Abstract
A number of investment cases in the aftermath of the Argentine economic crisis 2001/2002 have addressed important issues of state of necessity. The tribunals affirmed that the codification of this defence in the 2001 ILC Articles on State Responsibility largely reflects customary international law and they rejected the argument that the highly complex nature of necessity characterized it as a non-justiciable political question. ICSID and other tribunals have also concurred on some crucial aspects of the necessity defence, like the potential qualification of economic emergencies as necessity situations or the fact that necessity can be invoked only in extreme cases. Nevertheless, the application of these principles to the actual situation in Argentina led to divergent and partly conflicting outcomes. After assessing the relationship between derogation clauses contained in many investment treaties and state of necessity this contribution focuses on specific aspects which entitle a State to invoke necessity as a ground for not fulfilling its obligations. It pleads for a proportionality approach in determining whether the actual measures adopted should be regarded as the only means to safeguard State interests. Similarly, it supports a nuanced assessment concerning the contribution element by requiring that it be substantial.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ago R (1980) Addendum to the eighth report on state responsibility, ILC yearbook, vol 2, Part Two New York
Akande D, Williams S (2003) International adjudication on national security issues: what role for the WTO? Virginia JIL 43 365:404
Alvarez J, Khamsi K (2009) The Argentine crisis and foreign investors: a glimpse into the heart of the investment regime. Yearbook on International Law and Policy 2008–2009 1, pp 379–478
Bethmann-Hollweg Th von (1916) Jahrbuch des Völkerrechts III, p 728
Binder C (2009a) Changed circumstances in international investment law: interfaces between the Law of Treaties and the Law of State Responsibility with a special focus on the Argentine crisis. In: Binder C, Kriebaum U, Reinisch A, Wittich S (eds) International Investment Law in the 21st century, essays in honour of Christoph Schreuer. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 608–630
Binder C (2009b) Nichterfüllung völkerrechtlicher Vertragspflichten wegen Notstands—der Notstand im Völkergewohnheitsrecht und in besonderen Vertragsbestimmungen, in: Wittich S, Reinisch A, Gattini A (eds) Kosovo-Staatsschulden-Notstand-EU-Reformvertrag-Humanitätsrecht: Beiträge zum 33. Österreichischer Völkerrechtstag 2008 in Conegliano, Frankfurt aM, Lang, pp 119–151
Bjorklund AK (2008a) Emergency exceptions to international obligations in the realm of foreign investment: the state of necessity and force majeure as circumstances precluding wrongfulness. In: Muchlinski PT, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 495–523
Bjorklund AK (2008b) Investment treaty arbitral decisions as ‘jurisprudence constante’. In: Picker CB, Bunn ID, Arner DW (eds) International economic law: the state and future of the discipline. Oxford, Hart, pp 265–280
Bjorklund AK (2009) Economic security defenses in international investment law. Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy 1, pp 479–503
Buffard I (2009) Anmerkungen zum Verhältnis zwischen allgemeinem Völkerrecht und besonderen Vertragsbestimmungen bzw. vertraglichen Subsystemen im Hinblick auf die Nichterfüllung völkerrechtlicher Vertragpflichten. In: Wittich S, Reinisch A, Gattini A (eds) Kosovo-Staatsschulden-Notstand-EU-Reformvertrag-Humanitätsrecht: Beiträge zum 33. Österreichischer Völkerrechtstag 2008 in Conegliano. Frankfurt aM, Lang, pp 97–118
Burke-White WW, Staden A von (2007) Investment protection in extraordinary times: interpreting non-precluded measures provisions, Virginia JIL 48:307–410
Christakis T (2007) Quel remède à l’éclatement de la jurisprudence CIRDI sur les investissement en Argentine? La décision du comité ad hoc dans l’affaire CMS c. Argentine’, RGDIP 111, pp 879–896
Gazzini T (2008) Necessity in international investment law: some critical remarks on CMS v Argentina. J Energy Nat Resour Law 26:450–470
Gazzini T (2009) Foreign investment and measures adopted on grounds of necessity: towards a common understanding. Transnational Dispute Management (June 2009)
Kaufmann-Kohler G (2007) Arbitral precedent: dream, necessity, or excuse. Arbitr Int 23:357–378
Kurtz JT (2007) ICSID annulment committee rules on the relationship between customary and treaty exceptions on necessity in situations of financial crisis. ASIL Insight
Kurtz JT (2008) Adjudging the exceptional at international law: security, public order and financial crisis, Jean Monnet Working Paper 06/08, pp 30–31. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/08/080601.pdf
Leben C (2005) L’etat de nécessité dans le droit international de l’investissement. Gazette de Palais 19:349
Marboe I (2009) ICSID annulment decisions: three generations revisited. In: Binder C, Kriebaum U, Reinisch A, Wittich S (eds) International Investment Law in the 21st century, essays in honour of Christoph Schreuer. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 200–221
Reinisch A (2007) Necessity in international investment arbitration—an unnecessary split of opinions in recent ICSID cases? J World Invest Trade 8:191–214
Reinisch A (2008a) The proliferation of international dispute settlement mechanisms: the threat of fragmentation vs. the promise of a more effective system?—some reflections from the perspective of investment arbitration. In: Buffard I, Crawford J, Pellet A, Wittich S (eds) International law between universalism and fragmentation—Festschrift in Honour of Gerhard Hafner. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 107–125
Reinisch A (2008b) The role of precedent in ICSID Arbitration. Austrian Arbitration Yearbook, pp 495–510
Reinisch A (2008c) Sachverständigengutachten zur Frage des Bestehens und der Wirkung des völkerrechtlichen Rechtfertigungsgrundes ‘Staatsnotstand’, ZaoRV 68, pp 3–34
Schill S (2007) International Investment Law and the host state’s power to handle economic crises. J Int Arbitr 24:265
Schreuer C (2003a) ICSID annulment revisited. Leg Issues Econ Integr 30:103–122
Schreuer C (2003b) Three generations of ICSID annulment proceedings. In: Gaillard E, Banifatemi Y (eds) Annulment of ICSID Awards. Juris Publishing, New York
Schreuer C (2008) What is a legal dispute? In: Buffard I, Crawford J, Pellet A, Wittich S (eds) International Law between Universalism and Fragmentation, Festschrift in Honour of Gerhard Hafner. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 959–979
van Houtte H (2003) Article 52 of the Washington Convention: a brief introduction. In: Gaillard E, Banifatemi Y (eds) Annulment of ICSID Awards. Juris Publishing, New York, pp 11–16
Waibel M (2007) Two worlds of necessity in ICSID arbitration: CMS and LG&E, Leiden JIL 20:637–648
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Stichting T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Reinisch, A. (2011). Necessity in Investment Arbitration. In: Dekker, I., Hey, E. (eds) Netherlands Yearbook of International Law Volume 41, 2010. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, vol 41. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-737-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-737-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-736-4
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-737-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)