., London 1947) 265 (specifically referring to the need for ‘penal rules’ allowing the prevention and prosecution of criminal offences against foreigners, and qualifying their existence as a ‘requisite’ or ‘requirement’).

  144. 144.

    Consider, for example, the cases referred to by Pisillo Mazzeschi in this connection. See: Riccardo Pisillo Mazzeschi, “Due diligence” e responsabilità internazionale degli stati (Giuffrè Editore, Milan 1989) 231-4.

  145. 145.

    For a similar argument see: Paul Schoen, Die völkerrechtliche Haftung der Staaten aus unerlaubten Handlungen (J. U. Kern’s Verlag, Breslau 1917) 60 (observing that the state cannot invoke its own municipal law to justify an omission in the protection of aliens).

  146. 146.

    Emphasis added. American Manufacturing & Trading Inc. v Zaire, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB 93/1 (21 February 1997) [6.05]. Other arbitral decisions have quoted this passage in their assessment of FPS claims: Wena Hotels Ltd. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 (8 December 2000) [84] (quoting AMT v Zaire); Saluka Investments v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (17 March 2006) [484] (making reference to both AMT v Zaire and Wena v Egypt).

  147. 147.

    Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (adopted 26 December 1933, entered into force 26 December 1934) 165 LNTS 19, 25 art. 1 (“The State as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states”). On the notion of ‘government’, as used in the Montevideo Convention, see generally: Malcolm Shaw, International Law (Cambridge University Press, New York 2003) 180-1.

  148. 148.

    See Sect. 11.2.2.2.

  149. 149.

    Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion) [1975] ICJ Rep 12, 43-4 [94]. For a similar argument (in specific connection with the notion of due diligence in international law) see: Pavlos Alextrandou Zannas, La responsabilité internationale des Etats pour les actes de négligence (Ganguin & Laubscher, Geneva 1952) 84-5.

  150. 150.

    For a express recognition of the host state’s ‘margin of appreciation’ see: Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v Uruguay, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7 (8 July 2016) [399] (in particular connection with the FET standard). See also: AES Summit Generation Ltd. and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft. v Hungary, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22 (23 September 2010) [13.3.2] (recognizing the host state’s margin of discretion in the context of an FPS claim pertaining to legal security).

  151. 151.

    Eric De Brabandere, ‘Host States’ Due Diligence Obligations in International Investment Law’ (2014-5) 42 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 319, 341 et seq.

  152. 152.

    Eric De Brabandere, ‘Host States’ Due Diligence Obligations in International Investment Law’ (2014-5) 42 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 319, 342.

  153. 153.

    Eric De Brabandere, ‘Host States’ Due Diligence Obligations in International Investment Law’ (2014-5) 42 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 319, 342.

  154. 154.

    Finnur Magnússon, Full Protection and Security in International Law (University of Vienna, Vienna 2012) 174. See also: Riccardo Pisillo Mazzeschi, “Due diligence” e responsabilità internazionale degli stati (Giuffrè Editore, Milan 1989) 239; Riccardo Pisillo-Mazzeschi, ‘The Due Diligence Rule and the Nature of the International Responsibility of States’ in René Provost (ed), State Responsibility in International Law (Ashgate Publishing Co., Burlington VT 2002) 97, 116-7.

  155. 155.

    Eric De Brabandere, ‘Host States’ Due Diligence Obligations in International Investment Law’ (2014-5) 42 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 319, 341-5.

  156. 156.

    Frontier Petroleum Ltd. v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (12 November 2010) [273]. De Brabandere heavily relies on this decision in support of his argument that, under the FPS standard, the state is strictly liable for granting foreign investors access to domestic courts. See: Eric De Brabandere, ‘Host States’ Due Diligence Obligations in International Investment Law’ (2014-5) 42 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 319, 342 and 344.

  157. 157.

    Frontier Petroleum Ltd. v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (12 November 2010) [269-70].

  158. 158.

    Section 13.3.3.3 considers the application of the standard of due diligence in the Frontier award in more detail.

  159. 159.

    Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Lithuania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8 (11 September 2007) [360].

  160. 160.

    Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Lithuania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8 (11 September 2007) [359].

