Jurisdiction and applicable law in investment treaty arbitration
christoph schreuer
16(2014) Vol 1:1
of international law.”
64
By contrast, when a claim is based on an investment authorization or an
investment agreement, the US Model BIT closely follows Article 42(1) of the ICSID Convention:
the applicable law may be agreed by the parties. In the absence of an agreement the tribunal shall
apply “the law of the respondent, including its rules on the conict of laws; and such rules of
international law as may be applicable.”
65
D. Applicable Rules of International Law
Since all variants of the clauses on applicable law include international law, its applicability
appears unproblematic, in principle. An open question is the meaning of applicable rules of
international law. Under a wide interpretation this could mean any rules of international law that
are invoked in the course of the arbitration and which are signicant to the claims put forward.
66
Apart from the treaty conferring jurisdiction, this includes multilateral treaties governing a variety
of aspects of international law like UNESCO Conventions,
67
conventions for the protection of the
environment,
68
the United Nations Convention against corruption
69
and human rights treaties.
70
64 US Model BIT (2012), art 30(1).
65 Ibid, art 30(2). Article 10.22 of the CAFTA-DR contains an almost identical provision. Dominican Repu-
blic- Central America- United States Free Trade Agreement, 5 August 2004, (entered into force 1 January
2009).
66 See generally International Law Commission, Fragmentation of International Law: Difculties Arising
from the Diversication and Expansion of International Law: Report of the Study Group of the Interna-
tional Law Commission, ILC, 58
th
Sess, Supp No 10, UN Doc A/CN.4/L.702 (2006). More specically,
see RA Lorz, “Fragmentation and Consolidation and the Future Relationship Between International In-
vestment Law and General International Law” in Freya Baetens, ed, Investment Law within International
Law: Integrationist Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) 482 at 482.
67 Southern Pacic Properties (Middle East) Limited v Arab Republic of Egypt, Award (20 May 1992) at
paras 75-78, 150-159, 191, ICSID, Case No ARB/84/3; Parkerings, supra note 30 at paras 382, 383, 385,
389, 392, 394.
68 SD Myers v Government of Canada, First Partial Award (13 November 2001) at paras 105-107, 210-215,
NAFTA, 40 ILM 1408, 15(1) World Trade and Arb Mat 184, ORIL IIC 249.
69 World Duty Free Company Limited v Kenya, Award (4 October 2006) at paras 143-145, ICSID, ORIL IIC
277.
160, ICSID, ORIL IIC 391; Frontier Petroleum Services Ltd v Czech Republic, Final Award (12 Novem-
ber 2010) at para 328, PCA, ORIL IIC 465; Lauder v Czech Republic, Award (3 September 2001) at para
200, UNCITRAL, ORIL IIC 205; ADC, supra note 39 at para 447; Rompetrol Group NV v Romania,
Decision on the Participation of a Counsel (14 January 2010) at para 20, ICSID, ORIL IIC 413; Mondev
International Limited v United States, Award (11 October 2002) at para 143, ICSID, 42 ILM 85, 6 ICSID
Rep 192; Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed SA v Mexico, Award (29 May 2003) at para 122, ICSID,
ICSID Rep 130, 43 ILM 133; Saipem SPA, supra note 1 at paras 130, 132; Azurix, supra note 1 at para
311; International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v The United Mexican States, Award (26 January
2006) (Thomas W Wälde, dissenting at para 27), NAFTA, ORIL IIC 136; Société Générale v Dominican
Republic, Award on Jurisdiction (19 September 2008) at para 93, UNCITRAL, ORIL IIC 366; Perenco
Ecuador Limited v Ecuador and Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador), Decision on
Provisional Measures (8 May 2009) at para 70, ICSID, ORIL IIC 375; Total SA v Argentina, Decision on
Liability (27 December 2010) at para 129, ICSID, ORIL IIC 484 [Total SA]; El Paso Energy Internatio-
nal Company v Argentina, Award (31 October 2011) at para 598, ICSID, ORIL IIC 519 at para 598; IBM
ORIL IIC 132.