  161. 161.

    Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Lithuania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8 (11 September 2007) [359].

  162. 162.

    Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Lithuania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8 (11 September 2007) [361].

  163. 163.

    Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Lithuania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8 (11 September 2007) [360].

  164. 164.

    Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Lithuania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8 (11 September 2007) [357]. This statement appears in the very same page where the tribunal referred to the availability of the local judicial system (p. 76). See also: Tecnicas Medioambientales TECMED S.A. v Mexico, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2 (29 May 2003) [177].

  165. 165.

    Ronald Lauder v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (3 September 2001) [314].

  166. 166.

    Ronald Lauder v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (3 September 2001) [314].

  167. 167.

    Ronald Lauder v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (3 September 2001) [314]. The formulation of these duties in the Ronald Lauder award is almost identical to the wording used years later by the Parkerings tribunal.

  168. 168.

    Ronald Lauder v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (3 September 2001) [308].

  169. 169.

    Saluka Investments v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (17 March 2006) [491].

  170. 170.

    It should be noted that Saluka had a partial success before the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office. Still, the Office upheld the freezing of the investor’s shares in IPB. Saluka then filed an action with the Constitutional Court. See: Saluka Investments v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (17 March 2006) [492].

  171. 171.

    Saluka Investments v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (17 March 2006) [485 and 491-3].

  172. 172.

    Saluka Investments v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (17 March 2006) [492].

  173. 173.

    Emphasis added. Saluka Investments v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (17 March 2006) [493].

  174. 174.

    Saluka Investments v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (17 March 2006) [483-4].

  175. 175.

    Saluka Investments v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (17 March 2006) [484].

  176. 176.

    Eric De Brabandere, ‘Host States’ Due Diligence Obligations in International Investment Law’ (2014-5) 42 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 319, 342.

  177. 177.

    Bin Cheng, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (Cambridge University Press, New York 2006) 150 [first edition: 1953].

  178. 178.

    See the section “The Prevention of Private Injuries to Aliens”.

  179. 179.

    Emphasis added. Affaire des biens britanniques au Maroc espagnol (1 May 1925) II RIAA 615, 645.

  180. 180.

    Emphasis added. Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [77].

  181. 181.

    See generally: Roberto Ago, ‘Le délit international’ (1939) 68 RCADI 415, 500-6; James Crawford, State Responsibility. The General Part (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013) 219.

  182. 182.

    See Sects. 11.1 and 11.2.

  183. 183.

    See Sects. 11.1 and 11.2.

  184. 184.

    See Sect. 11.2.3.2.

  185. 185.

    See Sect. 11.2.3.1.

  186. 186.

    For a explicit characterization of the FPS standard as a positive obligation see: Joshua Robins, ‘The Emergence of Positive Obligations in Bilateral Investment Treaties’ (2005-6) U. Miami Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 403, 426-31; Lucas Bastin, State Responsibility for Omissions: Establishing a Breach of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Omissions (Oxford University, Oxford 2016) [D.Phil. Thesis] 50 et seq.; Lucas Bastin, Violation of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Regulatory Omissions [M.Phil. Thesis] (Oxford University, Oxford 2011) 67.

  187. 187.

    See generally: Joanna Kulesza, Due Diligence in International Law (Brill, Leiden 2016) 265. See also: Maja Janmyr, Protecting Civilians in Refugee Camps. Unable and Unwilling States, UNCHR and International Responsibility (Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden 2013) 179; Vladyslav Lanovoy, Complicity and its Limits in the Law of International Responsibility (Hart Publishing, Portland OR 2016) 216.

  188. 188.

    For an indicative example see: Lucas Bastin, State Responsibility for Omissions: Establishing a Breach of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Omissions (Oxford University, Oxford 2016) [D.Phil. Thesis] 50 et seq.; Lucas Bastin, Violation of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Regulatory Omissions [M.Phil. Thesis] (Oxford University, Oxford 2011) 22-33.

  189. 189.

    For an arbitral tribunal expressly linking the FPS standard to the notion of internationally wrongful omissions see: Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Co., CJSC Vostoknefte v Mongolia (UNCITRAL), Award on Jurisdiction and Liability (28 April 2011) [325] (observing that ‘[i]f a State fails to use due diligence to prevent or punish such injuries [covered by the FPS standard], it is responsible for this omission’ – emphasis added). Cf. also Oxus Gold v Uzbekistan (UNCITRAL), Final Award (17 December 2015) [355]. On the connection of the customary protection obligation and the concept of ‘delicts of omission’ see: Hans Kelsen, ‘Unrecht und Unrechtsfolge im Völkerrecht’ (1932) 12 ZöR 481, 515. For a detailed analysis of the conceptual link between the notions of due diligence and internationally wrongful omissions see: Karl Zemanek, ‘Schuld- und Erfolgshaftung im Entwurf der Völkerrechtskommission über Staatenverantwortlichkeit. Zugleich Bemerkungen zum Prozess der Kodifikation im Rahmen der Vereinten Nationen’ in Emanuel Diez, Jean Monnier, Jörg Müller, Heinrich Reimann and Luzius Wildhaber (eds), Festschrift für Rudolf Bindschedler zum 65. Geburtstag am 8. Juli 1980 (Verlag Stämpfli & cie., Bern 1980) 315, 322-3.

  190. 190.

    Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro) [2007] ICJ Rep 43, 223 [432]. For a similar approach to the distinction between complicity and negligence see: Richard Lillich and John Paxman, ‘State Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens Occasioned by Terrorist Activities’ (1977) 26(2) Am. U. L. Rev. 217, 236.

  191. 191.

    For a detailed analysis on the subject see: Helmut Philip Aust, Complicity and the Law of State Responsibility (Cambridge University Press, New York 2011) 225 et seq. (advancing the argument that, contrary to the ICJ’s view, there could also be cases of ‘complicity through omission’). For a similar remark see: Vladyslav Lanovoy, Complicity and its Limits in the Law of International Responsibility (Hart Publishing, Portland OR 2016) 96 and 284. This section does not address the issue of complicity in detail. Section 12.4.3 makes some remarks on notion of complicity by omission, and the – sometimes seemingly blurred – line between complicity and due diligence.

  192. 192.

    James Crawford, State Responsibility. The General Part (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013) 218-9.

  193. 193.

    James Crawford, State Responsibility. The General Part (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013) 218-9.

  194. 194.

    Emphasis added. James Crawford, State Responsibility. The General Part (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013) 219. See also Sect. 12.4.3.

  195. 195.

    Franck Latty, ‘Actions and Omissions’ in James Crawford, Alain Pellet and Simon Olleson (eds), The Law of International Responsibility (Oxford University Press, New York 2010) 355, 361.

  196. 196.

    ‘action, n’ (October 2016) Oxford English Dictionary Online [http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/1938?rskey=k9Re6P&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid].

  197. 197.

    ‘action’ in Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary (Merriam-Webster, Springfield MA 2004) 12.

  198. 198.

    ‘omission, n’ (October 2016) Oxford English Dictionary Online [http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/131211?redirectedFrom=omission#eid].

  199. 199.

    Roberto Ago, ‘Le délit international’ (1939) 68 RCADI 415, 501.

  200. 200.

    Roberto Ago, ‘Le délit international’ (1939) 68 RCADI 415, 501.

  201. 201.

    Roberto Ago, ‘Le délit international’ (1939) 68 RCADI 415, 501.

  202. 202.

    Roberto Ago, ‘Le délit international’ (1939) 68 RCADI 415, 501.

  203. 203.

    Roberto Ago, ‘Le délit international’ (1939) 68 RCADI 415, 501.

  204. 204.

    Roberto Ago, ‘Le délit international’ (1939) 68 RCADI 415, 500-6.

  205. 205.

    James Crawford, State Responsibility. The General Part (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013) 219; Franck Latty, ‘Actions and Omissions’ in James Crawford, Alain Pellet and Simon Olleson (eds), The Law of International Responsibility (Oxford University Press, New York 2010) 355, 361.

  206. 206.

    Roberto Ago, ‘Le délit international’ (1939) 68 RCADI 415, 500-6.

  207. 207.

    It should be noted that, in his analysis of the subject, Roberto Ago gave express consideration to the example of mob injuries to aliens. See: Roberto Ago, ‘Le délit international’ (1939) 68 RCADI 415, 503.

  208. 208.

    Ampal-American Israel Corp., Egi-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, Egi-Series Investments LLC and BSS-EMG Investors LLC v Egypt, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11 (21 February 2017) [235-8 and 275-7] (including extensive quotations from an ICC Award referring to the same facts in connection with a contractual claim; para 277 contains a detailed description of the attacks).

  209. 209.

    Emphasis added. Ampal-American Israel Corp., Egi-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, Egi-Series Investments LLC and BSS-EMG Investors LLC v Egypt, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11 (21 February 2017) [245-6].

  210. 210.

    Ampal-American Israel Corp., Egi-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, Egi-Series Investments LLC and BSS-EMG Investors LLC v Egypt, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11 (21 February 2017) [245-6].

  211. 211.

    Ampal-American Israel Corp., Egi-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, Egi-Series Investments LLC and BSS-EMG Investors LLC v Egypt, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11 (21 February 2017) [245-6].

  212. 212.

    Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Co., CJSC Vostoknefte v Mongolia (UNCITRAL), Award on Jurisdiction and Liability (28 April 2011) [327].

  213. 213.

    Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Co., CJSC Vostoknefte v Mongolia (UNCITRAL), Award on Jurisdiction and Liability (28 April 2011) [327].

  214. 214.

    CME Czech Republic B.V. v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (13 September 2001) [352].

  215. 215.

    Emphasis added. CME Czech Republic B.V. v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (13 September 2001) [354].

  216. 216.

    Eureko B.V. v Poland (Ad Hoc Arbitration), Partial Award (19 August 2005) [237].

  217. 217.

    Eureko B.V. v Poland (Ad Hoc Arbitration), Partial Award (19 August 2005) [237].

  218. 218.

    See, for example, Sect. 11.2.3. Cf. also Sect. 8.3.3.

  219. 219.

    See, for example: Eric De Brabandere, ‘Host States’ Due Diligence Obligations in International Investment Law’ (2014-5) 42 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 319, 324 and 333-7 (referring to the host state’s ‘duty to abstain’); Finnur Magnússon, Full Protection and Security in International Law (University of Vienna, Vienna 2012) 162 (concluding that ‘[a] state can violate its obligation towards the investor by a breach of a duty to abstain’); Helge Elisabeth Zeitler, ‘Full Protection and Security’ in Stephan Schill (ed), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, New York 2010) 183, 191 (explaining that, in respect of harm caused by state agents, ‘the state owes abstention’); Ralph Alexander Lorz, ‘Protection and Security (Including the NAFTA Approach)’ in Marc Bungenberg, Jörn Griebel, Stephan Hobe and August Reinisch (eds), International Investment Law (Nomos, Baden-Baden 2015) 764, 777 (noting that, in respect of damages caused by state organs, ‘the host State simply owes abstention from behavior harmful to the investor’).

  220. 220.

    See Sect. 8.3.

  221. 221.

    See Sect. 8.3.3.1.

  222. 222.

    See Sect. 8.3.3.1.

  223. 223.

    Roberto Ago, ‘Le délit international’ (1939) 68 RCADI 415, 500-6.

  224. 224.

    Cf. Sect. 8.3.3.1. From a more general perspective, some authors have observed that it is not uncommon for state actions to originate the factual situation in the context of which a wrongful omission takes place. See: Lucas Bastin, Violation of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Regulatory Omissions [M.Phil. Thesis] (Oxford University, Oxford 2011) 37-8.

  225. 225.

    Cf. also Sect. 12.4.3.

  226. 226.

    Emphasis added. El Paso Energy International Co. v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15 (31 October 2011) [523]. Cf. also Oxus Gold v Uzbekistan (UNCITRAL), Final Award (17 December 2015) [355].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bonn, Germany

    Sebastián Mantilla Blanco

Authors
  1. Sebastián Mantilla Blanco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mantilla Blanco, S. (2019). The Characterization of the Obligation to Provide ‘Full Protection and Security’. In: Full Protection and Security in International Investment Law. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(), vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24838-3_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24838-3_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-24837-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-24838-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation